More documentation at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/business/media/29comics.html

“Interesting”?

so what does this mean for superman exactly. comic wise

Why they sold the rights they shouldnt get anything.

They shouldnt even get royalties they gave up that when they signed over the rights.

It’s not creator justice - it’s “justice” for people that had nothing to do with creating Superman.

they should have taken better care of Siegel and Schuster when they were alive - that would have been justice.

Gimme a break. They were paid in 1938. They were paid off in 1968. Again in 1978. They kept taking the money and suing again, Time Warner will keep this tied up for decades and that’s good.

John, federal law gave the Siegel family the legal basis to regain the assigned copyright. In the words of the court, 1976 Copyright Act “gave artists and their heirs the ability to terminate any prior grants of the rights to their creations that were executed before January 1, 1978, regardless of the terms contained such assignments.”

The Siegels merely asserted a right given to them by law within the time frame established for them to take such an action.

I can’t believe there are comics fans that are happy about this ruling.

As the end consumers.. we will be the ones paying for this. Keep this in mind next time comics prices rise, or your favorite book gets cancelled because it’s not selling well enough (less profit = less flexibility), or when they decide that making a Superman Movie or cartoon is not financially viable because of “licensing” fees.

Siegel and Schuster should have been living in mansions - but how did their kids earn that?

This has been silly for so long…How can they keep suing for the same thing? They got paid in 1938, 1948, 1968 and a salary and benefits from 1978 to when they passed away. I hope Time Warner keeps this tied up in the courts forever. Not their fault the Seigel’s took settlement money and started the lawsuit process all over again.

Total Crap! The families are just money hungry.

I DON’T UNDERSTAND ANY OF THE FACTS, HISTORY OR LEGAL ISSUES BUT I HAVE AN OPINION ANYWAYS! LET’S HUG! LET’S HUG WITH OUR TONGUES!

I’m sorry, the ruling may be correct under the law, but in that case, it’s a bad law. The property should belong to the party that bought it, under the terms of the agreement between the buyer and the seller. The government has no business changing the law, as it did in 1976, to (among other things) take Superman away from its rightful owners.

I sympathize with the Siegels, but this is just wrong.

>“The families are just money hungry.”
>
>Unlike those international corporations …

DC wants us to read about Superman and Superboy. Have you seen anything from the other side that would indicate the same?

Superboy has been gone for 2 years now. How does it serve Sigel and Schuster’s legacy to have their characters disappear from the public eye? DC promotes the legacy of Superman (albeit because they profit from it) - I don’t see the family doing the same.

Geez…is this website owned by Time-Warner or something?

I always have a problem with this “creator’s rights” argument; is the creator *really* the person who made the concept sell? Seriously. Let’s say Siegel and Schuster decided not to sell Superman and instead publish the stories on their own; how many people here want to say Superman would have still been a world-wide phenomenon? I doubt anyone today would have even known who Superman was; but at least Siegel and Schuster would have got to keep all the rights and all the money on their obscure character.

The company gets such an enormous share because they usually do most of the work and financing. Creators can have a great idea; but a great idea is nothing if no one ever knows about it.

Actually what it means in legal terms is that DC can’t refer to anything printed in Action Comics #1 without getting the permission form the Seigels. However most of the elements we know about Superman, The backstory of Krypton, his powers, his current cast are all still copyrighted to DC.

So what will it cost for DC to license their character from both the Siegels and Shusters estates?
And what if Marvel offers them more? Will they license to Marvel? What if Michel Jackson decides he wants to play the Last Son of Krypton in a movie and his own comics and offers them even more, can they just go to the highest bidder? Or does DC the only one they can option the character to?

KingdomGone - The Siegels would be very silly to sit on the Superman rights. They’d want to license them or sell them outright. The question is to whom and for what.

The thing is, Superman is fundamentally more valuable to Warner than anyone else - Warner would not lose the copyrights on every Superman work since Action #1. And so buying the Superman license from the Siegels and Shusters wouldn’t get you the movies, any of the cartoons, or even the current costume. And it wouldn’t get you the Superman trademark.

So while the copyright is enormously valuable, it’s not the entirety of the value of Superman. You really need both the license and the copyright to everything since Action #1. And Warner is the only company that can possibly acquire both.

Since Superman is thus more valuable to them than anyone else it makes the most sense to guess that they will end up with the license.

You people make me vomit.

He’s right, though.

For example, let’s say that the settlement for these families is a million dollars per appearance (Just for the sake of the argument). For every episode of every cartoon he’s in, that’s a million-dollar tack-on. For every toy model, that’s a million-dollar tack-on. For every issue he appears in, of Superman, Action Comics, Batman, JLA, etc., that’s a million dollar tack-on to EACH issue. Let’s say Superman appears in 8 issues a month. That’s $8 million a month. Times 12 months a year, that’s $96 million a year. Let’s also say that DC Direct releases 5 Superman figures that year, and Mattel releases 7. That’s another $12 million. He appears in 13 episodes of a cartoon, that’s another $13 million dollars. That is $121 million in 1 year.

