The Joe Simon Captain America opinion referenced toward the end is here:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/310/310.F3d.280.02-7221.html

It’s actually rather interesting, as it involves an attempt to retroactively recharacterize Captain America as work-for-hire in order to circumvent the termination right.

The New York Times report of the subsequent settlement is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/30/business/media/30MARV.html

@Simon: Yep, in the next post. A partial answer is in the second paragraph here–
http://blog.newsarama.com/2008/04/01/copyright-trademark-and-superman/

I wish they would just take the payoff and go away. You know it’s all about money anyway. It annoys me that my monthly Superman purchases could be affected by all this. I know that probably won’t be a popular opinion but it’s mine.

I wonder if this is why they killed Earth-2 Superman in such a grisly way. It didn’t serve the story at all( The first hero stripped of his powers and beaten to death? Thats horrific!) and to me, seemed an awkward way to deal with him. Maybe DC was trying to clear the deck.

I wish they would just settle this…this court case seems to have raised more potential problems than it solved.

The Seigels deserve the rights….yes…DC made Superman what he is…yes…get along or I’ll send you both to your rooms.

No Marvel Superman…c’mon

This reminds me of the brouhaha over Thunderball, where a producer had the right to that story only, and could remake it ad infinitum (Never Say Never Again).

@Allen -

I was thinking the same thing just yesterday. The Earth-2 Superman is retroactively considered the ‘Action Comics #1′ Superman by DC. But it just seemed pointless how he was killed off. Similarly to Superboy…also in legal dispute by the Siegels.

Now, this has nothing to do with my opinion on whether or not they deserve any royalties. The law is the law, and anyone who can exploit it will.

Kevin T. Brown -

How dare the families care about asserting ownership to the property that will get them the most money. They should care more about making 30-plus year old comic fans happy than getting some money back from the company that royally screwed their fathers for decades and put a dent in their potential legacy.

Yeah…okay.

I am extremely worried about DC losing Superman and Marvel/Disney getting their hands on the most popular comic book character in the world. If this happened I wish DC got Wolverine, Spider-Man, and Storm!!!

…entirely within their right in doing it… sheesh

“I’m really not liking these people. They obviously don’t care about the character and are ruining or at least effecting in a BAD way the Superman mythos. I hope they get screwed. It’s just another good thing going down the toilet. ”

Awww, is he worried that he won’t be able to read his Superman?
You ‘fans’ disgust me. Selfish, fanboy-entitlement of a fictional character over long-delayed justice. Sometimes I just want to punch the whole of ‘fandom’ in it’s collective head.

While I don’t think that Marvel buying Superman is a realistic option, I’ll tell you what is: Todd McFarlane buying Superman. He’s been outspoken on the subject, has proven he’s willing to spend huge sums of money on flights of fancy, and he’s just ballsy/crazy enough to want to take on the Time-Warner machine. Not to mention that having Superman appear in Spawn would give the latter a huge boost.

Man, I hope he doesn’t read this….

“Awww, is he worried that he won’t be able to read his Superman?
You ‘fans’ disgust me. Selfish, fanboy-entitlement of a fictional character over long-delayed justice. Sometimes I just want to punch the whole of ‘fandom’ in it’s collective head.”

This kind of arrogant, self-righteous attitude isn’t helping. Instead of stating your desire for violence just because someone dares to have an opinion different from yours, Darrell, how about you offer something that’s actually constructive to the discussion instead? Because right now, you’re pretty disgusting yourself.

Dude, Darrell saying you want to punch “the whole of ‘fandom’ in it’s collective head.” only dilutes your argument. I only say because you’re point is valid. DC has profited over this lucrative character (in it’s various form) for decades with minimal payment to the Seigels. Even if our precious monthlys are impacted (and it won’t be much, I garantee) the Seigels are still due a fair reprensentation of those profits and what should’ve been done in the first place! It’s poor form on DC’s part that they seem so intent on fighting this rather than proposing SOME form of settlement. Hell, if they’d had more intentions to do the right, thing there probably wouldn’t be a “Superboy” case.
I’m not saying the family deserves a flat out victory but hell, all the money spent on the litigation could have went to the Seigels- Considering Seigel didn’t die with this better resolved, it’s just SAD and DC needs to be the bigger man and pay something fair.

“How would you like it if the president took away your right to free speech you would be piss right well the siegels are taking away our freedom to read Superman comics.”

If only the Founders had included the Right to Read Superman in the Bill of Rights! Curse you, Thomas Jefferson!

“How dare the families care about asserting ownership to the property that will get them the most money. They should care more about making 30-plus year old comic fans happy than getting some money back from the company that royally screwed their fathers for decades and put a dent in their potential legacy.”

