On March 1, 1938, Detective Comics paid Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster one hundred and thirty dollars, reflecting their standard page rate, for the Superman story in Action Comics #1. Enclosed with the check: a contract assigning the company “exclusive right[s]” to Superman “to have and hold forever.” Not only did Siegel and Shuster sign the contract, but in September of that same year they signed an employment agreement acknowledging that the company owned Superman. (10)
That we are now talking about Siegel’s family gaining co-ownership of Superman is something of a miracle. Time and again, Siegel’s fight for the rights to the character ended in bitter disappointment. In a 1948 settlement, Siegel and Shuster once again acknowledged that Detective Comics “owned all rights to Superman.” (16) In 1974, a federal appeals court affirmed a lower court ruling that when Siegel and Shuster transferred “all their rights” to Superman “forever,” they signed away the possibility of getting him back. (17)
How could a court today possibly bring Siegel’s claim back from the dead?
To understand what happened, it will help if we first identify exactly what rights the court says Siegel’s heirs now possess. Since other experts have provided useful summaries of the entire court opinion, here I want to boil it down even further to just the core rulings:
The Siegels’ copyright interest: The Siegel family has regained the copyright to the Superman material in Action Comics #1, effective April 16, 1999. (56, 72)
House ads: The house ads published prior to Action Comics #1 merely give DC Comics a copyright interest in “the image of a person of extraordinary strength who wears a black and white leotard and cape.” (40)
Work-for-hire: No part of the Superman material in Action Comics #1 can be carved out as work for hire. (41-48 )
International rights: The Siegel’s regained copyright interest only extends to domestic U.S. rights. It does not include any rights gained under foreign laws, including rights to international profits. (65-66)
Accounting for profits: DC must account to the Siegels, as co-owners, for the profits from Superman material derived from Actions Comics #1–with the exception of derivative works prepared before April 16, 1999. The court does not resolve the question of what, if anything, the Siegels should be paid for pre-termination derivative works that have in some way been altered since April 16, 1999. (66-68)
Trademark: The Siegels cannot share in profits purely attributable to Superman trademark rights. However, the court does not determine whether they are entitled to profits from mixed trademark uses that include elements of the Siegels’ copyrighted material. (66-68)
Superman movies and TV shows: The court does not resolve the issue of Superman profits generated by Warner Brothers Entertainment and Time Warner, Inc. (71) The court ruling calls for “a trial on whether to include the profits generated by DC Comics’ corporate sibling’s [sic] exploitation of the Superman copyright.” (72)
As we can see from the above, what happened with the judge’s ruling may have been miraculous, but it wasn’t simply a case of restoring all the rights that Siegel signed away. Why that’s the case–and what this means for creators today–will be the subject of my next post.
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:43 am
Where’s Joel Shuster in all this?
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:09 am
That was a great issue of Action Comics, pictured, but WHY is it pictured?
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:25 am
Martin, because the article is titled “The Miraculous Return of Jerry Siegel”, the comic features “the miraculous return of *Superman’s father*”.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:52 am
This was a damn good issue, although like most Superman stories at the time, the conclusion always featured some aliens eff-ing with Supes.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:44 am
is it true the judge is sleeping with jerry siegel family that why they get whatever they want
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:45 am
“In further news, Joel Shuster is still dead.”
I hope that answers your question, Dawn.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:57 am
So am I right in thinking that this ruling means that the Siegel family are entitled to half of any profits that DC made from the material published in Action Comics 1 since April 1999? If that’s the case does anyone have a ballpark figure of what that amount might be?
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:16 am
Well “Joel” Shuster might be living it large in Hawaii for all we know, but “Joe” Shuster who drew Superman, passed away years ago and leaves a nephew as an heir. And people whine when the NY Times gets name wrong…
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:16 am
@Scott–your question is one of the big ones. The Siegels are entitled to half the profits made from that material and anything derived from it. Yet what that precisely means has yet to be determined. The amount the Siegels get will depend on that determination.
@Dawn–I’ll be answering that question in a separate post.
Re the Action issue: it’s a great story, and since the case only involved Siegel it seemed an appropriate choice.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 am
Whoops, you’re right Marc. I hadn’t had enough coffee when I typed that. What’s your excuse, Dawn?