Where the FUCK do you THINK that money is going to come from?

“For example, let’s say that the settlement for these families is a million dollars per appearance (Just for the sake of the argument).”

Let’s also say, for example, that apples are grapefruit, up is down, and that the moon is a bushel of potatoes. How does THAT affect your crazy, made-up equation?

Where the FUCK do you THINK that money is going to come from?

Comment by Dave — March 28, 2008 @ 10:17 pm

————-

I guess people are assuming it will come from the Copyright Tree; God thankfully left us that one when he took the Garden of Eden away.

Scott, given how the Siegels have been so far with these court cases and how they’re almost “All or nothing” like…I wouldn’t put it passed them to have it set to that ammount

Jerry Seigal and Joe Shuster created Superman when they were 16/17. They had no agent and no idea how popular their character would end up being. DC took their names off of the comic for decades; while DC earned millions on the books, radio show, movie serials, TV show, etc., artist Joe Shuster died blind and in poverty. Jerry Seigal also lived a close-to destitute life, while DC/Warner earned hundreds of millions. Any of you who think the family is money-hungry apparently don’t understand how corporations work.

DC has been making it nearly impossible for young fans to afford their comics and now structure stories you can’t understand them unless you buy a new title every week. If you want to talk about greedy, look there, not at the Seigels.

I am sure the intent is not to take Superman away from DC. No matter how much the Seigels make as a result of this lawsuit, it will be nothing compared to how much DC has made from the most beloved comic book hero on Earth.

Again: this isn’t about the fairness of the original deal. It’s about the court declaring that the original deal is now over.

Sweet— Public Domain Superman stories in 15 years? Maybe we’ll get some interesting tales that don’t have to be run by 15 Time Warner departments for approval.

In retrospect, DC (or National Comics) should have avoided giving its artists and writers any credit at all.

Perhaps they should adopt a policy of total creative anonymity now, and consider all of its comics to be authored by the corporation.

Jim,

I’m not a lawyer, either, but have been a freelance creative professional (in and out of comics) for 12 years, so intellectual property right are not foreign to me.

Anyway, I expect this will be appealed…so I wouldn’t expect it to have much effect right away.

If it holds up after appeal, I expect a lot depends on the Siegels (unlike many in this thread, I don’t claim to know them or their intentions.) Maybe they’ll want to have some kind of controlling interest in the character. Maybe they’ll be happy just to sit back and collect royalties on Superman stuff. Or–most likely, I expect–they’ll simply allow Time-Warner to buy out their half, and DC will go about its business same as usual.

Either way, I doubt it will mean much from a fan standpoint, contrary to the “those Siegels are going to hold us all over a barrel!” nonsense posted here.

Thanks, Scott. Appreciate the explanation.

Posted by Mike-El:

John, there such a thing as MORALITY that you’re not considering, probably because you don’t have any.

If these rights were being fought over a SLAVE, would you be siding with the plantation owner?

Why the hell are you siding with a multi-billion dollar corportation with an army of lawyers and experienceed businessmen against two TEENAGERS that signed a piece of paper they probably barely understood?

If you’re so ruthless about the rights of creators, why don’t you spend 5 years of your life in poverty, shopping around your life’s work, then when i offer you a few thousand dollars that to YOU seems like a lot of money, sign those rights away and watch ME make BILLIONS off it.

You clearly don’t understand the circumstances under which the transaction was made. Its easy to pass judgment on people when you’re living if your spolied middle or upper class environment.

Posted by me:
So what you’re basically saying is, people shouldn’t have to be held accountable for any legally binding business transactions, if those transactions result in a corporation making huge sums of money off the back of the little guy. I’d like to introduce you to a concept: it is called capitalism.

Stuff like this happens EVERY DAY. Every company in the world makes untold dollars off of their little employees. Your company probably makes much more money from your efforts than you will ever, ever see in your life. What, exactly, makes this situation different?

Because the creators in question were teenagers who “didn’t know what they were doing” when they signed the contracts? I was a teenager, signed up for a credit card I didn’t understand, and will be paying that off for the rest of my life. Should I be exempt from paying that because it “isn’t fair”? Or because I didn’t understand it? No. My decision. Nobody forced me to sign up. And it was my responsibility to look into the facts.

NOBODY back then knew that ANY of these properties would turn into multimillion dollar properties like they are now. And I’m sure there are creative properties or inventions being introduced now that some poor chump is signing away for what he thinks is a decent chunk of change, but will some day make some company billions of dollars. That’s reality. That’s business. You sign a contract, you live with the terms. It’s not Greedy Corporate Lawyers vs. Poor Victimized Creator (or, really, creator’s family). It’s not about “morals.” It’s a contract. We all sign them. I expect mine to be upheld. Why shouldn’t these people expect the same?

