Well, it’s ten days late, but I am a slow reader. (Disclaimer: while I am an attorney licensed in Kentucky and Virginia, none of the following is intended or should be taken as legal advice. I don’t represent the Siegels, DC Comics, Warner Bros., or anyone connected with any of them.)
Now then….
A federal judge wants to know whether Superboy (as originally conceived by the late Jerry Siegel) is sufficiently original, compared to Superman, and he wants the parties competing over Superboy to tell him their positions by the end of this month.
Judge Stephen Larson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California made the ruling at the end of July. (Trexfiles has a copy of the opinion itself, and also discusses the ruling from a very informed perspective.) The question of Superboy’s originality will go a long way towards determining the case’s other copyright issues, including whether Superboy was a “joint work” between Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, whether Siegel’s original Superboy proposal was published in More Fun Comics #101 (the character’s first public appearance) and subsequent comics, and whether Superboy is completely “derivative” of Superman.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In their lawsuit, plaintiffs Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson, Jerry Siegel’s widow and daughter, claim to have recovered Superboy’s copyright from Time Warner Inc., Warner Communications Inc., Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Warner Bros. Television Production Inc., and DC Comics Inc. (hereinafter just “defendants” or “DC”). However, the Judge needs to know whether Siegel’s “Superboy” contains anything sufficiently original, and therefore copyrightable, for the Siegels to have recovered.
That question appeared to have been answered in the affirmative in 1948, in a previous suit between Jerry Siegel and DC (then called “Detective Comics Inc.”). The referee in that case agreed with Siegel that Superboy was “separate and distinct” from Superman, and that Siegel was Superboy’s “sole originator.” The case was settled while it was on appeal, with DC paying Siegel and Shuster some $94,000.00 in exchange for the “sole and exclusive” right to Superboy.
However, a 1976 revision to the copyright laws allowed the Siegel family in 2002 to give DC a notice of termination of that agreement, which stated that any grant of rights Jerry Siegel made in 1948 would be undone as of November 17, 2004. The present suit seeks a determination that that notice was valid. (DC then filed a counterclaim seeking, among other things, to have the notice declared invalid.) The present case’s original judge (i.e., Judge Larson’s predecessor) issued a March 2006 opinion which relied heavily upon the 1948 opinion, and was therefore fairly favorable to the Siegel family. DC later asked the Court to reconsider that 2006 ruling.
Last month Judge Larson agreed, finding that the New York state court which issued the 1948 ruling lacked the jurisdiction to determine copyright issues, which were the purview of the federal courts: “Although the referee’s findings [from 1948] are relevant to some of the copyright issues in this case (most notably, whether Superboy was a work for hire), they are not wholly dispositive” (Opinion, p. 36). While the 1948 opinion may still have some bearing on the current suit, since the witnesses and evidence available in 1948 would be impossible to recreate today, its findings must await the application of federal law. Id. at p. 33.
CURRENT QUESTIONS
Judge Larson will therefore determine four issues surrounding Superboy’s copyright:
- whether the work was so “derivative” of Superman that there’s nothing copyrightable about it;
- “[w]hether any of the copyrightable material in Siegel’s Superboy submissions was in fact later published” in More Fun #101 or subsequently (Opinion, p. 65);
- whether it was done as a “joint work” with Joe Shuster, whose rights to Superboy have since gone to DC; and
- whether Siegel created Superboy as part of his work-for-hire agreement.
Judge Larson answered the last issue himself — namely, that based on the details of Siegel’s employment contract with DC, Superboy was not work-for-hire. Determination of the other issues will depend on whether Superboy is found to be a “sufficiently original” work, and therefore whether the work includes any copyrightable material.
The Judge explained:
[T]he relevant question is how much, and to what extent, had the Superman character been fleshed out by the time Siegel submitted his Superboy material to Detective Comics. … [T]he character’s traits and attributes, as well as the character’s interaction with other characters (notably compatriots and villains), … help define the boundaries of the copyright to the character.
Opinion, pp. 70-71 (citations omitted).
“SUFFICIENTLY ORIGINAL?”
Considering that Siegel made his first Superboy submission in late 1938, before Action Comics was even a year old, I see this as a positive sign for the Siegel family. At that point Superman was still battling social injustices and other evils one wouldn’t expect a younger Superboy to confront. Lois Lane, Clark’s newspaper job, and the planet Krypton were all established in Action #1, as were the Kents, Clark’s otherwise-unnamed foster parents.
Obviously, though, the Kents represent the main divergence between the Superman and Superboy settings. They could only be indirect influences, at best, on Superman; but for Superboy they would be important supporting characters. More to the point, the Kents’ interactions with young Clark would be clearly different than those between the adult Clark and his colleagues.
Without more of an idea what was in Siegel’s original Superboy submissions, though, we can’t evaluate how closely More Fun #101, or subsequent stories, might track them. The five-page MF #101 story deals largely with matters covered in the first pages of Action #1: the destruction of Krypton, feats of strength at the orphanage, and the (still otherwise unnamed) Kents’ adoption of Clark. Only the last page or so appears to present anything new: Clark saves a man from being crushed under a car, and from there decides to disguise himself as Superboy. Clark appears in costume only in the last panel. Accordingly, if the issue of “publication” hinges on More Fun #101, the Siegels might not have much of a case. (The Siegels claim that the original concept was published in subsequent stories. See their First Amended Supplemental Complaint at p. 13.)
Moreover, some familiar aspects of the pre-Crisis Superboy were introduced years after the initial round of litigation. Lana Lang’s first appearance was in Superboy #10 (Sept.-Oct. 1950), and her creation is credited (at least in Wikipedia) to Bill Finger and John Sikela. Krypto first appeared in Adventure Comics #210 (1955), in a story by Otto Binder and Curt Swan. Pete Ross first appeared in Superboy #90 (July 1961). That doesn’t mean that Siegel’s original proposal didn’t have a girlfriend, a pet, or a best friend, but it might not need them to be sufficiently original. In fact, a Lois-analogue too similar to the original might end up hurting the Siegel family’s claims.
Accordingly, the Kents’ influence on Superboy might be enough to distinguish the strip from the more grownup-oriented Superman. The Siegel family’s First Amended Supplemental Complaint states that Jerry Siegel’s original Superboy concept included “‘Superboy’s’ character, origins, family and social life as a youth growing up in a small-town in the rural American heartland” (p. 7). The Siegels’ Complaint doesn’t mention Lana, Pete, or Krypto, but it has a little more to say about the Kents:
[W]hile grappling with the challenges of growing up, “Superboy” must face the challenges and responsibilities of his extraordinary strength and developing powers and of concealing that he is very different from others; “Superboy” is raised in his small town by foster parents, the “Kents,” humble, moral people who are sensitive to their “son’s” uniqueness, keep his secret and gently guide him; after describing “Superboy’s” origins and his antics as a baby who is taught by the Kents to restrain or conceal his tremendous strength, Mr. Siegel’s “Superboy” series starts with the youth at age eleven or twelve, while he attends junior high school in the hometown where his crime fighting adventures take place; “Superboy” protects his small town and its inhabitants, including his classmates, from accidents and evil doers; “Superboy’s” central dilemma, while facing adolescence, school cliques, bullies and “bad guys” alike is to conceal his true self while using his great powers to help those in need.
Id. at pp. 7-8. The Complaint also mentions the “Smallville” TV show as one of the ways Superboy has been “exploited” over the years (p. 11) and states particularly that “Smallville” is “derivative” of the original Siegel concept (p. 12).
