I saw some footage from comicon where they revealed the full titles to some of the upcoming films...

Thor: The Dark Planet

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

I wonder if "Dark Planet" might mean EGO The Living Planet? It could be a Thanos tie-in.

There was also a cute story about "The Exact Moment Ed Brubaker Found Out What The Captain America Sequel Is Going To Be Called"

http://bcool.bz/Ljilyf

Come on Ed, every man and his dog knew what the sequel was going to be called!

Ego the Living Planet would be pretty amazing on screen. As long as they don't go the Galactus-in-the-FF-movie route and make him not have a massive planet-sized face.

The Winter Soldier storyline sounds like a good one for a movie too. So can we expect royalties for Brubaker and Steve Epting, or not?

And Thanos royalties for Starlin too!

If Starlin gets anything out of his dispute, I'll pay to see more Marvel movies. If not, I'll download them via BitTorrent.

While I would love to see Starlin get royalties too, the difference is that Brubaker's contributions all occurred in this century, under what I presume are the most up-to-date Marvel contracts. So I would hope that those new contracts are at least a tiny bit more enlightened than the old 1970's back-of-the-check we-own-everything-you-get-nothing contracts. It would be interesting to find that out.

Peter, Starlin may not have one of those old checks either. The below is from the thread titled, "Jim Starlin Thanos Lawsuit?"

Also there is a difference between creating a character (Thanos) and creating a storyline using existing characters.

Could the argument be made that he created Winter Soldier?

Doubtful, since the whole point of the storyline was that the Winter Soldier was the pre-existing character Bucky. If Winter Soldier had been a new character, there would have been no emotional resonance.

Now it is possible that Brubaker could have signed a creator contract similar to what Siegel & Shuster signed for Superboy, which was of course just a different version of Superman. Such a contract could include any number of royalty options for Brubaker. But unless he did sign such a contract, it is doubtful he will get more than a "special thanks" credit, similar to the one Starlin got at the end of the Avengers film.

If Brubaker gets money when Simon & Kirby didn't, I'll download the movies twice.

Interesting interview with Chuck Dixon about his revenue from creating Bane.

That's pretty gratifying to hear how well Dixon is recompensed for the use of his characters and even just his concepts. I wonder though if it's because his work happened in a 'Goldilocks period' when DC actively supported creators rights? Creations before and after not doing that well comparatively. It sounds as if Paul Levitz had a lot to do with it personally, thankfully the contracts remain in effect despite regime changes.

Thanks for that link, Ted. Yeah, it sounds like Dixon's contract is the way most if not all work-for-hire comics creators should be treated, with profit participation. And not just for characters, for storylines and gimmicks too. "A subway rocket" ?!?!? That idea is gold!

That's the kind of thing I'm hoping to hear about for Brubaker. Sure, Bucky was pre-existing, but the idea of turning him into the Winter Soldier was new. And Brubaker wrote the story in which that happened, so he should be paid if they use that story or a version of it in a movie.

And Joe, right, there may not be any contracts for Starlin. Unfortunately, in Marv Wolfman's suit over Blade, Marvel was able to just bring in other artists and writers from the period to testify that "this is the way it was done, never mind whether it was in writing or not." So I don't hold out much hope for Starlin in court. But who knows?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be implying here that your downloading would be some sort of punitive action.

If that's true then wouldn't it contradict one of the "moral" or PRO arguments for illegal downloading, that online piracy does no damage?

Nah. Necro just seems to be proud of the fact that he can get this stuff for free. Yet another one of his more endearing traits.

Pay rapists to rape, you are a rapist-by-proxy.

Pay to watch a rape, or watch a rape for free?

I don't see how you are any better off there. Or by downloading the stuff illegally you are committing a crime to watch a rape, nah I think the only moral ground to be found here is to not watch at all. Which when applied to your "rape" metaphor, still doesn't seem quite right.

Either way it looks to be you using a very flawed metaphor.

Yeah, I think your use of the term rape is extremely flawed.

It's a legal term with very specific meaning.

