In what may shape up to be a historic ruling, a judge on Wednesday awarded Jerry Siegel’s heirs the copyright to the Superman material in Action Comics #1.
As Jeff Trexler points out, Judge Stephen Larson’s 71 1/2-page opinion doesn’t resolve all the issues — the separate Superboy case, division of profits, etc. — but it does seem to put an end, of sorts, to a decades-long feud. (The decision is certain to be appealed by Time Warner.)
“After seventy years,” Larson writes in his concluding paragraph, “Jerome Siegel’s heirs regain what he granted so long ago — the copyright in the Superman material that was published in Action Comics Vol. 1. What remains is an apportionment of profits, guided in some measure by the rulings contained in this Order, and a trial on whether to include the profits generated by DC Comics’ corporate sibling’s exploitation of the Superman copyright.”
Trexler also points to an analysis of the decision by William Patry, Google’s senior copyright counsel, which provides some context: “The opinion doesn’t cover Schuster’s interests, which are not subject to Section 304(c) termination, but rather a future 304(d) termination. Nor does the opinion reach the work for hire question for anything after the (justly famous and important) Action Comics Vol. 1 published on April 18, 1938 – the collateral estoppel applied on work for hire only covers Action Comics Vol. 1. Finally, there are very thorny issues of apportionment. All of these issues are likely to be the subject of subsequent motions and possibly trial.”
Expect more coverage over the weekend.
Update: The New York Times weighs in with reaction quotes from Siegel estate attorney Marc Toberoff, Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson. The Times notes that while the decision leaves intact Time Warner’s international rights to Superman, it may open the door to a similar reversion of copyright to the estate of Joe Shuster in 2013.
“After 2013, Time Warner couldn’t exploit any new Superman-derived works without a licence from the Siegels and Shusters,” said Toberoff, who also represents the Shuster estate.
Update 2 (March 29): Jeff Trexler is a step ahead of everyone else, and provides a wonderfully informative copyright decision FAQ. Those commenters in a panic over what the ruling will mean to their monthly dose of Superman comics would do well to read the article, as Trexler addresses questions of creative control, trademarks, and copyright law.
Update 3 (March 29): Blog@ contributor and attorney Tom Bondurant analyzes the ruling for the main site.
Update 4 (March 29): Mark Evanier discusses the photos of Siegel and Shuster that accompany The New York Times article.
Neil Gaiman also comments: “When I did something like this on a much smaller scale, I remember how much of a relief it was when the court awarded me my share in the characters I’d co-created. (I really ought to do something with it. Anyone want to publish an ANGELA comic? Or Medieval Spawn?)”
Update 5: Jeff Trexler continues his commentary on the ruling: “So is this the death of Superman? No, not at all. Instead of worrying about DC folding up, expect a settlement with both the Siegel and Shuster families, albeit perhaps one that is more favorable to them in terms of finances and the creators’ recognition than might have otherwise been obtained.”
March 28th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I started to post a “April 1 seems to come earlier every year” comment, but this appears to be real.
Uh, wow.
Guess we have a good topic for Paul Levitz questions, now.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
More documentation at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/business/media/29comics.html
March 28th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Yeah, interetsing how this is backed up against the Levitz article, no?
March 28th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
“Interesting”?
March 28th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Yay for creator justice.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
so what does this mean for superman exactly. comic wise
March 28th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
WHOOOOOO!
March 28th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Why they sold the rights they shouldnt get anything.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Siegle and Schuster signed away the rights. Its their own fault. I don’t think they should have any creative control over the franchise. They should have huge, huge, HUGE royalties, but not creative control. Its not theirs.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
They shouldnt even get royalties they gave up that when they signed over the rights.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Yes, because all deals in the Golden Age of comics were completely above the board and not in any way dishonest or shady.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
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.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
THEY SIGNED THE RIGHTS AWAY NOT WITH A GUN TO THEIR HEAD AND NOT ONCE BUT TWICE WHEN THEY SETTLED IN COURT IN 1948. ENOUGH ALREADY.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
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.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
so does DC now have to pay to use Superboy or what?
March 28th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
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.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
@Carl: The Superboy question is unresolved. That’s a separate case.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
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?
March 28th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Honestly, I don’t think this means much.
The thing is that people confuse copyright and trademark.
You trademark a character. You copyright a story. If the Siegels had won back the trademark of Superman, then they would have really scored a huge victory in that they’d own the character again. As it is, they just once again own that first Superman story, which gives them pretty much the right to reprint that story ands things along those lines.