Okay. DC already “lost” and paid the family to keep the rights. But thanks to a 1978 law that voided that settlement the can sue again? Not that the family had to give it back or anything. So what do they do? They sue again.

I am sorry but because Time Warner has the money doesn’t just mean people get hand outs. Do all the characters that companies lost money on mean that they can sue the creators?

Jim Shooter your new company Defiant lost us money. You owe us 1 million dollars! Ultraverse? You people owe us billions!

Yes, I think the original creators of Superman were not treated very well. Though people that had nothing to do with it should make money off of it because they are blood related? Does this mean I should sue my dad’s former company because I don’t think they paid him enough for his work there?

I am not all for the big companies. But when you sign something make sure you know what you sign. They had no idea Superman would be a big hit. It could have easily have been another Commander Steel or some character that couldn’t last 6 issues. How many “great ideas” for new characters just fade away? Easy to say now that Superman was a money maker. At the time I bet they were just happy to get any money for something they named Superman.

This is not like when Marvel signed a contract with Stan Lee saying he got a percent of the profits from any future Marvel movie from properties that he helped create. Which was before any good marvel movies. Then Spider-man comes out and is hit. Then the movies are gold mines and makes tons. And guess what Marvel decides to do? Shaft him and they have to go to court. When people sign contracts both parties are suppose to honor it.

Alright that is my rant. Basically I bet the family just sells DC the rights again. And then the great great grandkids can sue next.

Let’s be honest - Siegel & Shuster’s Superman would have died an EARLY death without the intervention/help from National Publication’s ( then DC, then DC/Warner ) help. They got the character into public view, they got radio shows, serials, cartoons,movies & tv shows made - all of which had MUCH more to do with the increased popularity than the books ever did if we’re honest. Other artists, writers & editors - also had a hand in revising and re-creating the character as time went by. The original Siegel & Shuster Superman was never as popular as the company “created” one - it’s just a fact. If the 2 hadn’t turned over their character - and supported it in the marketplace - chances are he’d be at best a footnote today ( along he lines of another character of theirs - “Slam Bradley” ).

So while I do think it’s fair that the family get some kind of royalties off the character, I think that’s all they should get - and even that would be essentially a gift - since the character was legally sold not once but twice - and it’s been the company investing time, energy, creativity & funds - since they started publishing him in their books.

Originally posted by Jamie Roberts:

Jerry Seigal and Joe Shuster created Superman when they were 16/17. They had no agent and no idea how popular their character would end up being. DC took their names off of the comic for decades; while DC earned millions on the books, radio show, movie serials, TV show, etc., artist Joe Shuster died blind and in poverty. Jerry Seigal also lived a close-to destitute life, while DC/Warner earned hundreds of millions. Any of you who think the family is money-hungry apparently don’t understand how corporations work.

DC has been making it nearly impossible for young fans to afford their comics and now structure stories you can’t understand them unless you buy a new title every week. If you want to talk about greedy, look there, not at the Seigels.

I am sure the intent is not to take Superman away from DC. No matter how much the Seigels make as a result of this lawsuit, it will be nothing compared to how much DC has made from the most beloved comic book hero on Earth.

Posted by me:
I understand how corporations work: they are designed to make money. And that’s what DC did, and does: they pay creators for their work, those creators sign a contract saying DC owns that work, and that should be that.

Whether or not Superman made billions or pennies after S&S signed their contract should be immaterial. If you sign a contract for your work and someone finds a way to take your work and make a bundle off of it, should you be able to say the contract is no longer fair? I’m sorry, I just don’t see that. It makes absolutely no sense to me, whatsoever. It’s a contract. You signed it. That’s pretty much it.

As for Shuster and Siegel dying in poverty, from the very brief research I just did on NYTimes and Wikipedia, in 1975 DC apparently made an arrangement with both parties to pay them $35,000 a year until their deaths. Siegel died in 1996. By my calculations that means he made $735,000 in the 21 years in between, for work that he had already been paid for back in the 1930s. Unless that agreement was somehow overturned or not fulfilled or something, I’m unclear on how he died destitute. That’s not exactly chump change.

Wow.

In 1938, what Jerry and Joe sold was a copyright that would last 56 years. Not a forever copyright, not a 75-year copyright, not a 99-year copyright.

When Congress extended all copyrights later, they said, we have to be fair: If you sold a 56-year copyright, and the copyright gets extended, it should revert back to you. ‘Cause that’s fair, because the guys you sold it to didn’t pay you for the extended period, and since you’re the creators, you’re the ones who should benefit from that extended period.