Let them get their money, I don’t care. In the end they’ll settle and it’ll over & done with. But let’s not make this about them wanting to gain control of Superman, blah blah blah. It’s not.

They want their green. Period. And selling the copyright will make them LESS money than negotiating with Warner for an arbitrated amount. Better for them to hold on to it and collect $$$ for the rest of their lives.

This belief that DC can get anything from Marvel is false. Only Captain America was created outside of Marvel. All other major properties are in house.

So no,DC cannot tweak Marvel back and try and get their properties.

Come on, there’s very little chance Marvel will get Superman.

@Supremeo: I am fully aware–and have noted elsewhere–that many modern day Marvel characters were created as work-for-hire. But as the Captain America case suggests, the roots of some of these characters are more tangled than they might seem on the surface. Golden age originals, Atlas precursors, pre-Marvel Universe sketches and pitches, characters created by freelancers per contracts that don’t follow contemporary norms–a savvy lawyer could make hay with stuff like this.

And the aim wouldn’t necessarily be to win in court. Just creating an expensive PR nightmare capable of making potential licensors nervous for a few years would be a sufficient goal should DC feel compelled to go nuclear.

@37 & 39: In addition, the original suit and S-shield registered have been part of DC’s registered trademarks since at least the early 1940s.

Just another example of something that could have been avoided if they had taken care of the creators properly years ago. After 20 years of creator rights issues on this property, between either the Siegels or the Shusters, I wonder what the legal bill comes out to be in today’s dollars versus a cash settlement in 1986…or a modest sales percentage (on just the comics) in perpetuity.

“In Europe (continental Europe, at least) and Japan the creators ALWAYS have at least part of the rights for their creations. And guess what? Comics there outsell US comics!”

There is no correlation between those two statements. comics sell better in other countries because more people read, period, and comics are not ghettoized as children’s entertainment, or a stepping stone to illiteracy as they are here. They’re not buying comics because they admire the equitable arrangement between creator and publisher.

“There is no reason DC would stop publishing Superman just because the Siegels have part of the character rights.”

There are plenty of potential reasons. Most of them are based on spite (if they don’t publish anything the Siegels won’t make any money) or fear (anything they do might make the character more valuable and inspire the estate to go for a bigger piece of the pie) and none of them are very good for the bottom line, but they are valid business choices.

“There are LOADS of Vertigo books were the authors have far more rights than that and yet DC still publishes them.”

And one potential issue moving forward is big companies like TW might not want to place themselves inpositions where they co-own any properties to prevent anything like this ever coming CLOSE to happening again.

If this were solely a “recognition” issue, it would already be over. Everybody (that matters)knows that Siegel and Schuster created Superman, and they get full credit in every use, comics cartoons, film what have you. This is a “money” issue. They feel the amount of money made by Jerry and Joe off of Superman over the years was not enough. From a moral or emotional point of view, they may well be right. But Jerry and Joe were not “tricked” out of the rights like the Inidians on Manhattan Island. They simply regretted their decision later. A perfectly reasonable position, but not always a legally actionable one. Bob Kane and William Marston both saw that Jerry and Joe were short-sighted, and negotiated far better deals.

This is not too different than Randy Quaid suing the producers of Brokeback Mountain for a larger payment. He didn’t expect the film to be such a big hit, so he did it at a lower than usual rate, it became a monster, he felt he deserved a bigger share of their profits. Right or wrong, he chose to go to court over it.

George Lucas, after seeing what a big hit Star Wars was, gave Alec Guinness an extra half a percent of the profit rights to the film, including all future licensing. He didn’t HAVE to do that legally, he CHOSE to as a thank you.

After DECADES of lawsuits, the Siegel estate finally found a lawyer who found an angle that made progress. And Warner will have to settle, because the Siegels have already said they will not stop until they get back all the rights.

It must end, or it will never stop.

Is “Big Blue Boy Scout” trademarked? A whole book of Supes helping old ladies across the street and making the Sentry look like a douche.

I’m of the opinion that this will just ruin the industry, opening a pandora’s box for other properties. Where do we stop, do we stop when all the big bad corporations are out of business??? Let’s destroy everything, that’s the attitude of a some posters on this blog. Let’s smack fandoms heads together, right?! You know we make a big deal that Mr. Siegel got $130 but let’s put things in perspective, by todays standards $130 is nothing so we tend to be appalled when we hear this, but in the year of 1939 $130 was worth a whole lot more. Greed is greed no matter how you sugar coat it. Some could make a case for corporate greed but who’d pay the salaries of the writers and artists who want to “smack fandoms heads together”???? No companies, no work, no comic books, no comic movies, no money for anyone. Is that what you all want?