The Complaint does not mention the Kon-El Superboy specifically, although it does allude to the latest Superboy comic book having ended in 2002 with issue #100. This to me is one of the more ironic wrinkles in this story. As the issues have been framed for the court, the Siegels seem to claim, at least indirectly, that Kon-El is part of DC’s exploitation of “Superboy.” Fan speculation has connected the character’s death last year to this litigation, and the Siegels do claim that subsequent “Superboy” works — presumably including Kon-El –are “substantially similar” to the original submissions. However, since this suit focuses so clearly on the teenaged Clark Kent/Kal-El growing up in Smallville, it may well be that Kon-El is sufficiently original to have been copyrightable by DC as Karl Kesel and Tom Grummett’s work-for-hire creation, distinct from the original Superboy.
Still, Siegel’s “Superboy” needs only to be different in a way which is “more than merely trivial” and “render[s] the derivative work distinguishable from its prior work in any meaningful manner.” (Opinion, p. 66 (citation omitted)). Again, the less fleshed-out Superman was at the time, the more the Siegels benefit. Judge Larson quoted approvingly from Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 121 (2nd Cir. 1930): “the less developed the characters, the less they can be copyrighted; that is the penalty an author must bear for making them too indistinctly” (quoted in the Opinion, p. 66). Specifically, the less the Superman stories had explored his childhood, the more room there would be for Siegel’s “Superboy” to have done so.
CONCLUSION
All this appears to leave the Siegels in a decent position. The question now is whether Siegel’s Superboy, from what the Judge can tell from the parties’ submissions, was meaningfully different from the adult Superman. Based on what I have read of the case — and I freely admit it’s not an exhaustive reading, nor is it exactly within my legal wheelhouse — the lack of “young Superman” stories early in the character’s publication history may allow “Superboy” to be different enough. I don’t think the mere presence of the Kents, and the rural-vs.-urban setting, will be sufficient by themselves. As the Nichols opinion reminds us, “the less developed the characters, the less they can be copyrighted.” However, one would think that Jerry Siegel’s original “Superboy” proposal, as a pitch to a publisher, might have given its unique elements more than just a cursory attempt at depth.
We fans tend to think of the Silver Age Superboy as prefiguring his older self in a number of ways, including a nosy double-L’ed love interest, younger versions of recurring villains, and the Legion of Super-Heroes as opposed to the Justice League. “Smallville” has taken a different approach, with the recent additions of Lois Lane and various Justice Leaguers explicitly tying its mythology to the “grownup” Superman. However, this lawsuit takes both the Superman and Superboy concepts back almost to the beginnings of “Superman,” paring away much of Superboy’s Silver Age trappings to get at the characters’ cores. It certainly casts the development of the Superboy comics in a new light. I’m eager to see what gets filed at the end of this month.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Thanks for the summary. That clears up some of my confusion around the case.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Thanks, Tom - nice to hear an educated, informed analysis of this for a change.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I don’t really get all the legalese…As a fan, I’ve always viewed Superboy as the same character–Clark Kent. In the strictest sense Superboy is a seperate trademark from Superman, but to say they are different concepts because one has a rural setting and the other one doesn’t seems to be reaching. If you flesh out the early years of a character and slightly alter the name, but not the character, is it considered a new, original character? Who created Nightwing? Is the Winter Soldier a Brubaker creation?
August 16th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I appreciate getting information on this story from an attorney. I would assume that the Siegels are looking for a payoff for the character. DC could go ahead without a Superboy, and I doubt anyone else would want to publish one. Or do they want a permanent share of Superboy’s profits? This is all very fascinating; are there any other characters that are similarly affected?
August 16th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Money grab by the family, pure and simple.
Can I create a teen aged character called Batboy in Batman’s costume, give him different friends than Bruce Wayne but who is a young Bruce Wayne??
So if the family wins, why can we not have Connor Kent back in his jeans and t-shirt as long as he isn’t called Superboy??
Basically I am tired of this whole this. The actual creators settled their disputes. The ‘families’ are now trying to cash in on things they had nothing to do with.
Money grubbers!!
August 16th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
So…I’m confused. If the Siegels win, do they get money from DC? Can they publish Superboy comics themselves? Can they sell the character to DC or perhaps another company? If they win Superboy, do Lana, Pete and other Superboy-mythos characters get chopped out of DC stories from now on?
I’m faily unclear of what is really at stake here.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Superboy is Superman as a boy. How can he be original?
August 16th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
It is confusing why the Conner Kent character is not being mentioned as a separate character from the original Superboy. He has the same name, but that’s about it.
It seems like DC *could* establish Connor Kent as a new character, but they’re trying to avoid using him until things are cleared up. That would make sense, except that Superboy Prime has an much greater similarity to the original Superboy and they haven’t completely stopped using him.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
DC/Warner should offer a sizable settlement to the family– the original stipend offered back in the 70’s was a pittance, really.. and realistically, the family will have extreme difficulty trying to brand their own “superboy” title, divorced from all other aspects of DC continuity..
August 16th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Being that the “S” shield is a trademark of DC, I highly doubt the Siegels, if they were so inclined, could publish anything that looked like the Superboy/man we have come to know.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I personally don’t see this as a money grub, and regardless of what DC says I still think that this is the real reason that Connor took a dirt-nap, and the reason that they have expressly avoided using the name Superboy in any relation to Clark on Smallville.
Besides which, I think Connor was way too long in the tooth to have Superboy as a monicker anyway.
Should have renamed him - permanently to simply Kon-El.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I may be understanding this wrong, but Superboy is EXTREMELLY “derivative”, Of Superman. It’s the same effin’ costume!
August 16th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Superboy was raised in an orphanage after being found in his ship by a lone farmer according to Action #1, so there were no adoptive parents as originally conceived.
Did the Kents emerge as part of the Superboy proposal or had that retcon already been established prior. That seems like an important point as to the originality questions of the proposal.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
So, use of the name Kon-El and Connor Kent would be exploiting Superboy?? What do the Siegel’s hope to achieve from all of this?? It just seems spiteful.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
David: After my experience with this case, Nightwing could easily be a “sufficiently original” creation. He was designed to go from being Batman’s sidekick/partner to being the leader of the Teen Titans, which seems to be just the kind of difference a court would consider. Of course, Nightwing was more than likely part of Marv Wolfman’s and George Perez’s work-for-hire agreements with DC, so a lawsuit wouldn’t go very far.
Omar: The Siegels apparently agree that Superboy is derivative of Superman. However, a derivative character can still be copyrightable if it is sufficiently original. Again, Nightwing might be derived from Robin, but could still be sufficiently original to be copyrightable.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
…You know, it’s one thing to give the Siegel heirs some compensation for what Jerry & Joe originally created, but this is getting greedy to the point of being anal. Next thing you know, they’ll be suing over the differences between the Earth-1 and Earth-2 S-Shields, and the direction of the spit curl on each.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I think it’s alright that they’re trying to get their rights. After all, something as big as DC should still have to prove that it owns the rights, instead of just everyone assuming they do. The fact that it was or seems that it will be ruled against DC sits fine with me. Thanks for clearing a lot of this up for me.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
This is a great analysis.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is not so much that Superman and Superboy are different characters. But that the premise of Superboy, the structure and style of the those adventures are completely different from Superman’s. While DC blurred the line between the style of Superman and Superboy stories over the years, originally they were distinct.
Remember that in the early stories Superman was very anti-social. Not talking to the Police. Being very rough with criminals.
A young friendly Superboy, who gets moral advise from his foster parents would have been a radical departure from the adult Superman appearing at the time.
