seems like an early April Fools Day
Looking for:
S/L: "Insomnia" (#117), "Firestarter", "EOTD #98"
US 1st/1st: "Night Shift"
Portfolios: "'Salem's Lot", "Cycle of Werewolf" (#192)
please help me find any #731 or #431
My full Wanted List
This has all the hallmarks of someone fishing for a settlement. The timing is designed to put pressure on King via the movie studio to settle and avoid any bad publicity when they role out the movie. And in many cases they will settle to make this go away and avoid the potentially higher costs of defending a lawsuit. It's a pretty low move. Interested to see if King calls the bluff or settles to make this go away.
I would not give this "lawsuit" the attention it's now getting.
Also, if you try hard enough, you could find strong similarities between anything. This seems like a pretty bold accusation.
Intriguing art style! I am reminded of Mark Schultz's "Xenozoic Tales".
You can sue anyone for any reason. For the suit to proceed there must be a cause of action. If you want to win a copyright suit, there must be an actual infringement of intellectual property that causes actual harm which must be proven.
It makes perfect sense. 1970 is before 1977. King owned the copyright in 1970. He can probably prove it with the testimony of several different people who were privy to his writings. Reading the comic in 1977 is irrelevant.
There is no info about where the suit was filed or who filed. The actual creator is dead, so it isn't him. The publisher is bankrupt and sold the rights, so it isn't them. The company that bought the rights might be suing, but both New York and Maine have limitation statutes that should preclude a cause of action.
*
This has all the earmarks of a frivolous suit. I'd like to see some actual news reporting on this instead of just tabloid rumors. Unfortunately none exists.
"One day you're going to figure out that everything they taught you was a lie."
Everything has already been done. every story has been told every scene has been shot. - Stanley Kubrick
All that's left of what we were is what we have become.
Resting Dane is...The CRook!
Also The Toronto Sun isn't a tabloid, so either they are running a tabloid's story or they had some valid information from a source.
Like Counter Culture Shock on Facebook
"One day you're going to figure out that everything they taught you was a lie."
Brian's right. I looked at the The Toronto Sun since it was an actual reputable news outlet, unlike TMZ. And they quoted TMZ as a source.
After some more digging, I did find THIS article by a man who actually claims to have real information (i.e. has read the actual complaint). I cannot comment on his veracity as I have never been to the website before and I no longer have a PACER password, but the information he has appears to be good. And if the facts that he is stating are true, than this lawsuit appears to be a bigger turd than I originally thought.
I was finally able to search the database...
There is a three year statute of limitations under Federal copyright law. Plaintiff claims he received an assignment of copyright from William B. DuBay (January 11, 1948 – April 15, 2010). This assignment would have to have been executed at least seven years ago due to the death of William B. DuBay. Any violation of copyright prior to three years ago cannot be part of this action. Plaintiff claims King committed "fraudulent concealment" which tolls limitations and allows the suit. That's a weak argument IMHO.
Complaint
Last edited by Br!an; 01-02-2018 at 06:47 AM.
"One day you're going to figure out that everything they taught you was a lie."
A Few Questions For The Lawyer-ly Types...
As a total layman when it comes to this stuff, by the time I finished reading the 33 page complaint I was thinking to myself "damn, maybe there is something to this". I know that you folk get paid a pretty penny (and deserve it!)to paint the best picture possible for your clients, starting with the complaint.
Question 1. In reality, was this complaint well done? From a pure point of Law, were the arguments well made?
As a Constant Reader and Servant of The White, I will always defend the vision of Sai King and the worlds he has created. However...
Question 2. If this were to actually go to trial, can any of you speculate as to whether Kings' lawyers would argue this from the point that there was no infringment, or only that any statute of limitations has been exceeded. While choosing the second option would be a perfectly viable defense, wouldn't it also create an atmosphere of King not denying the influence of The Rook and having "gotten away with it" on a technicality, possibly tainting his legacy?
"Thanks, but no, it isn't a cowboy hat. It's a fedora. And yes, Indianna Jones is still socially relevant."
I'm not an attorney. I'm a contractor with knowledge of the system. I have both filed suit and been sued.
I don't see this as well written. It's obvious to me that the complaint was not written by an attorney. He doesn't site any case law at all. He's arguing his case rather than filing a complaint. He overplays some items such as "access." King had access in that he read the comics. He includes irrelevancies such as King admitting copying in On Writing, where King admitted making copies of The Pit and the Pendulum as a child.
In order for a suit to proceed there must be a cause of action and the Plaintiff must have standing.
As for standing...
He claims to have been assigned the copyright. He failed to attach the assignment. He will first have to prove that he owns the copyright which is not a foregone conclusion. Bill DuBay and Bud Lewis created The Rook for Warren Publishing. What rights were given to Warren? What rights accrue to Bud Lewis or others who worked on the comics? New Comic Company, LLC acquired all rights to Warren Publishing property in 2007. Did that pre-date Benjamin DuBay's assignment? Did either actually file a legitimate assignment of copyright? If so, the first to file owns the copyright.
The three year statute of limitations has long since expired. While fraud may well toll the statute, the Plaintiff must prove fraud before the court will recognize his standing to proceed. He'll also have to show that he remained defrauded until some time in the last three years. I highly doubt that's possible based upon the complaint.
If he proves his copyright ownership and he proves fraud, the case will continue. At that point he's basically won and King would likely try to settle. Otherwise the case will be dismissed.
King could always choose to settle immediately so that this doesn't affect the release of the movie.
"One day you're going to figure out that everything they taught you was a lie."
You may not be an attorney but you sure sound like one. I'm impressed.
I wonder if there are any public informations about that lawsuit, if it went forward etc
Not that the person would have gained much given the film results...
------------------------------------------------
CLUB STEPHEN KING (french website about STEPHEN KING, since 1992) : on : Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
------------------------------------------------
Author of The Road to the Dark Tower, Stephen King: A Complete Exploration of His Work, Life, and Influences and The Dark Tower Companion. Co-editor with Stephen King of the anthology Flight or Fright.