“They want their green. Period. And selling the copyright will make them LESS money than negotiating with Warner for an arbitrated amount. Better for them to hold on to it and collect $$$ for the rest of their lives. ”

So WHAT is they want their green? Why is that inherently wrong? Didn’t DC want their green back in the day when they used the existing laws and position of superior bargaining powers to screw the hell out of Seigel and Shuster? What sense does it make for them to try to use the existing laws and their legal resources to push for the least valuable claim? Seriously, why would they do that? To help a bunch of overgrown nerds get their weekly Superman fix? They should base their claims not on their needs or the best deal to secure their financial needs but rather on your geek needs?

“There is no correlation between those two statements. comics sell better in other countries because more people read, period, and comics are not ghettoized as children’s entertainment, or a stepping stone to illiteracy as they are here. They’re not buying comics because they admire the equitable arrangement between creator and publisher.”

That’s DEFINITELY not what I meant. What I DO mean is that it’s commercially viable to publish comics where the creators own the properties and the publishers can STILL make lots of money out of it.

“There are plenty of potential reasons. Most of them are based on spite (if they don’t publish anything the Siegels won’t make any money) or fear (anything they do might make the character more valuable and inspire the estate to go for a bigger piece of the pie) and none of them are very good for the bottom line, but they are valid business choices.”

Not really, because that way they would lose their trademarks, which is all they will have when the Shuster state gets ITS piece of the pie. And then Warner loses everything! Superman might well get licensed to Marvel (or any other publisher) and this time DC won’t be able to say anything…

“And one potential issue moving forward is big companies like TW might not want to place themselves inpositions where they co-own any properties to prevent anything like this ever coming CLOSE to happening again.”

They have been doing so for a long time now, don’t worry.

“After DECADES of lawsuits, the Siegel estate finally found a lawyer who found an angle that made progress. And Warner will have to settle, because the Siegels have already said they will not stop until they get back all the rights.”

That’s not an “angle”! Read the darn thing! The progressive copyright extensions have allowed the corporations to keep its intellectual property on their hands for much longer than at the time of Superman creation. Or else it would be on Public Domain i.e. belong to ALL of us by now.

BUT to make up for it, the law has allowed the original creators to get their creations back after the original copyright duration expired. That is, instead of Warner keeping Superman away from us (i.e. public domain), it’s the Siegels.

And frankly, they deserve it more than Warner.

“It must end, or it will never stop.”

And that is a bad thing?

Best,
Hunter (Pedro Bouça)

Jeff as I asked before if DC Comics just changed Superman to the Superman Blue look suit and powers could they not just say that this Superman is completely different from the Siegel’s Superman and get around the lawsuit that way? Also couldn’t DC Comics have just as strong of a case by saying the Superman the Siegel’s made died in Infinite Crisis as well as their Lois Lane? Because that is what happened.

“Also couldn’t DC Comics have just as strong of a case by saying the Superman the Siegel’s made died in Infinite Crisis as well as their Lois Lane?”

No, because what copyright protects is not the continuity of a story. It gives the creator control over derivative work. If I were to create a series called Superiorguy, last survivor of the planet Fred, who landed in Arkansas, and became a reporter on the Daily Earth, I’d still be setting myself up for a righteous lawsuit because my tale is clearly built copying elements of the Superman story. All the version of Superman that DC has put out are based at heart on the work in Action 1.

Here’s how I look at this clusterf*&k. Siegel & Shuster both got paid $130 (about 1800 in today’s dollars) not a lot mind you but for one issue not too bad (in my opinion). And DC paid them $75,000 in the 1940s and from what I’ve read they paid them again later down the line.

But the fact of the matter is that both of them have passed away, and I for one don’t think that the Siegel’s should be able to hold DC at gunpoint over this. I keep hoping to read a judge order DC to pay BOTH estates a certain amount and a certain percentage of profits until Mrs. Siegel passes away and then saying to the Siegel’s ‘NO MORE. THIS IS THE LAST TIME.’ I think it’s crap the fact they keep suing DC. Enough is enough.

The original, lower-powered, take-no-prisoners Superman from Action #1 would be a PERFECT fit for today’s Marvel. Stick him in New Avengers. Done.

Another thing that will ultimately delay things is the definition of “profits”. We’ve all heard of what is referred to as Hollywood Accounting. Major motion pictures rarely make official profits because a great deal of the money comes in the form of “fees” that the studio charges.

Here’s another thing to think on:

Geoff Johns currently writes several titles for DC, including Action Comics. How much of his salary from his exclusive deal with DC gets charged against the Superman account? The more you attribute to Superman, the less “profit” there is on the sales of the book.