Later on the adult character
was re-conceived as a “overgrown Boyscout”. Meaning Superboy retroactively affected the characterization of Superman.
So it is hard for modern readers to realize how different the idea old Superboy was at the time.
In Terms of Kon-El. WHen that character first started he was very unique. But over the years he was made to be more and more like Superman. Even living with the Kents in Smallville and wearing glasses.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Brad: I stand corrected — the Kents do not appear explicitly in the Action #1 story. They do appear in Superman #1’s expanded version of the Action story. That came out in 1939, after Siegel had pitched “Superboy” to DC originally. However, I think the distinction the Judge would make is that regardless of whether the Kents were part of the “Superman story,” they would only be fleshed-out significantly as “Superboy” characters.
That’s splitting hairs, perhaps, but that’s what the law does sometimes.
OM: Despite what I just said, I don’t think it will go as far as S-shield differences (although DC does mention them, in a different context, in its response). Those, I imagine, would truly be seen as trivial.
By the way, who said that the Byrne Superman was essentially a grown-up Superboy? Was it Byrne himself? That quote takes on a different meaning now, doesn’t it?
August 16th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
A lot of this seems confusing based on the primary fact that Superboy (Clark Kent/Kal-El) is so OBVIOUSLY derivative of Superman.
The real tragedy is that Conner Kent/Kon-El was forced to suffer because of this, just when Geoff Johns was beginning to realize his potential as a character. Something I’m very bitter about even now.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
For years, I have read Superman and Superboy stories since I was a kid. I always thought both of them was the same person. But until the Infinite Crisis from 1980s mixed up whole thing on DC’s superheros like Superman and Superboy. I’m not sure what is ‘derivate’. I don’t know why the Siegel family want to take Superboy back from Superman family to make him a different person like he was before in the 1940s. Strange, Superboy wears same outfit as Superman wore. I think it is not make any sense about this lawsuit. One thing is I think the Siegel family should have share with DC for their stories about Superboy and Superman as one person. Let me know what you do think.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
“I don’t know why the Siegel family want to take Superboy back from Superman family to make him a different person like he was before in the 1940s.”
Nuel They are not trying to this NOW. This is a about history and about giving Jerry Siegel his due credit. Which yes involves money. In this country children and spouses in inherent the money of departed creators all the time.
As an example - just think of all the money Yoko Ono gets from the works of John Lennon. How would this situation be any different?
The Siegels have shown no intent to publish their own Superboy.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
As much as I wish Jerry Siegel had benefited from his co-creation more, the idea that the original Superboy is a separate entity from Superman is a little ridiculous.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I think what we’re looking at is basically hairsplitting. Superboy is derivative of Superman. But, there are aspects of Superboy that are unique from Superman as well. The fleshed out Kents, whatever supporting cast their may be, the visual presentation, the setting, the attitude and experience of the main character, etc.
And since Siegel was not doing work-for-hire, the family has every right to assert their legal rights.
Ultimately, I think DC and the Siegel estate will settle. There’s no question DC owns the trademarks. “Young super alien in Kansas” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
The costume, Clark Kent name, and origin would seem to weigh heavily in DC’s favor. Differences in tone strike me as too subjective to somehow outweigh those other factors. It’s one thing to remove Superboy from the Superman mythos, and quite another to try to remove Superman from the Superboy mythos–especially since so much of that (LSH, Krypto, Lana Lang) was developed well after the character first debuted.
I don’t blame the Siegels for trying to get what’s coming to them. But if all parties have an interest in the continued success of the character, they ought to be able to sit down and arrive at a resolution without having to go this Solomonic/Newmanesque route.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I will say that I’m not convinced that there’s no way that the Siegel’s could reap significant profits from this. The basic concept could be spun a number of ways, if you have the right to use it. Take the idea of an adopted boy with special powers and it could be twisted in a way to be a sci-fi Harry Potter.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I find it funny that some folks are trying to paint one side of this legal fight as “greedy” when both sides are engaged in this due to their financial interests. Sloughing off the rights of Siegel’s heirs because they are heirs seems to dance around the point that Time-Warner and the current stockholders whose interest they represent ain’t exactly the folks that Jerry was pitching the story to back in ‘39.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
The Siegel’s argument looks silly, just from this summary. There have been tons of Superman Elseworld or imaginary stories with bizarre twists on the character. We’ve seen Superman as a parent, old, immortal, powerless, sports star, leader of the USSR, etc., etc. While the stories themselves are each separately copyrightable, it seems absurd on its face to say that the character in these stories is separately copyrightable. It’s the same person, Superman, even if he’s sometimes not young, single, superpowered, or even Clark Kent. Superboy was just another of these, the first, but not any more unique.
Remember how fluid comicbook characters were back in 1939 — you tried something for an issue or two, if it didn’t sell, it disappeared forever. Superboy was not even so much a spin-off concept from Superman (which would be derivative anyway), as just another way of telling a Superman story with a twist. Had Kingdom Come Superman (old, black accents to the outfit, no secret identity, no Lois Lane) been made into an ongoing, would he have been copyrightable? I doubt it. Is Ultimate Reed Richards (younger, dealing with different problems, etc.) not derivative of 666 Reed? Naaah.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
#This could only happen in america… its always about the money…Superman is clark kent and is kal el who was a boy who grew up in smallville… so that means super man is or was super boy… and what about super baby ? maybe we should not go there !!! if i remember rightly dc bought the rights to superman from siegel and shuster years ago, and paid an agreed amount for the charactor and idea…. so how can the family years later demand to take back a part of that charactors back ground… its crazy… its all about the money…. and how much has been wasted fighting this in the courts… i bet jerry siegel must be spinning in his grave..
August 16th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
The Siegels’ claim is tied to a 1948 lawsuit. I gather that the ‘48 lawsuit was due to Jerry Siegel’s belief that the Superboy stories as published from More Fun #101 on were an unauthorized exploitation of his original pitch to DC. Those stories looked like Siegel and Shuster tales but were obviously done in-house by DC.
Still, some of those derivative elements had already found their way into the SuperMAN stories that Siegel was writing for DC all along. Superman was a boy scout long before Superboy stories were published.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
its all about the money
Of course, it is. Most lawsuits are.
“i bet jerry siegel must be spinning in his grave..”
I somehow doubt that, given his history with DC.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I’ve been following this case for quite sometime now and this legal is starding to rot and decay.
We,the readers of every Superman,Superboy(clark,prime and/or connor),or anything that includes the teen of steel are the ones who are suffering from this the most and I for one am growing tired of poor excuse of copyright tug-of-war.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
My understanding of the whole purpose of “recapture” is that, back in the day, the companies would put language on the back of the checks which ceded all rights to whatever was created to the publishers in perpetuity. So, if you wanted to get paid for the stories, you had to GIVE the publishers the rights to the creations. The publishers used the fig leaf that the purchase price of the characters was included in the payment, but in reality all they ever got was simple page rate.
Therefore, characters like Green Lantern and Captain America passed to their publishers simply by the creaters accepting page rate for the first story.
That’s why, as I understand it, Joe Simon and Jack Kirby’s estate are trying to recapture the copyright on Captain America. BTW, could this have anything to do with the death of the captain, and the repositioning of Bucky as the Winter Soldier?
If I remember rightly, Marv Wolfman is using the same law to attempt recapture for Blade.
So, if the families of the creators are using this law, it’s to redress some of the things done to the creators back at the beginning.
In the Case of Superman and Superboy, my understanding is that, because of an earlier settlement, Superman isn’t eligible for recapture, but Superboy, pending the results of the current case, is. So, in a way, superboy is being used as a surrogate for a settlement for the rights to Superman.