And that’s what happened in the case of Superman: Jerry’s heirs, according to the law, filed the paperwork to get the copyright to Superman back after the original 56-year period ended.

As the judge’s decision makes abundantly clear, if you would just read it, neither the original 1938 sale or the 1948 lawsuit settlement prevent the Siegels from retrieving their rights, because neither the 1938 sale or the 1948 lawsuit settlement apply to the period of the copyright extension, because that’s what the copyright extension law says.

“These anti-Siegel people on Newsarama must be Time Warner shills.”

No, just people who care more about making sure their flow of product goes interrupted than about any underlying moral or legal issues.

The simple fact is, the comics industry in the USA is built upon a lot of shady dealing and exploitation of creators. If creators and their families end up being treated fairer based on how the law evolves, well, we’ll get fewer crossovers and team books, maybe, but I won’t lose a lot of sleep over that.

I think another point that needs to be brought up is how does this effect the comic book industry in the long run? If it does at all, that is…

I’m thinking this anti-Siegel people on here must be paid by Warner brothers. Their families want what their father should have had, and they are the very extension of the creator Siegel. In many ways it’s a delayed sense of justice for their father. I think they’re very entitled to everything they get and not money grubbing. Just as millionaire children inherit their families fortunes. It’s DC and Warner Brothers who are the most money grubbing and corporations so I don’t see how people could get angry at the families of the men who created Superman. I like it because it means that Superman might get interesting again if they managed it right.

It’s DC and Warner Brothers who are the most money grubbing and corporations so I don’t see how people could get angry at the families of the men who created Superman. I like it because it means that Superman might get interesting again if they managed it right.

Comment by Mark Smith — March 29, 2008 @ 1:03 am
—————–

This is a ridiculous post, honestly. All corporations are greedy and money grubbing. In fact, most people are greedy and money grubbing. They just don’t want to admit it.

And plus, if you like this ruling b/c it might make Superman more appealing to you, doesn’t that make you somewhat selfish?

If DC retains the creative control, I’ll make sure to think of you and laugh.

Without taking sides, I think what has people frustrated is that for the past 30 or so years it seems everytime the courts rule on this case they fall on the side of the Siegels and immediately afterwards the Siegels sue again. Since no one really understands any of this legal stuff and the status quo as far as the consumer goes doesn’t change and when it does it’s to the fan’s detriment (for instance, no more Superboy), it’s easy to see why there’s a backlash against the estates and not DC. Furthermore, when it comes down to it, people want Superman comics and they don’t want that threatened by the estates which, seemingly, have no vested interest other than a paycheck. At some point it seems like saying they’re doing this for their father begins to ring hollow. He has all the artistic credit now, which cements his immortality so long as Superman exists. What more do they want?

Someone threw out the “slave argument” but at the risk of getting politically incorrect, does anyone really support reparations? This is the same thing.

For what it’s worth, my personal opinion is that none of this really matters. The Siegels aren’t stupid, they’ll just use this to get more money from DC/Time Warner, who will pay it. So, yeah, it really is about money. And since I’m not getting any of that money, I don’t care.

attention marvel…2013 buy Superman from the heirs and start the new era of Marvel

It is absolutely amazing to me the number of people here who appear to hate the Siegels.

First there is the group that must be very old. They must be very old because they pontificate on the instance of the original contract signing AS IF THEY WERE SITTING RIGHT THERE WATCHING IT. No one has that right on this blog because none of us were there. How do they know that Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson didn’t feed the boys a bunch of hocus-pocus and promise them the sky and the stars? Maybe they were cajoled into signing. Did they have an attorney present looking out for their interests? I’ll bet you they didn’t if for no other reason than they were almost broke at the time and probably couldn’t afford one!

Which brings up another point: If they signed the contracts when they were still in their teens, then they WERE UNDERAGE, (as far as the legal age of 21….which I believe was the case in New York in the late 1930s), so guess what? THOSE CONTRACTS MAY VERY WELL HAVE BEEN INVALID TO BEGIN WITH BECAUSE THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY MINORS.

Then you’ve got the group who are all worried about someone getting the money that their fathers’ creation was responsible for generating. Folks, if YOUR father(s) had done this, and if they had signed a proper contract under proper legal advice, it’s guaranteed that any attorney worth his salt would have written in an endurance clause. Such a clause provides that in the event of the demise of one or both (in this case) of the creators, that the terms of the contract would endure to their respective heirs and estates. And you’d be happier than pigs in shit about it because YOU would be collecting right now. So don’t you DARE begrudge Jerry and Joe’s families for this!

One voice in the wilderness above is Greg Morrow who is absolutely correct in his assessments.

The law was changed to address the very situation that Time-Warner has been fighting (and likely dreading) tooth and nail to avoid.