It’s kind of like the deal with the “Mickey Mouse” copyright act which extended the length of the copyright term around when “Steamboat Willie” was supposed to enter the public domain. The thing is, who would want to copy “Steamboat Willie”? They were trying to protect their ownership of Mickey Mouse and got it all confused.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
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.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Question here. Did Siegal’s son from his first marriage have any kids(I know he passed away)if so wouldn’t he also be an heir to Siegal? And if so wouldn’t his kids be entitled to part of the settlement?
March 28th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Total Crap! The families are just money hungry.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
“The families are just money hungry.”
Unlike those international corporations …
March 28th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
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!
March 28th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Christ, Newsarama is embarassing. All across the Web (and the industry as a whole…except maybe the boardroom at DC) people are celebrating this historic, decades-delayed justice for two of the most important creative people in the industry’s history.
On Newsarama? People lining up to register their nerdy disgust that poor DC Comics might have to write some big cheques to retain a property it has reaped a fortune from for seventy years.
What on Earth do the fans care who half the US royalties go to?
Shame on all of you.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
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.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Yes, shame on us for calling shenanigans on the greed of people who did nothing to deserve it. Was the deal those two guys signed appropriate, given what Superman has become? Probably not, but hindsight is twenty-twenty. Punishing Time-Warner now for something that a former version of one of its many subsidiaries did decades ago is grossly immoral. The justice system you people have is hopelessly flawed if this is allowed to happen.
Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster signed the deal in good faith, and were compensated to the agreed amount. Can you tell me what kind of a world we live in where anyone can be punished for LIVING UP TO THEIR END OF THE BARGAIN???
March 28th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
>“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.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
The trademark issue would also be significant, but doesn’t eliminate the copyright issue, since all Superman comics are derivative works of Action #1, which means that they would have to license the intellectual property.
As for the “they signed the rights away” argument, yes, they did. And that is why they were ineligible to get any compensation until 2000 when they were legally allowed to reclaim the rights.
Personally, I don’t think that either of their estates should be able to reclaim the rights, but I also don’t think DC should hold them. It’s ludicrous that Superman isn’t in the public domain yet.
But, in practical terms, this is a wholly legal ruling, and vindicating the families is not sensible. They had legal claim to an incredibly valuable property and staked it.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Geez…is this website owned by Time-Warner or something?
March 28th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Superman
Created by Siegel and Shuster
Raised by DC
Killed by the Siegels
March 28th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
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.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Phil is correct. This isn’t about the original deal and whether or not it was fair, but about the copyright (finally!) lapsing back to the creators (or their heirs) after expiration.
People would rather DC simply be able to exploit the property for eternity? I’ve never seen such hysterically unabashed love for large corporations as in this thread. Apparently folks would rather see ANYONE ELSE get rich, so long as their last name isn’t Seigel or Shuster.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
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.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
For those of you who complain about the change of the law — if it wasn’t for that change in the law, yes, the Siegels wouldn’t own it, but Time Warner wouldn’t either. The copyright would have expired.
Superman has not “been killed”, hasn’t been stopped at all. Barring some other agreement or some challenge to this ruling, they will have to pay some for the rights… but Time Warner makes a lot of money on things that they pay for the rights on.
And as for DC protecting their legacy — they had Superboy being a mass murderer. Hard to see that as great legacy protection.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
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?
March 28th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
for the people arguing “what do you care if DC has to pay some checks”
here’s why I care:
more royalties = less profits
less profits = less money to invest in future development - including *creators*
less profits = less risk taking (bye bye Manhunter, Jonah Hex and other properties that don’t sell well)
So it’s ok to take money from current creators to pay the *children* of past creators.
Or how about the alternative :
DC passes the cost of paying the Siegels on to us. (they’re certainly not going to just “eat” the losses). So increased comic prices force more people out of the hobby. Less money for current creators to pay the *child* of a creator.
I’m all for creators getting paid..but their kids.. c’mon. Let’s stop letting people get rich off something someone else did, and make them come up with their own ideas. That’s the same line of thinking that got us Paris Hilton.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
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.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Claiming that the money to pay the Siegels will come out of the pockets of current DC Comics creators, or fans, is one of the most hilariously convoluted examples of Internet bullshit I’ve come across.
Where do you people get this stuff? I might as well claim that NOT paying off the Siegels will cause the Earth to spiral into the Sun.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
You people make me vomit.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
“Punishing Time-Warner now for something that a former version of one of its many subsidiaries did decades ago is grossly immoral.”