I’m not a lawyer, just a former business student who’s had some contract law courses. So, take this for whatever it’s worth.
- Kim
August 16th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Say the Siegel family wins. Then what? Are they able to sell/rent the character to Marvel? Will DC be allowd to publish Superboy storeis, and just give the family a percentage of the profits?
August 16th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
That’s why, as I understand it, Joe Simon and Jack Kirby’s estate are trying to recapture the copyright on Captain America. BTW, could this have anything to do with the death of the captain, and the repositioning of Bucky as the Winter Soldier?
Marvel and Joe Simon settled the dispute over Captain America in 2003.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Spaz (and others): I think the most likely outcome if the Siegels win is that DC would pay the family for the use of
the characterwhatever the court found to be copyrightable about “Superboy.” As a practical matter, I don’t think they would be able to take “Superboy” to another publisher.By the same token, though, if someone else did a knockoff of Siegel’s Superboy concepts (say, something like the first few issues of Supreme Power), they’d have to deal with the Siegels, not necessarily DC/Warner Bros.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Regarding Simon and Cap: the Opinion, on page 14, footnote 4, refers to Joe Simon as “co-creator of the late Captain America” (emphasis mine).
It has nothing to do with Superboy, I just think that’s a cool little aside.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Ready?
READY?
***** SuperTEEN *****
Done.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Oh, and let me thank Grumpy Old Fan for this summary; some parts of the ruling were kind of tough slogging for the non-lawyerly, non-involved soul (or at least for this non-lawyerly, non-involved soul.)
August 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
“Will DC be allowd to publish Superboy storeis, and just give the family a percentage of the profits?”
I believe that would be the Seigels’ goal, yes. As it’s been said, the character is useless to them unless they can get paid for its use. Sure, they could market their own Superboy products in theory, but I suspect DC would try to tie up the legality of that in court for as long as possible. The truth is, the Seigels benefit most by winning the case and then licensing the character back to DC.
The question is, how bad does DC need a Superboy? They worked around it with the Legion cartoon by simply calling him Superman. Granted, that character is in his late teens, so ‘man’ isn’t too far off.
There have been inklings that DC will use some version of young Superman in their future retellings of his origin, but I’m not sure how essential it is to call him Superboy or have his costume in place at the time.
The thing is, the Seigels are arguing that even that use (as in the case of Smallville) merits use of the Superboy character. Call him “Uberlad In Blue Jeans” or “Baconboy” or whatever, the Seigels argue it isn’t even the name or costume at issue, it’s the essence of the character - young Clark Kent, origins in Krypton, raised in Smallville by the Kents, etc. My question is, are they hoping to settle with DC for retroactive royalties/damages for things like Smallville, the Legion cartoon, Connor Kent, etc?
August 16th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
I only see one thing happening if the Siegels win; everything that ever had Superboy in it will never be published or released again and the Siegels will still see no real money out of it (since their rights would only apply starting at the point of actual re-capture on November 17, 2004).
The only thing the Siegels will win here is screwing the entire world out of past Superboy stories, and I think the Siegels have to realize this by now. As a result, the Siegels come across to me just as petty and little as DC is.
The Siegels lost Superman; the courts already ruled on that. However “unfair” one thinks it is, everyone knows the Siegels lost Superman. The Siegels need to accept some offer here and get on with it; winning the court battle will be no win for anyone because DC will just shut down Superboy forever (as they’ve already been doing).
August 16th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
The thing you ALL are missing, is this is NOT a discussion about whether or not you like or dislike the concept of an old superman and a young superboy.
Specifically, if any of you understood copyright law, and actually followed this case, you would know that this is literally a front running case that will help mold future copyright law.
In the old days, a publisher could STEAL ownership of creations by simply putting words on the back of a check. The laws have changed considerably. In the one way that matter here, original creators have the right to take BACK their creations. That is legal, and it is a part of the copyright code.
The issue with superboy was that DC tried to STEAL it, was sued and LOST in court. DC NEVER paid them for the rights to use it, and thusly lost the rights to use superboy because of that ILLEGAL act. The issue with superman is that the copyright code has been changed since the 1930’s and the families are using their LEGAL right to regain the copyrights, as any and all creators in America now have the right to do. Originally, the copyright code only allowed for copyrights to be held for 18 years. Add 18 to 38 and you’ll get the first LEGAL date the copyrights would have returned to the families, based on the old code.
The ONLY reason DC is even involved in the court case, is because since one of the creators died without an heir, DC becomes the defacto owner of his portion of the copyright.
The funny thing is, the Superman copyright runs out in a few more years, so this entire Superboy court case will mean almost nothing then.
And yes, DC and Waner Bro’s will LOSE the copyright of Superman. And yes, it is perfectally LEGAL, as it is morally correct.
The creators of these great works, works that have stood the test of time, and have travelled to EVERY corner of humanity. Who more deserves the be rewarded by that success… the creators or corporate America?
August 16th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Let’s keep in mind that the Siegels don’t have anything resembling a moral high ground here: In 1948, Jerry Siegel sold the rights to the character for a fairly decent amount of money, and both sides considered the deal to have been made in good faith — the fact that the deal fell through the cracks of a revised copyright law notwithstanding.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Again, you missed the fact that by LAW, the original creators have the right to take back the copyrights.
The US copyright code only allows for a certain number of years for a copyright to be ’sold’ and used.
The copyright duration for both Superboy and Superman are up. The ONLY thing this ruling on Superboy will do is DELAY the return of the copyrights to the original creators family by a few years.
I believe its 2008 or 2010 that everyone LOSES the Superman copyright. Doesnt matter how you ‘feel’ about it, doesnt matter if you ‘like’ it, simply put, that is the law, and the law says the family gets it back.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
To be very specific. The law that existed at the time that they sold the rights listed that a copyright lasted for 28 years, with an option to renew for 28 additional years.
They sued and lost, saying that they never granted the 28 year extension as part of the orignal deal.
The 1976 amendment to the copyright code extended the total length of a copyright to 75 years, 19 years past the original 56 years (28 + the additional 28 extention). But, it allowed for the original owners to RECLAIM their rights at the end of the original 56 year time limit.
In 1998 the copyright code was amended again to fall more in line with the European Berne Convention, extending the time limit to 95 years, and allowing another window for original creators to reclaim their rights.
The families have done nothing more than what is their given legal right to do, based on the US copyright code. Why anyone, least of all the people who frequent a COMIC BOOK news site, would lambast them for that, I have no idea.
Whats of interest, is even Warner Bro’s doesnt agree with the line of ‘reasoning’ listed in these comments. Most of you who are making comments probably didnt know that the creators of Superman were literally in the poor house, living in poverty without health care, etc. Corporate America keeps raking in the money, and these guys who CREATED Superman get to die penniless. How is that fair?
Waner Bro’s put them on a small stipend with paid health care until they died, out of respect for what they created. Now, the US copyright code is giving their families the legal ability to regain the copyrights and return them to the families that created Superman. Where can you find an argument with that?
August 16th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
It’s obvious that people don’t understand copyright law. Without the latest copyright extension, this stuff would have already fallen into public domain. But Congress, fairly imo, put in a clause that in a non-work for hire case a corporation wouldn’t stand to gain a windfall for those extra years without giving the creator a chance to reap some of the benefits. This case is all about the extra years of the extension, not about anything that happened before.