Mazel Tov to the families! Maybe now Jerry and Joe can rest a bit easier in their graves.

And just for the sake of historical accuracy, (and to chide myself for my own lack of it above), it was likely that good Major was out of the picture by the time that contract had been signed. I believe that it was Harry and Jack or their representatives who did it.

“attention mars, they couldn’t market the character w/o the trademark to the titles, logos, names, character design, etc. and they aren’t even close to getting that yet.”

I guess that’s why DC is doing nothing with the Captain Marvel character, huh?

“Another question, what’s everyone talking about with 2013? I’ve heard two things, that Shuster’s part of the copyright will come into play, and I’ve also heard that the trademark is effected in 2013.”

That’s because there were more than one change made to the copyright law. In 1976, copyright law was changed to extend the ownership period to 75 years instead of the previous 56 years (28 plus 28). Along with extending the copyright period by 19 years, the law allowed reclamation of copyright by creators as long as they applied for it within a set period. (In case of Superman, this period was between 1994 and 1999.) This is how the Siegel family was able to get their half of Superman copyright. At the time, nothing was heard from Shuster’s family, and the assumption was that since he was divorced with no children, he had left no heir eligible to claim his half of the copyright.

In 1998, the law was changed once again to extend the ownership by 20 years. This meant that another window of opportunity for the creators or their estate to reclaim the copyright was opened. So in 2004, Shuster’s nephew filed to reclaim the other half of Superman copyright on 2013, which is when this second window of opportunity opens up.

“Are both true? Or is one? And if one, which? And if it’s the trademark, that means Time Warner could lose Superman, no?”

The thing about trademark expiring in 2013 is not true. Unlike copyright, trademark has no set expiration date. As long as the mark is actively used in business, it is valid. (The other side of this, of course, is that if you’re not using your trademark or not protecting trademark infringements, you can lose it. That’s why DC cannot use the name “Captain Marvel” in any of their book titles or advertisement.)

I don’t think these anti-Siegel guys are really jerks or anything, I think they’re just not filled in on the whole story.

If they read Larson’s ruling and still felt the same way, well, I just don’t think they’d feel the same way if they read Larson’s ruling.

The 2013 thing comes from Congress closing a loophole in the copyright law. In the 1990s when the Siegels filed their suit, the law said that the copyright could only be recovered by the heirs (which in this case is Siegel’s widow and daughter). Joe Shuster died with no heirs, so his estate couldn’t take part in this. Years later, the loophole got closed and allowed the estate to file. In 2003 Shuster’s nephew (the executor of the estate) filed his 10-year notice as required by law, seeking the return of the Shuster copyright in 2013.

I strongly suspect that at some point, TimeWarner will cut the Siegel and Shuster families a big check for being the sole perpetual licensee.

Note, however, that in the meantime (a) DC can still do whatever it wants with Superman, as co-owner, as long as there’s some accounting of the profits to share with the Siegels (to be determined at a future trial), and (b) DC owns the trademarks to Superman, including the logo, blue suit design, and the S-shield. So in theory if they were to try to take him to Marvel as others had suggested, they’d have to give him a new name and costume. So why bother?

Go back and read Greg’s comment #69, people, and quit whining until you actually know what you’re talking about.

“SKFK- In that case DC only lacks the trademark on the name “Captain Marvel”- they can use all other associated symbols and such.”

That’s true, although I think the main character’s name is a pretty big part in any marketing efforts. Character’s appearance and symbols aren’t very useful in radio advertising, for instance.

Maybe a better example is when Malibu Comics published “Uncensored Mouse” without being able to use anything that belongs to Disney corporation.

I’m always amused by people who, having read a headline and maybe a couple paragraphs about a subject, think they know more about it than people who have been putting literally years of work into it (and this includes lawyers).

Even if the Siegel’s keep the copyright, I would say that DC will still do a deal to publish Superman.

The BBC’s Doctor Who has several of the monsters & characters owned by the creators and their estates. The Daleks are owned by Terry Nation.

God, Most of you make me ashamed of being an American. You are complete corporate tools.

We better not be ROBBED of Superman!

“Somehow the rest of us manage to get jobs and do the best we can to live life, pay bills, support families, and put away for retirement.”

Why are you people so resentful that someone got a break (if you can call finally getting what they deserve after seven decades a “break”)? Why do we have to say, “We’re all suffering, they should suffer like us, too” instead of “Good for them”? Is it so hard?

All this tells me is that Superman should have been in the public domain a while ago. Superman belongs to the people!

The Morons at the bendis boards are loving this:
http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=146414

If I could post an ASCII art of Jean-Luc Picard doing a /facepalm, I surely would.

I have to say, however, that I’ve never agreed with Abhay more than I do now. Which is saying something.

“The Morons at the bendis boards are loving this:”

So? Bendis board may have moronic things happen every once in a while but this isn’t one of them.