But it’s perfectly moral for Time-Warner to profit from something that a former version of one of its many subsidiaries did decades ago?
March 28th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
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?
March 28th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
“But it’s perfectly moral for Time-Warner to profit from something that a former version of one of its many subsidiaries did decades ago?”
Yes, because they paid for it.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
“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?
March 28th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Can someone explain to me what that bit about Joe Shuster and 2013 is about? Shuster sold his half of Superman the same year Siegel did, so why is there a different copyright-reversion date?
March 28th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
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.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
I expect it will come from magical fairies, much like your completely fictional million-dollar per appearance figure.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
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
March 28th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
“Can someone explain to me what that bit about Joe Shuster and 2013 is about?”
It’s my understanding that it has to do with a past copyright extension setting the expiry date at 75 years.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
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.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
These anti-Siegel people on Newsarama must be Time Warner shills.
Without Siegel and Shuster there would have been no Superman. Without Siegel there would have been no Smallville.
Hey. if Time Warner raises the price of Superman Comics to $20 each…you might start reading some of the great CREATOR OWNED properties out there every week.
And the world would be better for it.
(they won’t raise the price over this though…just pointing out the obvious)
March 28th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Again: this isn’t about the fairness of the original deal. It’s about the court declaring that the original deal is now over.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Without S&S, there’s no Superman, sure. But A LOT of stuff came from DC regarding Supes that wasn’t done by S&S. A lot of the characterization, the fleshing out of the origin story, etc. Basically, a lot of details.
And really, people calling DC greedy…how can anyone deny that? What’s the point of a company? To plant flowers?
I’m not taking sides here. I don’t really care either way. But people trying to prove DC is greedy makes me laugh. It’s like a “well…duh” moment.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
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.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Now, I’m not going to pretend that I’m super sympathetic to the Siegals and to the Shusters, and I’m not gonna pretend that I care that DC will lose money over this. Neither really effects me. If the Siegals (and Shusters) deserve money, then what’s fair is fair. Give them the money.
Now, what I would really like to know is this:
1) How does this effect upcoming projects like Final Crisis, Trinity and the Superman books?
2) And basically, will DC have to stop producing Superman comic and other related products (movies, cartoons, etc)?
…and that’s pretty much it.
I’m not a lawyer, and really, not all that smart. So this legal mumbo jumbo is flying right over my noggin.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
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.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Posted by “John”:
Why they sold the rights they shouldnt get anything.
THEY SIGNED THE RIGHTS AWAY NOT WITH A GUN TO THEIR HEAD AND NOT ONCE BUT TWICE WHEN THEY SETTLED IN COURT IN 1948. ENOUGH ALREADY.
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.
This was the polite version of what I wanted to say.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
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.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Moral or not, that’s not what the legal system goes by solely. So the question of morality shouldn’t be brought into this. The question of how this situation effects the law should.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Thanks, Scott. Appreciate the explanation.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
“I expect it will come from magical fairies, much like your completely fictional million-dollar per appearance figure.”
So, you missed the part where I pointed out that that was just an example to illustrate my argument? As I see it, your response to my point was simply “lol”
March 28th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
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?
March 28th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Seigels family was just on Foxs and say they don’t care about Superman or the Fans They want the Money because they don’t feel like working the rest of their life
March 28th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
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.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
So What next Batman Owner family get lazy too and want to Steal something that they don’t Own Remember Just because your family made it doesn’t mean you own it after they die.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
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.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
I’d like to remind everyone that what the Siegels are doing is perfectly allowable under federal law, and one passed in 1976 at that. Essentially, artists who sell a copyright, or their heirs, have the right under the law to reclaim that copyright after a certain period of time. This exists to give creators a chance to negotiate fairer deals. Captialism works both ways; creators have a right to profit from their ideas, particularly when those ideas become a significant part of the culture.
Answering Jim’s questions in comment 55: For the immediate future, Not at all and No. Subsequent judgments will lay out exactly what DC owes the Siegels from its exploitation, past present and future, of its half of the copyright, but that will probably be a long time coming.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
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.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
This comments thread is so damn embarrassing.
March 29th, 2008 at 12:00 am
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.
March 29th, 2008 at 12:04 am
“Yes, because they paid for it.”
When DC paid for the Superman copyright, they did so with the understanding that they could only own it for the maximum possible period of 56 years (initial 28 years plus 28 years with renewal). Maybe I didn’t keep up with the news too much, but I’m not aware of any news items that said DC tried to give up ownership of Superman when the 56 year period expired in 1994. Why? Because the copyright law has changed in the meantime, so they could maintain the ownership for a longer period.