It probably won’t make that big a difference in the long run. DC still owns the Trademarks lock, stock, and barrel. And there are plenty of parts of the Superman mythos that won’t fall into public domain for awhile. Kryptonite, Superman flying, Jimmy Olsen, Brainiac, Lana Lang, etc. all won’t fall into public domain for awhile.
If the Siegels win the copyright case, and there’s an excellent chance they will based on the law, then they’ll have the right to license the basic concepts, a superpowered boy/teen from another planet who’s morally guided by his adopted parents while trying to hide his powers from those around him in rural America. They might not have the rights to much more than that, but at the very least that’s the basis of an Elseworlds take on the character as we know it and would prevent DC from using the character.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Okay I hate to say this but this whole argument is … well it is about a character that was sold to DC comics almost 70 years ago … Superman. I respect the Siegel’s point of view, but only so far as Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, in retrospect, got shafted for creating a character as iconic as Superman. However, Siegel got paid the “going” rate at the time for his part in Superman’s creation, and he continued to work for DC after Superboy was pulished. If he had walked off the job, instead of making a large stink after his contract was up, I would have more respect for this action, but they didn’t so here the fans are losing a character that we have all grown up with.
This is a money grab that was apparently settled in the 1970’s when Shuster and Siegel agreed to recieve $35000 a year from Warner to ensure that Warner would have sole rights to the Superman character. For everyone who wants to argue that the deal was for “SuperMAN” not “SuperBOY”, well at that point the characters were one in the same. They histories had been tied together, and they were one in the same. Just separated by a few years of age, and a list of supporting characters that had begun to blur between the two. If they didn’t like the deal then they should have pushed harder and not have accepted it. But they did, and with that being said this should be looked at as a money grab … pure and simple, and it has nothing to do with recognition.
Do they deserve more money? By all means they do; just on the principal that they boy in blue has made DC and Warner very very rich, and DC could afford to give it to them. However, dothey deserve the copyright to the character. No, that was sold to DC when the two original creators gave up the rights to Superman. Superboy is Superman, only shorter. We fans know that. So settle the money issues and move on.
Finally, Connor Kent is NOT the old Superboy. So DC should just bring him back and call whatever they want to. It isn’t like he was derived from the original Siegel Idea anyways.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Well, apparently ignorance is bliss…
The ’sale’ you refer to was only legally binding for the initial 56 years of the US copyright code active at the time of the contract signing.
Everything since then is legally challengable due to the fact that the federal government changed the rules AFTER the contract had been signed. So, the federal government put in a clause allowing the creators to petition to have any and all contract they signed be TERMINATED at the correct date. And that correct date was at the end of the 56 year mark.
As another commentor listed, if not for the US copyright code extensions, the properties would have went into public domain by now. DC and Warner Bro’s have NO legal right to the properties past that 56 year mark. It is not, and never has been, legal to sign a copyright contract for ‘eternity’ or ‘for all time’.
The ONLY thing that is happening now, is they are trying to postpone the transfer of the Superboy copyright for a few years by calling it a derivitive work. I looked it up, its 2013 when the Superman copyright will be transferred back to the families.
This is all academic, because in 2013, the families will regain the copyrights, as per the US copyright code, anyway.
Again, this isnt up for ‘internet debate’, it has nothing to do with how you ‘feel’. Its simple math, the law is the law, and the families have a legal right to terminate the contract.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
I am interested in this case for two main reasons:
1) This may serve as a front runner precedent for other characters with lapsing copyrights in the near future. I understand perfectly why the families are trying to reclaim what is theirs. I am however curious if there is a retroactive claim of damages being made by the family, essentially asking companies who ever profited from Superboy to pay them.
2) I am actually curious what DC, a company BUILT on Superman, will do should they lose the rights to the man . At least Marvel developed other characters that they actually own. DC has repeatedly tried to illuminate how inferior their own creations are to Superman and Batman, whom they might lose.
In any event, I hope the family gets what is coming to them. I have faith that the rightful owners (be it the family or DC)
Oh and Thomas Strand, I agree with everything you said except when you said “least of all people who frequent a comic book site” Because as much as some of my fellow geeks can be jerks sometimes, this IS a comic book site. Duh.Also, I disagree with what most of these people you refer to said but I will defend their right to say it. The suit is about a comic book character and of course comic book fans would have an opinion.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Frankly, from some of these comments, I get the impression that the above lengthy article which goes into details of the law was skipped over.
Considering that they’ve already ruled that the pitch wasn’t work-for-hire the only real question may be “what is distinct about Superboy compared to Superman, if anything, that was included in the original pitch”? DC is, of course, going to argue nothing. The Siegel estate is going to argue for practically everything other than his origin (which is hardly original in the first place) and costume.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
It probably should be noted that DC is in no danger of losing the rights to publish Superman or Batman and to prevent others from doing so. They own the trademarks to the names and visual representations of those characters and all the associated goodwill that goes along with it. And Trademarks last as long as DC cares to protect them.
What it will mean is that DC won’t be able to prevent someone else from publishing stories of “Supreme Man” who was rocketed to Earth from doomed planet “Argon” and is disguised as a mild mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper. And whoever does so will have to be aware that things like “Argonite” and supersmart alien robots, won’t be available to use without stepping on copyright for some years.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
truly a fascinating piece of legal history being written in front of us. this will set precedents for many things to come.
i’m glad the Siegel’s are arguing the case. a well informed and developed legal precedent is convenient for all of us fans of creative pop fiction.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Quick comment re: cheques with “buying all rights” terms on the back or marked “paid in full” when someone *hasn’t* paid you the full amount.
Legally, a cheque is only a cheque. It can’t be a contract. Cashing the cheque doesn’t imply you accepted the terms written on it re: trying to collect the rest of your money or giving up your copyrights.
This was a common practice at least well into the 70s in the magazine industry (and probably others). I saw an ad agency do the “paid in full” trick just last year when they knowingly tried to short-change a supplier (me).
So one can see partly where the comic companies who did this as SOP are getting in trouble with their older creations.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Screw Time Warner. We don’t owe them anything. The Siegel family certainly doesn’t.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
What concerns me the most about this ongoing legal situation is the implications it will have on future Golden Age (and Silver and Bronze Age) Superboy reprints. I mean, at one point there had been talk of a Superboy Archives. I’d love to see some of these (reprinting the Golden Age stories from the beginning) and maybe a Silver Age Showcase Presents Superboy series, as well. But it appears that all of this has been sidelined due to the legal situation. Hopefully this will be resolved in such a way that DC could still do these reprint projects. (This might influence Legion of Super-Heroes reprints, too. I’m not sure about that. It’s been forever since the last Legion Archives came out so I was thinking for awhile that the Superboy issue was preventing them from doing more. But then they released a Showcase Presents the Legion of Super-Heroes reprinting those early Superboy and the Legion stories, so I’m not too sure what the situation is there, anymore.)
August 16th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Wow … okay .. normally I wouldn’t post more than my opinion on a topic like this, but basically being called ignorant deserves a response.
Thomas I do not disagree with the legality of your stance, but I disagree with it being “right”. I may be an idealist, but I believe that once you make a deal you should stick by it. The creators made a deal with DC, and just because the law has changed doesn’t make it “right” that the families go back after DC. Does it make it right that they get nothing; well I previously stated that I think the families of creators get some amount of money in respect for their creations. I think that the Siegel’s deserve some monetary compensation, but not the rights to the character. I just think that if you make a deal you stick by it and don’t get sour later on. If that makes me ignorant well I like being ignorant; it is a lot better then thinking that what is legal is always right.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
The issue is, the deal expired at the end of the original term of copyright. No deal has been struck, yet, for the years under the extension. The Siegels are asserting their rights that they don’t have a deal for the extension period.