Recently when I tried to use the word, "stealing" to describe the act of online piracy not even literally but figuratively, I got all sorts of grief from the pro-piracy advocates. Mostly concerning the legal technicalities of the term stealing, despite my use being metaphorical, not literally as the specific legal definition.

While I agree the people in question were indeed screwed metaphorically, what happened to them, and what continues to happen to them, was unfortunately, completely legal. So your referring to it by using the specific legal term of "rape" such as you did was grossly misguided by the standards put forth here by the pro-online, piracy crowd. At the very least, when I used the term "stealing," I was describing an actual crime, a crime that is casually referred to by people on both sides both sides of the argument, as "piracy," a term for a highly specialized form of stealing.

Unless you feel that using a legal technicality, which allows you to enjoy the creations of someone without compensating them, to be so wrong that "rape" fairly describes it. I wouldn't argue with you there but I would probably be more comfortable using a term like stealing.

But wouldn't it be unfair to use a term like "rape" to describe a company using legal technicalities to enjoy the use of creations of someone without compensating them. Wouldn't the use of the term contradict the stance by the pro-piracy crowd given that they believe using a term like "stealing" is grossly unfair when describing the act of using a technology technicality to allow you enjoy the creations of someone without compensating them?

How is pirating files to enjoy the use of someones creations without compensating them, somehow different than a company using completely legal technicalities to enjoy the use of creations of someone without compensating them. Does it just boil down to some kind of 'Robin Hood' principal? That I could understand.

"'stealing' to describe the act of online piracy not even literally but figuratively,"

you weren't using 'stealing' figuratively, though. you admit as much in the next paragraph:

"when I used the term 'stealing,' I was describing an actual crime, a crime that is casually referred to by people on both sides both sides of the argument, as 'piracy,' a term for a highly specialized form of stealing."

see, that's not figurative.

My intention was to point ouy that if I was wrong to use the term "stealing," then allen is equally if not more so wrong in using the term "rape."

I was pointing out allen described a perfectly legal action as "rape."

But I had "AT LEAST" been describing the ILLEGAL act of online piracy as "stealing."

Both terms are not accurate LEGALLY speaking, my point again was that I was AT LEAST using STEALING to describe a crime, so if I was wrong to do so, then allen is equally wrong if not more so.

Joe, you said we pro-piracy types were criticizing you for using 'stealing' figuratively. We were not, because you were using it quite literally.

Allen wasn't using 'rape' literally. At least, I don't think he was.

No, I was not.

I was told that using the term "stealing" was to be invoking the specific legal term, stealing. So I then clarified it was never my intent to use it as a specific legal term, and I attempted to explain I was using it metaphorically, conversationally to describe my feeling that online piracy was tantamount to stealing. But I was told that either use was inaccurate.

Either way what does that have to do with the question...

How is pirating files illegally to enjoy the use of someones creations without compensating them, somehow different than a company using completely legal technicalities to enjoy the use of creations of someone without compensating them?

Downloading a movie online for free isn't much different than catching it on a friend's TV or something. Whatever you think of it personally, corporations putting it in the realm of "criminal offense" is nauseatingly greedy and evil. If you side with them you are probably going to hell. Like, I'm sorry that once a creative product is on the market, the owner doesn't 100% control who sees it and under what terms. Deal with it.

As for Marvel movies I just caught THOR the other day which was pretty bad, but still pleasantly surprising insofar as I did find myself oddly entertained by it, which is more than I can say for fan favorites like Spider-Man. Maybe just because THOR's so odd. What can you possibly do with the character that isn't sort of stupid? Branaugh seemed to have fun. I was surprised at how well some of the culture-clash humor played when Thor first comes to Earth, and felt disappointed they didn't do more with it. There were missed opportunities left and right throughout the whole movie, really. Yet still ... I somehow got a kick out of it. Probably wouldn't sit through it again though.

K

You assume much. I buy the things I enjoy. I often buy things I don't enjoy, but I use piracy to try and mitigate that.