Awesome, the outcome of this is in 2013 - ZOD WINS!!! Or Luthor. Anyway, get cha black armbands ready…

All you people slamming the creators’ and their families are pathetic. If it wasn’t for those two men your hobby wouldn’t exist today.
If the comments on here are indicative of what comics fans feel then that’s sad.

Kingdom, it’s not about DC doing anything wrong. It’s about the Siegels asserting a right they’re clearly given by law. DC’s conduct is irrelevant.

Siegel and Shuster were not minors when they sold Superman. People need to get their facts straight.

The Superman they created in their teens was a villain and does not resemble the Superman they sold to DC.

Seeing all these comments against the basic concept of human rights involved in creating a work of art just sadden me. Can I quit comics now that I have seen how ignorant and insensitive my fellow fans are? Of course, these are people who beleive in might makes right power fantasy and were educated on ideas like Europeans discovering America… Perhaps this is not all that suprising to see such knee jerk reactions.

I’ll start with two things.
One: I read very little Superman, but I do read comics.
Two: I am a writer with copyrights.

I think the estates of the creators should be able to control the copyrights owned by the creators of any work of art (Visual, literature, or otherwise). And I believe that if you own said copyright, you should have some say in what happens to the materials within. But do I think DC is evil? No. As has been pointed out, Siegel and Shuster, regardless of circumstance, did sign a contract to lisence the property to them. I think it’s a bit of a crime that one of them had to die destitute and blind, but sometimes people are clueless to things that don’t effect them directly. However, that the estates are trying to regain the control of the copyright is not evil either. These men, dead or alive, should get credit for thier creation for as long as the creation exists. (Which for me means DC should not be able to take thier names off of the ‘crated by’ line again)No one’s complaining about Christopher Tolkein having control over the works of his father and making money from it.

As has been pointed out, and as the statutes read, copyrights cover STORIES, not characters, worlds, or symbols. So even if the estates win and withdraw the copyright rights, DC can probably still put out Superman, because they have the TRADEMARK of the character. The Copyright only covers the specific story or stories the estates own with thier 50% copyrights. what it does open the door for is all other writers not covered under the “write for hire” clause. Dispite what you think, for whatever reason, Siegel and Shuster do not fall under that clause.

Personally, I like this ruling from the legal standpoint. I want to get my work published and not have to worry about being screwed out of my rightful credit and compensation. If I become famous, I’d like my daughter to benefit from that. What are the families doing with the money? Do we really know? Yes they might be setting up a decadent lifestyle. But Maybe they’re using it to endow a collage so that more scholarships can be given out, or creating a fund to help artist just breaking out. Why do we assume it’s about the money, anyway?

Maybe they Just want to secure thier father’s/Uncle’s legacy.

“Seeing all these comments against the basic concept of human rights involved in creating a work of art just sadden me. Can I quit comics now that I have seen how ignorant and insensitive my fellow fans are? Of course, these are people who beleive in might makes right power fantasy and were educated on ideas like Europeans discovering America… Perhaps this is not all that suprising to see such knee jerk reactions. ”

Yeah - DC offered a yearly stipend to Siegel and his widow to re-enforce might makes right. They have credited Siegel and Schuster on every comic or property he has appeared in to engage in their power fantasy. You’ve got them all figured out. Even though they took all the risk on publishing the creations.. they should have no rights to the profits because it proved to be a success.

DC is probably twisting their mustaches and plotting their next evil plan. Maybe they will go back and opress the nephews of the creators of the Bloodpack.. because you never know when they might take off.

keep working on bringing down “the man” though “the kamisama”… because we’ll be so much better off without a company producing content for us to enjoy.

and by the way - nice attempt at “Reductio ad Hitlerum” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum) by comparing the comic companies to Europeans discovering America.

Both ORIGINAL creators are dead! This just simply reaks of the Siegels trying to get yet more money. It’s ridiculous. Creator justice, indeed.

“Notice how the lawyer uses the word ‘exploit’ in decribing DC’s use of Superman. How many other ways could that have been phrased that didn’t make it sound like DC is in the wrong.

How about referring to the ruling as ‘Vindication’? Doesn’t that make it sound like this is more about making DC lose than it is about doing what is right.”

“Exploit” doesn’t necessarily have negative connotations. But even if it were negative, you’re referring to a quote by the plaintiffs’ attorney; of course he’s going to try to paint the defendants in a certain light.

No, Kingdom.

“Exploit” is not inherently a bad term. In fact, it’s a proper term for taking advantage of a resource. Someone who is exploiting their intellectual property is not abusing it, they are profiting off of it.

And yes, the Siegels were vindicated in their claims that they had rights to Superman. They had put forth those claims, the courts tested them, and they were vindicated in those claims.