Now, what that all entails, separate from Superman, is up for debate.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
…Thomas Strand makes a good argument. The problem is that it probably doesn’t apply in this case because we’re not dealing with a *unique* character, but a character who’s clearly derived from an existing character - one that Jerry & Joe clearly signed the rights away to several years *before* the concept of Superboy ever saw print. If the judge in this case has all the facts *and* a clue to rub between his fingers, we’ll see the ruling overturned on the grounds that all Jerry did was take Superman and add some background to the origin that hadn’t been shown before. If he fails to do so, then we could see a rash of lawsuits by creators demanding royalties because they added to a character’s mythology, no matter how large or how small.
Bottom Line: For all practical purposes, what’s on trial here isn’t whether or not Jerry Siegel’s heirs own the rights to Superboy, but whether a retcon is grounds for uniqueness with regards to copyrights.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
I’ll add that I don’t think WB or DC are opposed to paying the Siegels fairly for the additional years of the copyright extension. It’s just that a deal is difficult to strike because neither side is really sure what the Siegels actually own under their copyright.
The rights to use a fleshed out Ma and Pa Kent are worth one thing. The rights to use Superboy having adventures while hiding his identity from his classmates in Smallville while being guided by a fleshed out Ma and Pa Kent are worth something else entirely.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
For all the DC and Warner bashers… did you ever stop to think that there wouldn’t be any money to sue over if DC hadn’t published the character, and expanded them out into movies and tv. While they didn’t create the character, they certainly invested in the characters (and rightfully received profits for them).
Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster were dramatically underappreciated in their lifetimes and should have been treated better, but how does it make it better give their heirs something they didn’t earn? Does the world really need more Paris Hiltons? If the Siegels win - there will be no Suberboy, or they will increase the cost to DC, which will likely be passed on to us in the form of more expensive comics.
If it was really about righting the wrongs done to Jerry Siegel - they would donate a high percentage of their settlement to HERO or another charity to help comics creators.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I don’t care if the Siegels are the rightful owners or not. I really don’t give a crap if they deserve the copyright, the money or anything else, or if its right or wrong, etc…
I just want to continue to be able to read my Superman and Superboy comics from DC. If the Siegels winning this case means that I won’t be able to do that, well I really hope they lose.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
What’s your point? There wouldn’t be any money to sue over if the characters weren’t created in the first place either.
The questions are 1) what did Jerry Siegel truly create, if anything, with regards to Superboy, and 2) what are the rights to the next 19 years of what Jerry Siegel created with regards to Superboy worth?
There’s no moral high ground here. This is business. And, this time the Siegels have experience and a lawyer.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Shawn K.:
August 16th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Shawn K.:
I recall reading a Batman comic where Bruce was in law school. He was asked a question, gave an answer, and was told he was wrong. “But that not justice!”, Bruce protested. “No. That’s the law.”, said the prof. Having just come off jury duty this week (heaven for a comic reader like me: got 7 graphic novels read!), I recall the judge informing us that we had to give a ruling based on the law, not what we felt was right. The defense attorny even grilled a guy who said he was born again as to whether he could make a decision according to the law or according to his beliefs. The case was settled before th jury was chosen, so I got back to my reading.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
FWIW, since copyright expires DC will be able to reprint Superboy someday regardless of the outcome of this suit. And they’ll have a leg up on all of their competitors since they own the original film of the art work.
Also, I can’t see this affecting DC’s ability to reprint Superboy and the Legion of Superheroes at all. At most, the Siegels own the rights to the adventures of a young Superman in Smallville, not the adventures of a young Superman in the future.
I don’t know why people are trying to root for DC or the Siegels on moral grounds. At this point, there’s no evidence that either side is doing anything underhanded, illegal, or immoral in regards to the current situation regarding rights for the 19 year extension.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
My point is addressing the people above saying DC is the evil empire, and that this is a holy crusade for recognizing Superman’s creators..it’s not. it’s all about the money.
To me it seems pretty silly that fleshing out the history of an existing character could be “original work”. Won’t this lead to a wave of silly copyrights, made “just in case” a derivitive version of a character takes off (similar to cyber-squatting on domain names that will be in demand in the future).
I would post more, but I am on my way to copywrite Super Fetus, Bat Iguana, and HawkCheetah
August 16th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Yeah it’s all about the money. From both sides.
I’m not really worked up about this either way. This is a business deal, pure and simple, and these types of negotiations are often messy. I really don’t care about that.
Rather, what I find intriguing about the case is the Solomonic hair splitting that comes from separating what is derivitive from what’s unique. You can blot out the names Superman and Superboy from books from the same period, but there are obvious differences in the features which make them easy to differentiate. Setting, supporting cast, villains, competence, confidence, and maturity of the main character, who’s the leading moral voice, types of adventures, etc.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
I think part of the problem for some folks who say that Superboy is “obviously” the same as Superman is that they’re looking at this from a 21st century perspective. Nowadays, most characters have a details backstory, and we see the younger characters as mere extensions of the adult character.
This wasn’t the case when Jerry created Superboy. There never were books like “Young Sherlock Holmes” or “Hercule Poirot Jr.” Superboy, while derivative of Superman, was a new concept — Taking an existing comics property and creating a “spin-off” character that’s related but new.
When Superboy was introduced, it was a radical idea in comics. All he had in common with Superman was the costume, alien origin, and name. Beyond that, pretty much all aspects of the character were new. It’s been mentioned that some elements were retconned into Superman before Superboy showed up. Well, yeah, and they were retconned in on the basis of Jerry’s pitch. Thus, those elements in Superman were actually derivative of Superboy, not the other way around.
As to accusations that the family is only “money grubbing” because of the recapture, well, yes, it’s about the money. But couldn’t it be equally said that Time Warner is money grubbing for trying to hold onto the copyright to a character that is arguably not theirs under the law? Of course both sides are wanting the revenue from future uses of the character. But — isn’t that the whole POINT of the copyright law? To allow the creator and heirs to control the use of the property and to profit from that use?
The argument that the character was sold to DC, and that should be honored despite a change in copyright law is, well, kind of silly. First of all, the ’sale’ of the character to DC was by back-of-the-check assignment. That’s since been determined to not be a legal kind of transfer. And, even if one overlooks that, there’s still the fact that it wasn’t a contract of equals. I’m not sure of the precise legal terminology, but a one-sided, take-it-or-leave-it contract isn’t generally enforcable. That’s one of the things that the courts are using to invalidate ’shrink-wrap’ agreements and their terms.
And, of course, the idea that the fact of a change in the legal environment that invalidates a prior contract should be ignored out of respect for ‘honoring the original sale’ is just ludicrous. Tell me, after the US Civil War, should pre-existing slave sales and bills of sale be honored because of a moral obligation to respect the contracts?
As to the availability of the previously-published Superboy material, well, again, that’s part of the whole idea of copyright laws. It’s up to the owner to decide what to do with the material, and in a dispute, what either litigant plans to use the property for is irrelevant.