The same copyright law that made it possible for DC to own Superman beyond the initial ownership period also made it possible for the creators and their estate to reclaim Superman under certain circumstances. So those of you who are arguing that the copyright law is bogus for giving the copyright to the Siegels should also demand that DC should lose the rights to Superman as well.
March 29th, 2008 at 12:39 am
“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.
March 29th, 2008 at 12:40 am
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.
Are both true? Or is one? And if one, which? And if it’s the trademark, that means Time Warner could lose Superman, no?
March 29th, 2008 at 12:44 am
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…
March 29th, 2008 at 12:56 am
creators, better start reading those fine lines or your offsprings will be subjects of unhealthy forum feuds
March 29th, 2008 at 1:03 am
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.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:05 am
I guess Kirby’s family is next.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:14 am
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.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:16 am
“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.”
Well said.
I’m a bit amazed by the people who are slamming the Siegals for being greedy, but excusing Time Warner for their greed because it’s a corporation. It’s as if a corporate logo and stockholders excuse all negative actions with some people.
The Siegals had the legal right to sue, they inherited it with their father’s righteous indignation about how DC has treated their family over the years. Good for them on the victory, I hope they win more.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:23 am
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.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Congrats to Siegel estate on the ruling. I view all efforts to credit Siegel & Shuster for their creation as a positive thing.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:37 am
attention marvel…2013 buy Superman from the heirs and start the new era of Marvel
March 29th, 2008 at 1:47 am
“attention marvel…2013 buy Superman from the heirs and start the new era of Marvel”
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.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:47 am
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.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:58 am
One more time, as it seems to have been ignored.
“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!”
Thank you, Abhay.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:59 am
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.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:09 am
“Mazel Tov to the families! Maybe now Jerry and Joe can rest a bit easier in their graves.”
Yes, it’s always a good thing to hear about a court decision that will make DEAD PEOPLE feel better.
“Rest a bit easier in their graves.” What utter nonsense. If there’s one thing dead people don’t care about, it’s ANYTHING. They’re dead. That’s kind of what being dead means.
The Siegels surely have lawyers smart enough to tell them that demanding a punitively high royalty will merely mean that no one gets anything. The parties involved will find a point where everyone makes money and things will go on as normal. The spice must flow.
The hysteria about the end of the world, while amusing, is ridiculous.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:35 am
“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?
March 29th, 2008 at 2:39 am
THIS PRETTY MUCH MEANS THE END OF DC COMICS.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:54 am
“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.)
March 29th, 2008 at 3:09 am
To answer the Shuster question, it is because the law wouldn’t allow his estate to terminate the copyright for the same 19 years the Siegels got, because that was only available to the author and his or her heirs.
In 2013, the Superman copyright would normally expire, but Congress tacked on another 20 years in 1998, and this time, they said that estates COULD terminate this extra 20 years, not just the author and his/her heirs.
So in 2013, Shuster’s estate will terminate their half of the copyright, and will then own 1/2 of the copyright.
That is, if the courts continue to hold that Action Comics #1 was not work for hire, which I think it seems pretty clear that it is not.
March 29th, 2008 at 3:15 am
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.
March 29th, 2008 at 3:15 am
SKFK- In that case DC only lacks the trademark on the name “Captain Marvel”- they can use all other associated symbols and such.
March 29th, 2008 at 3:20 am
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.
March 29th, 2008 at 3:28 am
How greedy are the Siegels anyway. What they’re doing is killing the character that their father co-created. Yes, Siegel and Shuster should have been taken care of WHEN THEY WERE ALIVE. They’re not. Why should their kids be profiting off of their deceased parents?
I’d understand if the Siegels were destitute, that DC would want to “look out for” the families of those who gave them their best characters, even though it’s not their responsibility. But this? Is ridiculous. Almost as stupid as claiming ownership of Superboy, which was derived from the already-copyrighted Superman character.
March 29th, 2008 at 3:35 am
“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.
March 29th, 2008 at 4:37 am
All you folks whining about how this money is going to Siegel’s kids — yes, he has a kid who is a benefactor in this. But he also has a widow who is still alive, and she’s part of this as well. The woman that Jerry tried to look after financially, the woman who looked after Jerry when he was ill.