You seem rather desperate to find some way to paint them in a bad light. Is their a reason for your pseudonymous crusade?

“In retrospect, DC (or National Comics) should have avoided giving its artists and writers any credit at all.

Perhaps they should adopt a policy of total creative anonymity now, and consider all of its comics to be authored by the corporation.”

Great idea! That way when someone wants to meet the people responsible for creating, writing and drawing the stories, there’d be absolutely no way to so, and said creators would never get any recognition or know how much their work is appreciated! What a fantastic idea!

Please. This is the stupidest thing I’ve heard in this whole debate yet. And worst of all, it’s not the first time I’ve heard such stupidity.

“Please. This is the stupidest thing I’ve heard in this whole debate yet. And worst of all, it’s not the first time I’ve heard such stupidity.”

I think he was being sarcastic. At least, I hope he was.

“Kingdom Gone, what do you hate about the rule of law? ”

this one made me laugh.. thanks (that’s not sarcasm… it just really was funny).

I don’t mind laws.. except speed limits.

I don’t have a problem with the copyright law.. I understand that they are within their rights. What I object to is the fact that they appear willing to kill the franchise rather than negotiate. I can’t believe that Time Warner didn’t make them a reasonable offer, knowing they could lose this case. Companies operate off of risk and reward - so I can’t see DC not trying to avoid all this grief.

Would anyone really be happy if DC lost the rights to publish Superman in 2013? While it is a longshot that they will sit on the rights.. who hasn’t done something out of stupid out of spite or protecting their honor?

“So I can’t have an opinion unless I am willing to make myself vulnerable to the crazy people on the internet? ”

You can have all the opinions you want. But to hide behind a pseudonym to attack others is cowardly.

“A great example is above when I mentioned people wishing ill to DC.. to which you responded with an argument about how paying for rights is not a bad thing.”

No, I mentioned that paying for rights was not a bad thing because you were talking about things going bad for the publisher, and in the event under discussion, what is going on is that they’re being made to pay for rights.

“You are questioning my motives on arguing my points.. how about your motives?”

I’m standing up for honesty, fairness, and accuracy. And I’m standing behind my words.

“I’m not really seeing why you are attacking me personally (and my choice of anonyminity)when there are many other people posting less reasoned or civil arguments that are actually attacking the Siegels in this thread.”

As opposed to the person who has posted more than a dozen times in this thread, painting the Siegels as people who do not deserve the money, trying to parallel them with Paris Hilton, and criticizing them for using an appropriate word like “vindication”?

“What I object to is the fact that they appear willing to kill the franchise rather than negotiate.”

That’s ignorant. The Siegels spent years in negotiations over this, first in 1997 and then from 1999 into 2002.

You know.. the more I think about it.. the more I realize that Nat and I arguing doesn’t really add anything to this dicussion, and I don’t think I have anything left to say on this issue.

Nat - you stop attacking me.. I’ll stop posting. We’re not going to agree on this issue, and there is no sense in further escalating the personal attacks from either of us.

“What I object to is the fact that they appear willing to kill the franchise rather than negotiate.”

I’ve not seen any evidence that the Siegels are “willing to kill the franchise.”

Both sides made Superman a success so both sides want to profit–but proportionate to that success (hence not one but multiple lawsuits). That is not greed on either of their parts. That is the same self-preservation we all feel. Would Superman have become what he did without DC? We will never know. But without Siegel and Shuster? He would not have existed.

At http://noblemania.blogspot, I blogged four lists: what DC did right/wrong and what S&S did right/wrong. But I feel I’m missing or not accurately expressing certain points so I welcome anyone to help me improve those lists.

A split down the middle seems fair to me. Just wish it had come in 1947.

“Read the ruling. it clearly states that the Siegels pulled away from the table more than once in the past.”

Yes, after trying to negotiate. Really. Despite your protestations to the contrary. They negotiated and negotiated, came to what they felt was an accord, found that what Time Warner then presented was not what they felt had been agreed to. So after repeated attempts to negotiate, they followed through with the suit, a suit which does not kill the franchise - nor, at this point, even stop the ability of Time Warner to negotiate.

“Standing up for honesty fairness and accuracy.. ? you have to be kidding.. right? did you bonk your head and start thinking you’re actually a superhero now?”

Honesty and accuracy are not things that one has to be a superhero to practice. They do not require superpowers.

Here’s an idea….why don’t DC create some new characters, instead of relying on 70 year old characters?
DC Comics have never created a single superhero character, it’s the writers and artists who have done that.

I think this is a good day for writers everywhere in this country that have been the subject of unfair practices in this country with respect to corporations and ownership of the intellectual properties owned by the creators. This case recognizes that these unscrupulous companies have abused the court system in the pursuit of profits in the billions while paying the creators and writers pennies.