How do you divide up the sales of Trinity or Justice League of America and decide which are profits from Superman?

I know comic sales are pittance compared to TV & Movie rights, which are what the Siegels are really after, but the same applies with things like JLU and the Justice League movie.

“It would be the same as DC incorporating Spider-Man into their universe.”

Yeah! Or Captain Marvel! Or Uncle Sam!

IF Marvel were to purchase the rights to Superman they would be wise in selling it back to DC (at a substantial profit, of course) to avoid a major backlash. The level of competition would greatly diminish with the deck stacked in Marvel’s favor and with the majority of sales shifting their way the question is “Where is the motivation for better stories?” Except for Batman, Marvel would have most of the major characters and series.

anyone have a link to the court decision?

I have a link to the opinion here:

http://uncivilsociety.org/2008/03/the-siegel-superman-decision.html

thud2000 is 100 percent correct. The original Superman would fit in the Marvel Universe.

If I were running Marvel, I would jump at the chance to do the orginal Superman. Even if he couldn’t have a title in his name or the current costume, every hardcore comic fan would immediately be interested in what Marvel would do with the character. And, considering the publicity Marvel would get for publishing the character, the casual fan would be drawn in as well.

Also, since they couldn’t use the current version of Superman, they’d have to “recreate him for the Marvel U.” I believe Millar has already expressed a more grown up take on the character.

Jeph Loeb doing a Hulk vs. Superman mini. Superman joining the Avengers. It’d be like printing money. No matter what you feel about the creators I suggested or even the character involved, you must admit it’d be like printing money.

i find it pointless to sell to anyone other than dc. the scenario i see is that superman is shopped around to different publishers. initially, the subject matter would be hot. everyone would take notice and debate whether or not adding superman to their stable would be a wise financial decision. whoever if the courts rule that superman is rightfully owned by the siegels but only under the terms of his initial appearance, other companies will see that this intellectual property, while famous in name and previous reputation, now is rather feeble since they can’t really do anything with it when lacking the characters, locations and other matters associated with the superman universe that we have come to know. siegels will in the end resell it back to dc/time warner for a price lower than what they could have gotten initially after the lawsuit was decided in their favor and/or the initial option to settle out of court. however, if the courts decide that superman in all his glory is open for migration to another company, than more than likely dc will go all out to buy the property back, or at least create a deal to continue using the character and other associated licenses. in my opinion though, without a worthy rival, other companies will slack. whether marvel purchases superman or not, just the idea of superman leaving dc, will make other companies perhaps slack in their work. marvel will no longer worry about rivalry and perhaps the recent development of well-written comics will end. if the siegels decide to shop superman around, i hope people will see beyond the intellectual property and see the history and legacy he had at dc and how that affects all around us. to have him leave dc and be reinterpreted in a different environment is kind of a slap to the face of fans and all who recognizes the S and shield. hopefully in that scenario, other big publishers will have the decency to refuse the idea of purchasing superman and he would perhaps rightfully return to his only home at dc.

I can’t believe all the people with such sympathy for a giant multinational corporation. Truly twisted and sick.

I agree with Scott – it’s highly unlikely that fans will have anything to worry about.

DC (more properly it’s predecessor) made use of the negotiating power and other social power afforded it in the 1930s to negotiate the initial deal for $130. Now the Siegels are taking advantage of the powers that current society offers them in negotiation.

DC did not do this solely for the altruistic belief in bringing good stories into the world. It did this for the money, too. When it comes down to it, today’s DC’s lawyers aren’t fighting for their right to bring us stories, they’re fighting to retain their profits. Those fans that believe that this will cause the ruin and downfall of their character really shouldn’t worry. If DC wins, no problem. If DC loses, it would be a dumb business move to destroy their flagship character rather than settle or share or whatever to ensure that publication goes off without a hitch. As long as DC is around, I suspect they’ll do what it takes to happily take our cash for Superman stories.

I find myself very torn with this whole scenario. While I’m not particularily fond of large multinational corporations, I find myself siding with DC on this one. Seigel and Shuster where not screwed out of the rights for Superman, they sold them. In 1937/38, they where so desperate to publish the character, they took the best deal they could get. A deal that, in retrospect was not a very good one, but the fact that the chracter did well and DC/National made a ton of money is inconsequential to the fact that they sold the character.