- Kim
August 16th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Kim, you raise a lot of interesting points, but I don’t agree. A few responses:
a) You seem to be arguing that even if Superboy would have been a derivative creation if invented today, he wasn’t in 1939 because the whole idea of derivative comic book characters was new. But you can’t copyright methods, only specific forms. And that a particular subgenre (superhero comic books) had not done derivative art before doesn’t make the principles of derivative art any different than in any other medium or genre. Just because nobody had done it before in comics, doesn’t mean nobody had ever done it before and courts should treat comic books differently.
b) The one-sided, take-it-or-leave it contract is called a contract of adhesion. It’s not automatically void, a court has to find it’s unconscionable. An adhesion contract is more likely than most to be unconscionable, but the court will ask whether the terms were such that a reasonable person would have agreed, whether there was competition, etc. Here, Siegel could have gone to work for another company, and the price and terms probably seemed pretty reasonable for junk, which was what people thought comics were in 1939. Let’s not forget, either, that Siegel didn’t have the internet — he needed a printing press and publication network to get his art to market. The owners of these assets gambled on hundreds of creations a year, very few of which paid off. Their view, and it was pretty much universally held for a while, was that they were therefore entitled to the whole profit. Even today, most mass-market comics creators work for the company, not the other way around.
c) It’s not “ludicrous” to say you have an ethical obligation even if the law changes. I’m not sure I see an ethical obligation in this case — copyright law is completely artificial, and the whole point of changing the law was to change the rights. But to compare the ethical situation of everyone with a contract made invalid by action of law, with such an extreme case as a slavery sale contract, well, that’s what I find ludicrous. That’s like saying that every contract that happens to not quite meet some legal standard, like, say, a real estate contract that doesn’t fully identify the plat, is as bad as a contract for murder. Both are unenforceable, therefore they’re ethically the same? I don’t think so.
By the way, Abraham Lincoln himself argued that we should pay slaveowners for their property rights. That changed only after the slaveowners rebelled and the Union emancipated the slaves as a war measure. The basic principle that slavery contracts should be honored in the sense of compensation, though not by giving the owners specific performance, was actually taken very seriously at the time. Brazil, IIRC, actually did exactly that when they abolished slavery.
August 16th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
The “contract of adhesion” is immaterial in this case. It’s already been ruled, as was the case, that it wasn’t work for hire. Furthermore, Siegel couldn’t sell and DC couldn’t purchase the rights for the additional 19 years because those rights didn’t exist at the time.
If Superboy wasn’t a derivitive work, I suspect that this would already have been settled like the Joe Simon and Carmine Infantino lawsuits. In this case, there’s a legitimate diffence of opinion over what is actually owned.
Some of Joe Kubert’s creations, Viking Prince and Sgt. Rock, are approaching the copyright reversion deadline soon. Joe’s young enough that he may get to enjoy a nice little bonus. Heck, it’s not like DC is doing anything with Viking Prince and it might be easier to get that into print if it reverts to Joe.
FWIW, the expiring copyright is one of the reasons I suspect we’re getting the EC Archives now.
August 16th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
DC paid Siegel 94k back in 1948. That should be the end of it. They sold the rights to him, plain and simple. If I sell you my car I can’t then demand you let me drive it.
I know it’s not that simple but it should be. This is pure greed on the part of the family.
August 16th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
If Siegel was still alive, this would be one thing.
But since it’s his family, and they had nothing to do with the character, I’m rooting for DC in this case.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:59 am
This was an interesting read - both the original post, and the comments.
Do we really know that this is a ‘bitter’ dispute between the parties? Just because this is about money, and just because it’s in court, doesn’t mean it’s a bitter dispute, that we must take sides on.
It’s entirely possible that both sides looked at this, agreed that there’s some form of compensation that needs to happen, but, based on law, didn’t know what that compensation should be based on.
Sometimes it really is easier to let this get settled by a court, to pave the road ahead.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:26 am
And is it “pure greed” on the part of DC that they have not ceded the material into the public domain, as that was the legal understanding when it was created?
Time/Warner gained an awful lot out of the law changes that created those extra years of protection and created the opportunity for recapture.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:49 am
About half of your uses of the word “copyright” should be “trademark” instead and it really affects the issues in play here.
And while I’m a bigger public domain advocate than anybody, DC would still have the trademark on Superman regardless of the 1976 revisions to copyright law.
The difference would be that their comics through 1952 would be subject to reprint.
But they’d still own Superman, the Superman logo, the S-shield, etc. Just not the printed stories themselves through 1952.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Re: Copyright and Trademark
The reason that the Fleischer Bros. cartoons can be sold willy-nilly by discount DVD firms is that the cartoons have fallen out of copyright, yes?
The reason that they do not use the S-logo on any of the packaging for those cartoons is that the S-logo is trademarked, yes?
So, if this case pans out for the Siegels, would it mean that someday a publisher like Americomics might be able to publish a comic book (let’s call it “teen hero” comics) with Superboy stories inside, so long as the trademarked image does not appear on the cover? (Let’s presume that Black alters the art to obscure the items still in copyright to DC– renaming Lana Lang, for example.)
Or is this analogy way off?
Would that be possible
August 17th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
I find the whole lack of SuperBOY and this new, ‘40th century clone of SuperMAN’ in the Legion animated interesting in lieu of the law suit.
Initially there were no ‘adventures of Superman as a boy’ mentioned in the days before Superboy. He was a fully grown adult with no adventures as a teen hero. They created the whole backstory somewhat retroactively. I see this piece of the pie as the Siegel’s.
Isn’t it a bit strange that both Captain America (not really sure what the deal struck was with Simon)and the Blue Beetle and get killed the shortly after there are either legal victories or heirs start copyright retrieval the process.
I can’t believe there isn’t enough cash involved to make everyone happy.
August 17th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
You guys are still missing the bigger picture here. Sure, this article and the current case are about whether or not SuperBoy is, in fact, a derivative work of Superman. The bigger picture view is, in 2013 the families have the rights to take back the Superman copyrights.
And, for you ‘well, they have the trademarks so tough luck’. Guess what, this case is going to be the front running case in a new millenium rehash of the entire concept of copyrights and trademarks. There are already cases in motion now to link the fact that one cannot own a trademark of something they do not own a copyright to.
Bottom line, when the contracts were signed there was a Federal government stipulated TIME LIMIT to the contract. All of you ‘if i sold my car, I cant ask for it back’ guys need to go read some copyright LAW before you give us your uninformed opinion. When the contracts were signed there was a 56 year TIME LIMIT. It was NOT LEGAL to sign any contract, nor would it have been binding in any way, for any duration above that 56 year mark.
The ONLY reason the families have a right to terminate those contracts is, by law, the Federal government listed in a time period where the original owners of the copyright have the right to TERMINATE the contract on the date it would have originally expired.
Again, this has NOTHING to do with Superboy, nothing to do with your ‘feelings’, nothing to do with what is ‘fair’, nothing to do with who is a bigger money grubber. The law was changed and rather than invalidate all previous copyright contracts, the Federal government opted to allow all contemporary contracts to be terminated on the original end dates.
The families in this case, again, are only exersizing their legal rights to simply terminate a contract on the date it would have legally ended based on the laws in place when it was signed. And again, Superman is up in 2013.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Looks like our boy Conner Kent may be okay.
August 18th, 2007 at 3:31 am
Regarding the Legion cartoon, the trailer shows that the new season will have two Young Supermen on the team as members. So there is no lack of Clark.
Clark and 41st Century Superman will BOTH be on the team together.
August 19th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Re: Message 65:
1) I don’t believe DC has much interest in doing reprints of material that has passed into “public domain”. I think they’d prefer to focus their energies on material that they exclusively own and control. So, if you are suggesting that DC might simply wait until the material passes into public domain and then start reprinting it (without having to worry about the Siegels), I kind of doubt it.