This has nothing to do with the relatives simply being related to a writer and claiming a piece of the economic pie, but more to do with whether DC and Action Comics had a LEGAL right to a creation and if they had been honest and fair in the supposed transfer/sale of the right to them by Siegel and if he actually sold the rights at all to them!

So I hope that the family of the creator of Captain Marvel aka Shazam will also use this case as precedent to regain the rights of this character too which was lost in a clear miscarriage of justice to DC.

To Kelvin Melrose:

The two cases aren’t at all similar.

Explain if they are not similar how they are they not. Additionally, how is that the family or the creator was NOT robbed by the court system of the rights when the court said from my understanding that the character was too similar to Superman which is is not. If DC no longer owns Superman the claim cannot be made by DC who was presumed to be owner of Superman. So if DC does not own the character they have no claim in the case…it is mute. Right? Help me understand where I am incorrect. This is not an attempt to flame but gain understanding where I am lacking. Point me to a good source.

Yes I understand they own 50% which is far from 100%. And this also will mean an appropriate challenge to the international rights will soon follow.

Interesting. Really, though, if copyright law hadn’t been perverted by big corporations (I’m looking at you, Disney), this would be public domain by now and anybody would be able to try something new with this old idea.

This hopefully brings the day when Johnny Ryan takes over Action Comics that much closer.

I’m not a legal expert, I’m a Superman fan of 30 years. Most of the people on this board have no idea what that kind of loyalty is like. Superman, for all of the characters flaws, has been a major part of my life. As my father passed his love of the character to me, I hope to pass that same passion on to my children. My daughter (almost two) already has developed enthusiasm for the imagery, sometimes “flying” around the house, with her Superman Cape on (man, kids today have it made… in my day, a red blanket was the height of pretend-to-be-Superman fashion) as her father helps her live out the fantasy of being Superman (girl?) With this ruling, that tradition is called into question.

While I am hopeful, I am also pragmatic. This case has never been about anything more than money. Sure the change in Copyright Law opened the door, but let’s face facts: Not once in the years of legal action has one family member mentioned any interest in the character. As a matter of fact, on FOX news, just after the verdict was announced, The Family appeared and expressed joy at the monetary aspect of this case. Nothing was said about the Character, as far as “maintaining the legacy” goes. They don’t care.

This leaves me, and other Superman enthusiasts, in a quandary. In today’s world of children’s entertainment, we have Pokemon, Ben 10, Dora and other characters, that when stacked against the Big Blue Cheese, don’t measure up. There’s no tradition there, nothing for parents to pass on to their children. The outrage expressed in this forum, albeit understandable is, for the most part, hateful and unwarranted. Sure the Family had recourse under the law, and they went for what they could. No one should fault them for that. However, we can fault them if they treat Superman like a child in a custody battle between two Parents, who use the child as a leverage tool, or weapon. From what I have seen, this seems most likely, as the Lawyer, from what I have researched about him, seems most interested in headlines, and so far, he hasn’t received much notice.

I’m sure I’ll be flamed for these comments, and that’s fine. I’m old school, and read the comics I enjoy, not the ones others tell me to read. I love Superman, and I know that makes me a part of the “uncool” crowd in comic geekdom, and that’s fine. What’s not fine, is my kids may not have the same choice I did.

Is this ruling to be considered in-continuity?

You people getting on the Siegel’s cases are douches. How would you feel if your uncle or grandfather created something and got dicked on by Time-Warner? Get over yourselves.

Check out the inflation calaculator on http://www.bls.gov/cpi - it gives inflation adjusted buying power of money.

according to the calculator:
$130 in 1939 = 1979.86 in 2008
$94,000 in 1948 = $825,690.54 in 2008
$30,000 in 1976 =$111,613.18 in 2008
$30,000 in 1996 =$40,476.67 in 2007

I am giving no actual or implied opinion on this data. I am just providing it so people debating the financials have a meaningful figure to discuss.

Also from my nuts calculator: blow job festival esquire! Go Siegs!

I dont think these two schmucks deserve jack. They didnt do anything to rate making a nickel. Seigel and Schuster sold the rights to their property 3 seperate times. Sorry if you make a bad deal that many times its your problem. Typical of these kinds of people

What are “these kinds of people,” Shannon?

DC only retains the copyright to Superman because copyright protection was extended to them at the same time the same law allowed heirs to reclaim the copyright after a certain number of years. Now, one can argue that copyright should be extended indefinitely, but until then, it’s the law.
Looks like DC will have to be content with not sharing the billion plus dollars that Superman has generated through the years.

Newsarama fanboys fit in gud on Bizarro Wurld!

I’m sure that your thesis will dazzle the government chair at Harvard, faboo. It’s nice to know that personal disdain for those with whom I disagree is sometimes appropriate.

THESE people I don’t like must also be these OTHER people I don’t like!!