The fact that Seigel and Shuster ended up destitute later in life is also less because of DC and more to do with Seigel and Shuster. An opinion that may be harsh, but every person is responsible to look after themselves. While I also appreciate that it was a dick move to fire the creators of a character and remove any recognition to said creators role in your best selling chracter as DC did for years, so is trying to renage on a deal after you made it, just because you realize later that you made a bad deal, (they got their money, but again lacked the foresight to consider the consequences). If they didn’t like the terms of the original deal, then they shouldn’t have made it. They should have held it back until they could publish it properly if they felt that strongly about the chracter, but ultimately they didn’t and DC nursed the chracter into becoming today’s cultural icon.

Now that the law has given the creators, or in this case, their heirs, the ability to regain their copyrights in certain circumstances… fine, the Seigels and soon, the Shuster estate are well within their rights to do that. Should they have that right….i’m not so sure. I just don’t see this as a victory for creator’s rights, because Seigel and Shuster sold their rights several times over. And I really don’t see this as justice.
This has nothing to do with me not getting my Superman comics, because frankly I don’t buy them. But the Seigels getting the copyright back to Action #1 bothers me. Its just that I don’t think its right for the estate of a writer/artist to be able to take back a story that they SOLD to a company because they don’t feel they got enough of the profits off of that story. Nothing about this lawsuit says justice to me, its more like vengence, and I can’t really get into that.

It would be interesting though to see what kind of profits Superman actually generates, because i don’t think its as much as some on here may think. If you look at the DC’s output the past 20 years, Superman is NOT their cash cow…Batman is. Sure, Superman makes them money, but financialy, he’s not the cornerstone that he is portrayed as in the comics.

“I think this court ruling is bunk.”

What part of “DC’s ownership of the Superman copyright expired and reverted back to the creators’ estates” do you not understand? This ruling is in accordance with COPYRIGHT LAW. Or are you one of those people who thinks the law should be disregarded just to fit your sense of personal entitlement?

I would say that Namor would be a similar case, but there are two things to consider:

1 – Does Bill Everett has heirs?

2 – Is it worth the hassle? I mean, Namor is a very minor Marvel character nowadays. Any potential heir would have to face a costly lawsuit to get what? The profits of everything done with the character since the mid-90s (which is exactly two low-selling mini-series) and the rights to publish a character that hasn’t had much sucess lately.

Best,
Hunter (Pedro Bouça)

“1. Weren’t the copyright laws in 1938 desinged for authors and publishers of books?”

Hardly just them. The 1909 copyright law specifically includes books, periodicals, lectures, sermons, addresses, dramatic compositions, musical compositions, maps, models or designs for works of art, reproductions of a work of art, drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character, photographs, prints, and pictorial illustrations (motion pictures would be added in 1912.)

“Why doesn’t the law take in to account the intent behind the original sale?”

The laws that extend copyright are clearly dealing with matters that inherently go beyond the intent of the original sale; it is the creation of new rights (exclusive copyrights beyond the 56th year), and thus the law must decide who it is bestowing this generous gift upon.

Those Siegels are a drag, man.

Marvels attempt to buy DC

In the mid-1970s, Marvel was affected by a decline of the newsstand distribution network. Sales remained high for large sellers, but cult hits such as Howard the Duck were the victims of the distribution problems, with some titles reporting low sales when in fact they were being resold at a later date in the first specialty comic book stores. An attempt by Marvel to buy DC was frustrated by their refusal to sell their entire library of characters (DC wanted to retain control of Superman and Batman, and the company was sold to Warner instead).

http://coloradocomics.com/Marvel-Comics.htm

I am thinking if Marvel gets the rights to Superman.
A Marvel/DC merger will soon follow.
This would give Marvel a bargaining chip to get a deal they have been wanting for a long time.

This is what I think will happen
The Siegels and Shusters will sell or license Superman to Marvel Entertainment.

Marvel will want the superman character because of the license fees they could charge Time Warner/DC if they wanted to continue using Superman in the DC universe.
Most of Marvel’s income is derived from licensing of their characters.
They could not use Superman in the Marvel universe because Superman would not come with all his supporting characters, heat vision, flying abilities as well as much of his rich history.

Also if Marvel got the Superman character it would hurt their competition and it would be safe to assume the byproduct would be an increase in Marvel’s revenue.

Warner Brothers is extremely attached to Superman because of the money the Superman character generates and since Time Warner will not want a court battle with Marvel Entertainment or humiliate themselves by having to pay license fees to their competitor for the use of their own iconic charter member superman they will just acquire Marvel Entertainment.

Marvel will agree to this if Time Warner agrees to keep Marvel comics and DC comics separate divisions for a specific amount of time, lets say 5 to 10 years.
This way everyone is happy. And the money keeps flowing
in.

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe/2009-01/msg00056.html

That sounds interesting. Does it have anything to do with the so called money accounts?