Plus, by that point, all of DC’s *own* pre-1944 (Superboy’s first appearance in MORE FUN COMICS #101) stuff will have passed into public domain already (assuming that more extensions haven’t been put into effect on when these things pass into public domain). If I understand the process correctly, ACTION COMICS #1 (1938) will pass into public domain in 2033 (28 years after it was originally published + 67 more years if it was renewed properly). I know that seems like a long time from now but from DC’s perspective, that’s probably not very far off as it represents when pretty much anybody will be able to start reprinting their earliest Superman comics. I’m getting a bit off track, I know, but I’m trying to say that by this point DC will have other, more pressing, issues on their minds. (Plus, heck, I want to see those Golden Age Superboy Archives some time *prior* to 2039–when I’ll be 67–thank you very much!)
2) Re: The impact of the Superboy legal doings on potential Superboy and the Legion reprints, yes, I’ve heard from a couple of folks who would know over the past couple years that indeed they were holding off on doing anymore Superboy *or* Superboy/Legion projects until the legal stuff got worked out. I was told that they could still reprint an occasional Superboy story here or there, like in a collection of Superman stories, but not entire collections where Superboy was a primary character. Like I said earlier, perhaps this has changed a bit as of late, as they just released a SHOWCASE PRESENTS: THE LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES reprinting those early Superboy and the Legion stories. Or, perhaps, they just figured that since they were already selling those stories in their still-in-print LEGION ARCHIVES, that doing a Showcase Presents of those same stories wouldn’t be a problem. Don’t know. Just guessin’ there. I guess I won’t know for certain until they get around to reprinting stories not already in LEGION ARCHIVES volumes one through twelve.
August 19th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Re: The “Legion of Super-Heroes” cartoon. I think their (DC/Warner) main concern was the Superboy name, not that it was a young Clark Kent. I think they figured that if they called him “Superman” instead then they’d be all right.
Which makes for an interesting thought that just occurred to me. If they can get away with doing this on the cartoon–basically doing Superboy and simply changing his name to “Superman” to get around the legal issues with the Siegels–I wonder if they might ever consider doing Superboy reprints and going in and changing the text to read “Superman”? I think I’d be very ambivalent about it if they ever did try it. On the one hand, they’d be seriously messing with the material and I don’t think that I’d like it. On the other hand, if it came down to a choice of that or never seeing the older stuff reprinted, well, I think I could probably learn to live with it, then.
Don’t know if they’d ever do it. (Plus, it might not be enough of a difference should these things continue to go the Siegels’ way; the altered strips would still feature a young Superman’s years growing up in Smallville with the Kents, after all.) Still, it’s an interesting thought to consider (if ultimately reject).
(P.S.: I wonder if this whole thing with the Siegels is also why we haven’t seen a second season DVD set of the “Superboy” television series yet. Then again, it could just be that the first set didn’t sell particularly well.)
August 20th, 2007 at 3:08 am
I have two questions here, and hopefully Mr. Strand can answer these, since he seems to know alot about all this copyright business (No, i’m not being sarcastic)
1) If the copyrights for Superman, for example, revert in 2013, what does that mean for DC publishing a continuous series? Would they have to get permission from the Siegels to do so? Could the Siegels take Superman somewhere else, or just stop Superman stories alltogether? (highly unlikely, of course) And not just Superman, but all characters published by the company, really, if the families of the creators can take control of the characters that DC been publishing for 50, or in some cases obviously, more years?
2)What would this mean for the industry, if every character created, is now no longer belonging to the company, but the “estates” of the creators? For uses, they would have to pay royalties, which would then be passed on to the comic buyer?
August 20th, 2007 at 3:28 am
Also, i have a question about, for lack of a better term, where does it end? I mean, i know the law is usually different than how we may see things by looking at it, but it seems to me that if there is an arguement about SuperBOY and SuperMAN being different, is it really a stretch to say the Superman stories DC has published since, say, the original crisis, are totally and seperately copyrightable from the Superman Siegel and Shuster created? Yeah, may have same human name, and human family, and origins (like Superman and Superboy do, obviously) But, aren’t they’re as many, if not more differences between the Superman of 1938 and of today, and Superboy and Superman? Doomsday, powers, backgorund history, characteristics, Superclones, Marraige to Lane, various plotlines and retcons. If differences such as these (supporting characters, events, locations) are enough to make the character unique and “not derivative”, whats keeping DC from doing some gobbldeygook and saying “this” superman is totally unique to us and is our own creation?
These are just 3 questions i had. Sorry to take up so much space. Great thanks to anyone who can help with info!
August 20th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Nathan: In its counterclaim, DC pretty much made that argument, saying that it developed Superman far past what Siegel and Shuster envisioned; and that all those developments were part of its work-for-hire agreements with the various writers and artists over the years. However, the Judge has ruled that Superboy wasn’t created as part of Siegel’s work-for-hire agreement, so (the way I understand it) that’s basically why we’re still talking about him.
August 20th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Nathan: First, I believe that it’s the *copyright* for ACTION COMICS #1 (the actual published stories and artwork) that will pass into public domain in 2033 (not 2013), not the “trademark” (for the character of Superman, the various logos, etc.). If I’m not off on the dates (and, again, if more copyright extensions aren’t put into effect by then), anybody (including you or me) could reprint ACTION COMICS #1. The trademark for Superman, “Action Comics” as a comic book title, etc. would all still be owned by DC, however, so there would probably be some restrictions on how one (other than DC) would be able to package/title such a reprint (such as perhaps calling it “Golden Age Classic Comics” or something like that).
Second, this whole thing of copyrights reverting to their original owners only goes for cases where the original creator/s can after a certain number of years “reclaim” their copyright. It doesn’t work in cases where the creators were under “work for hire” circumstances, however, so nearly all of the Golden Age, Silver Age, etc. comic characters and their creators wouldn’t fall in to this. In the Siegels/Superboy situation, the claim is that Jerry Siegel pitched the property to DC prior to their actually publishing it (without his involvement) in 1944, and that it was not part of any “work for hire” agreement.
As to why the Siegels didn’t do this first for the Superman character (instead of waiting and doing this for Superboy), perhaps they simply missed the deadline to do so. There’s a certain number of years after the original assignment of copyright that the creators can do this and perhaps they missed it? (Or perhaps they felt that DC had more of a legal advantage with Superman thanks to the various previous legal procedures that were held between Siegel and Shuster and DC?)
Of course, all of the above is just as per my own understanding. I could be wrong about some of the details.
David Y.
August 20th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Superman falling into the public domain, as far as copyright, will only mean that you can run with the original characters and ideas and reprint the original stories, but because of trademark issues, you’ll be under more restrictions than DC is with Captain Marvel. At the very least, you’d need a new look, you couldn’t advertise on the cover that you’re doing Superman, and you’d have to be careful not to tread on anything that is will still be under copyright, like Superman fighting supervillains, Kryptonite, etc.
Trademark complications are why Sherlock Holmes pastiches have titles like The Final Solution, The Italian Secretary, The Seven Per-cent Solution, Murder by Decree, etc. So much of what makes Superman what he is today accrued over time and will be unavailable for anyone to use in our lifetimes.
August 21st, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Evil Twin: Yeah, that’s why I was really just coming at it from the angle of being able to reprint the original stories once the copyright on them finally expires. Not original material.
(It should be like what some of the publishers now are already doing in regards to reprinting vintage comics material that has fallen into public domain for various reasons, like AC Comics and Pure Imagination do. Once ACTION COMICS #1 falls into public domain, I should be able to reprint it myself, should I wish to. As I said earlier, figuring out what to *call* the collection might be tricky as I don’t know if I could call it “Superman Classics” or