And no, “Kingdom”, DC’s profits are not what flow into the pockets of their freelancers, nor do they go to the pockets of the fans. In 2007, Time Warner made a pretax profit of $6.5 billion.
March 29th, 2008 at 4:41 am
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).
March 29th, 2008 at 6:40 am
I like superman.
thats it.
March 29th, 2008 at 6:42 am
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.
March 29th, 2008 at 8:38 am
I took time to read all these comments and I have followed this dispute on and off for awhile. And I have to say that this was an incredibly poor ruling. I believe an individuals rights are more important than the rights of a corporation, gov’t, etc… but I don’t believe that anyones rights are being violated here.
This is just another example of the problem that infest our country: people want a free ride: they want to profit off something that wasn’t theirs to begin with. Protecting a relatives legacy, estate, etc.. for the sake of respect for the creation is one thing but to do it for personal profit is another.
If D.C. Comics / Time Warner was doing something to the character that was damaging to the creation, I could maybe see their point. For example, if Superman suddenly started showing up in comicbooks telling children to do drugs or endorsing an certain religion and telling you to hate another type of religion. As someone who has been a reader for over 30 years, I think they(D.C.) have done nothing but good things for the character and have promoted the character as a positive role model. A creation to be proud of.
I don’t think for one minute that any one of the creators families deserve a dime for work that they didn’t do or a character they didn’t create. If thats the case, my grandfather designed and help manufacture several of the local fire companys fire trucks. Does that mean, sometime down the road, I get to drive them or own them? Or if they are used to save someones business, should I recieve something for my grandfathers part in creating such a sucessful machine? Maybe they will give 30% of next time I’m in their store! Sounds silly but then so is this.
And how do I know my grandfather was properly compensated for his efforts? He wasn’t a rich man by any means. Was he not as much of a creator as someone that draws or writes a comicbook? Could you imagine if you heard about me bringing a lawsuit in a case like this? People would think I was a complete dumb ass.
Of course, some people say that Supermans creators were taken advantage of at their young age. Well let me say, when I was 16 I sign-up for the U.S. Army and was on Active Duty by the age of 17. And everyone I knew felt I was old enough to defend my country and to be a responsible adult. Sorry, but if I would have made poor decisions when I was in the Army and was dishonorably discarged, I would have to accept and live with those decisions for the rest of my life. Maybe the Army should pay me now because I wasn’t compensated enough for putting my life on the line when I was in! What is the price tag for that? I’m sure my life was worth more than $600 a month and $50,000 to my mother if I was killed!
I don’t deny that they made a mistake giving up their rights. But thats just it, they made a mistake. That is life, we all do it. And I know this will get me blasted but I don’t feel all that sorry for people that make a mistake that young in life and then never find financial security for the REST OF THEIR LIVES. 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. I’m curious how much their families would care if they were both rich when they died? Or would they care if they created one of the 100’s of other characters in comicbooks back then that haven’t seen print in 50 years? What if the character of Superman was caught up in lawsuits because peoples kids decided to immitate him and jump off their houses? I bet they won’t be so quick to want a part of him then.
No, all they want is MONEY that is not theirs.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:01 am
God, Most of you make me ashamed of being an American. You are complete corporate tools.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:03 am
i really don’t know what to say. to be honest i’m not happy because i’m worried that we might lose superman forever. i know. selfish. but can’t help it. that’s just the way im feeling at the moment.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:21 am
We better not be ROBBED of Superman!
March 29th, 2008 at 9:30 am
i was just thinking, could this be the problems about DC that Joe Q was recently referring to? i know. how could he have known, right? but the thought just occured and i was wondering if any others were thinking around the same lines?
March 29th, 2008 at 9:33 am
“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?
March 29th, 2008 at 10:37 am
I’ve deleted a few comments. Let’s keep things at least relatively civil, with a limited amount of profanity and name-calling.
March 29th, 2008 at 11:00 am
All this tells me is that Superman should have been in the public domain a while ago. Superman belongs to the people!
March 29th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Yes, “Kingdom”, stockholders expect profits… but that’s not just true after the ruling, it was true before the ruling as well. Not only that, they want as much profit as possible. Which means that if Time Warner believed that cutting back creator pay or raising cover prices would have increased profits, -they would’ve done it already-.
And for those who say that this is a poor ruling — do you know what he law is? The law is that if the appropriate person or persons apply for copyright reversion at the appropriate time, they get it. A non-poor ruling would’ve done what, exactly? Ignore the law? I’m not saying that there wasn’t some case to be made from the specific details of the case, and I expect the TW lawyers worked hard to make it — but your arguments against that ruling aren’t even based on that, they’re arguments against a law that’s hardly new, and a law that without which, Time Warner would’ve already lost the copyright anyway.
