General Category > Comic Related Discussion

DC VS Victor Fox: The Testimony of Will Eisner and others - link

(1/4) > >>

Yoc:
More fantastic research from Ken Quatro has unearthed -
DC VS VICTOR FOX: The Testimony of Will Eisner!


--- Quote ---This is the transcript to the lawsuit of Detective Comics vs Bruns Publications--otherwise known as DC vs Victor Fox. This case, which if you don't know, involved Fox's copyright infringement of Superman by the Will Eisner created character, Wonder Man.

Some of the witnesses in this case were: Max Gaines, Sheldon Mayer, Jerry Siegel, Donenfeld, Liebowitz and of course, Jerry Iger and Victor Fox. Fascinating--and very revealing--reading.

-Ken Q
--- End quote ---

I had no idea so many others were also involved and certainly look forward to reading this!

--------

As Ken's blog has gone on hiatus his links might not be working.
Alter-Ego is sharing a bonus PDF of the Fox vs DC court transcript at the following link as shared by Ken on his Facebook page -
http://www.twomorrows.com/media/AE101EisnerTranscript.pdf

--------


Thanks Ken!

John C:
Interesting on a few levels, and I'll be following the release to see how where it goes.

I am, however, curious as to where the material came from, Ken's anonymous source aside.  There are a few points that...I don't know, sound anomalous to me, as if the judge (who, as stated, also ruled on a Betty Boop case) doesn't understand the nature of a copyright hearing.  It may be that I'm reading it out of context, or that what I'm reading as ignorance is merely asserting boundaries for the lawyers, but it makes me wonder if either (a) the document isn't what it appears or (b) the judge was potentially compromised.

I'll withhold any further comments until more people have read the post.

Yoc:
Hi John,
The subject of who Ken got this from has been brought up on the Yahoo Timely-Atlas group.


--- Quote ---If you go to any decent law library and ask the librarian, they should be
able to tell you how to get a copy of the paperwork. Or at least point you
in the right direction.   It might cost you, take some effort and take a
while, but much of the basic info is in publicly available databases.  For
the actual transcripts, that will probably not be online though.   But
looking at the scans he provided, the pages are from a law book, which
means you just have to find the right volume from the right court.

Also interesting on the subject -
The original case was appealed, Apr 29, 1940:
http://www.studentweb.law.ttu.edu/cochran/Cases%20&%20Readings/Copyright-UNT/detcomics.htm
 
 & a follow-up case:
Detective Comics, Inc. v. Fox Publications, Inc.et al, (District Court, S.D. New York, Aug 14, 1942)

-Frank Motler
--- End quote ---

Perhaps your questions on the Judge's conduct might have been covered in the subsequent appeals?

I can see this shaking up Eisner's image for some fans but as we've already learned with his long assertion that he held the rights on The Spirit when is doesn't look that way on closer inspection - this might just be another case of a story teller wanting to be the hero of his own life story even if the facts don't present his actions as so black and white.  I think we all see ourselves as basically good people but none of us can say we haven't bent the truth once or twice in our lives.  It doesn't make us a villain, it only makes us human.

BTW Roy Thomas is already planning to cover the transcripts in a future issue of AlterEgo.

-Yoc

John C:
I didn't mean to imply that Ken had something inauthentic, just that something feels "off" for a trial.  But, then, I've never been involved in a trial, so this could be (or could have been) routine.  And, as I mentioned, it could just be that I'm misreading it.

To be clear, in case someone else runs in that direction:  Ken has no (and shouldn't have any) obligation, considering that the records are public and verifiable, to reveal who acquired the pages for him.  Hopefully it'll be revealed what volume to check, for future researchers, but if his source wants to be anonymous, we have an actual, serious law protecting that source.

As for the Eisner issue...well, I was going to hold my tongue until other people passed this way first, but since you bring it up, I've never really idolized the man (like many later comic creators, I've always been annoyed at his fixation with being "taken seriously"), and so often wondered why his word was always taken as gospel over everybody else's in the industry.  I remember a few places in "Men of Tomorrow," where Jones essentially says, "everybody has said otherwise, but Eisner contradicts them in an interview, so that's that."  Heck, it's taken almost seventy years, well after his death, for someone to even check his story!

That's not to say that he would be a liar, but memory plays tricks, especially during traumatic events, and there may be multiple parts to the story (indeed, there's an appeal) where the man's "lie" could still turn out to just be "simplification."

And if not, well, Eisner is the proverbial Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.  "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Yoc:
I understand Part 2 of this series will be up later today!

BTW, this transcript of the first trial is taken from the later APPEAL documents.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page