Just teasin’.
At any rate, I thought Shuster left no heirs, though there is whomever was executor of his estate… I’m sure Jeff will address that in another post.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 am
It appears to be the first step of a journey of a thousand paces, or something to that effect…
Just the comics book copyright royalties along should be a good chunk of change.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I have sales data that only goes back to March of 2001, so this will just be a very rough ballpark. Action Comics has sold an estimated 4,026,709 since March 2001 for gross sales of $10,706,752.16. That’s gross sales at the retailer level, profit would be at least half that if not lower. Superman sold 5,236,716 for a gross of $13,672,612.33. Superman/Batman has sold 4,661,052 for a gross of $14,044,651.28. Superman Confidential has sold 400,104 at a gross of $1,196,310.96. All-Star Superman has sold 997,171 for a gross of $2,981,541.29.
Total gross dollars since March 2001 is $42,601,868.02, but like I said profit is much lower (half is $21,300,934). This is a very rough estimate and numbers came from icv2.com and doesn’t even include all of the specials and miniseries that starred Superman or derivative works or the expenses associated with creating the comics.
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Thanks Marty and JT - duh me! Mind, talk about contrived
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:18 pm
//Whoops, you’re right Marc. I hadn’t had enough coffee when I typed that. What’s your excuse, Dawn? //
Drugs. It always boils down to the drugs.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I personally find this whole court ruling disturbing! So great, the Siegel estate gets tons of money–and retroactively, I might add–while comic fans have to suffer. Hey DC Comics, if appeals fail, then you should just use Superman to the expiration date; and then replace him with Captain Marvel! After that, I think Marvel, DC, Image, and Dark House should make a pact not to publish Superman after DC Comics’ rights expire. Let the Siegel estate publish Superman on their own, and see how profitable they are when they’ve pissed off nearly the entire comic fan community! If the Siegel estate doesn’t publish their own Superman, it just shows everyone what greedy S.O.B.’s the Siegel estate really is. I would really like to see DC Comics do a final “Death of Superman”–including all the related characters in this lawsuit–are killed and reduced to ash across the DC multiverse. From all this, I’m very impressed on how much a gentleman Stan Lee is and how he doesn’t do things like this to wreak comic books.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
“Comic fans have to suffer”??? How are you suffering from this ruling?
April 4th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
It figures that some Siegel/Shuster-basher would show up and spew self-serving nonsense. “We’re suffering because the Siegel estate legally got back the copyright! Hopw dare they exercise their legal rights? They’re being greedy and depriving us!”
The outrageous stupidity of the anti-Siegel crowd is baffling. And sadly, Kooster is only one sad example of such.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
“… while comic fans have to suffer.”
How have comic fans suffered because of the Siegels’ lawsuit?
April 4th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
@Kooster: Actually, Stan Lee did sue Marvel.
http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32677
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_April_28/ai_n13658262
Yes, this was a movie and TV case involving different issues, but it nonetheless demonstrates Lee’s own commitment to asserting his legal rights.
As for his comics creations, remember the work-for-hire exception to termination rights. Arguably everything that Stan Lee created he created in the course of his work as a Marvel employee. Given, IIRC, that he started work there as a teenager, I’m not sure there’s much if anything that he had developed beforehand or thought of himself as developing outside his work as a Marvel (or Atlas or Timely) employee.
As works made for hire, all his creations would legally be works of corporate authorship.
That’s just an off-the-cuff inference, though, so if anyone has relevant info to the contrary please feel free to fill in the gaps.
April 5th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Yes, I’m back again. I’d just like to apologize for my Hulk-like response, but I really don’t like all the legal battles going on with Superman and Superboy (as Dido indicated at last year’s Chicago WizardWorld “He who must not be named.”).
However, I really would like DC Comics to try another “Death of Superman” storyline where Superman dies for good. With the multiverse, you really don’t have kill the New Earth Superman. Give the project to someone like Geoff Johns, or even try to lure Brian Bendis away from Marvel to do it. (And if you actually got Bendis to work for DC Comics, maybe he could help to write an incredible Superman script.)
April 7th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Or you could just read “Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow?” and get a good story.