And if you think that the creators family don’t deserve one dime for work they didn’t do on a character they didn’t create, then why do you think that all those people who own Time Warner stock -do- deserve that dime?
March 29th, 2008 at 11:54 am
The Morons at the bendis boards are loving this:
http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=146414
March 29th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
The Siegel family and Joe Shuster’s estate are exercising rights granted to them by Congress - our elected representatives - when it decided to amend the copyright act by extending the length of time that creators are entitled to protection for their work.
I expect Time/Warner to take full advantage of the additional years of copyright protection afforded to it under the changes in the law and would be shocked if it were to ever say that it is giving up those rights and letting Superman enter the public domain because the copyright protection it bargained for in the original deal with Siegel and Shuster has expired.
I have no problem with either side exercising their rights under the law, because that, my friends, is the American Way
March 29th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
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.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Hey, I was told once I was related to Shakespeare, think I can get some money for Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet? Perhaps relatives of Da vinci and get some coin for those paintings.
They have been paid multiple times its getting ridiculous they keep going back to court. The guys who were paid to design the empire state building didn’t get a lot of money, but that doesn’t mean their great grand kids should own half the building.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
“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.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
The Siegels will soon be as rich as the heirs of Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Awesome, the outcome of this is in 2013 - ZOD WINS!!! Or Luthor. Anyway, get cha black armbands ready…
March 29th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
A quick summary is as follows: 2 young guys shop around their concept of a science hero adventure concept in the hopes of turning it into a newspaper strip. EVERYONE turns it down except for National Publications - who tweek it and turn it into a comic book character instead. The company pays the 2 boys for the character, which isn’t a whole lot - but for a strip that everybody turned down, being put out in a new & questionable medium at best - it’s not a bad deal. Chances are, maybe they’ll get a few strips out of it at best - which will probably be forgotten in less than 5 years.
Somehow, this new character in this new medium - takes off. Bigger success starts when the company brings the character into other mediums such as newspaper strips, radio, movie serials & cartoons and radio dramas. Other writers, artists, editors - add their 2 cents input to the character - and he develops into something very different than the character that appeared straining to hold a car up on his 1st cover.
In my mind - it all comes down to this … they signed a contract. That’s it, nothing more. People should honour their commitments.
That’s it.
Everything else being said, one interesting thing that hasn’t really been brought up - is how derivative the character is of other characters. The early Superman has elements of Doc Savage, Popeye, Moses, Hercules and a whole bunch of others. I’m still amazed that the Philip Wylie estate didn’t sue them for blatantly ripping off his Gladiator character ( so obvious in fact that in “Young All-Stars” - their Supes replacement character was lifted right from that book.
March 29th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
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.
March 29th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
OH NOES! I MUST HAS MY SUPERMANS! IF I NOE HAS MY SUPERMANS I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE WHITE WEE-WEE AT NITE!!
IF THEYS BAD SIEG-ELS TAKES MY SUPEMRMANS AWAYS FROM ALL-GOOD AND MIGHTY AND WEALTHY DC COMICKS WHAT THEN? WHAT THEN?
I GO MAKE WHITE WEE-WEE NOW WHILE I STILL HAS MY SUPERMANS!
March 29th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
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.
March 29th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
“It’s easy for some people to make big corporations the ‘bad guy.’ What exactly did DC do wrong here?”
Perhaps it’s because we’re dealing with superhero comics that there’s such a strong desire to cast “good guys” and “bad guys.” However, it oversimplifies a decades-long dispute, does a disservice to both sides and, frankly, seems kind of silly.
The Siegels aren’t “bad guys” for pursuing the remedies made available to them through U.S. copyright law. And Time-Warner isn’t “evil” for not wanting to relinquish its claim to Superman. They’re plaintiffs and defendants in a prolonged legal battle that, in all likelihood, will not affect comics readers in the slightest.
March 29th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
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.
March 29th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
you’re telling me that if Congress passed a law that allowed you to get back ownership of something your parents or grandparents created(and that you know they regretted all of their lives signing it away), that you wouldn’t take a shot at this opportunity in the name of your family and the potential financial stability it would bring to your family?
Many of you clearly have different standards than I.
March 29th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
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.
March 29th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
The amount of hostility I’m seeing here directed by comics fans against comics creators and their families is breath-taking.