The Superman case is not the only legal action the Siegels have undertaken against DC. They are also suing for the rights to Superboy, relying on the same termination rights statute that led to their regaining the Superman material in Action Comics #1.
The Superboy case provides a potent illustration of how fragile a court victory can be. Two years ago, a court held that Superboy belonged to the Siegels. However, the case was subsequently reassigned to Judge Stephen G. Larson, the same judge who issued the recent Superman decision. In a controversial ruling last July, Judge Larson granted DC’s motion to reconsider the earlier decision, which meant that the previous decision to grant Superboy to the Siegels was no longer valid.
If the Siegels and DC do not settle, the Superboy trial is scheduled to take place after the Superman trial concludes. In this post, we’ll examine several key issues raised by the Superboy case — and how the Siegels’ regained rights in Superman could turn it upside down.
Work made for hire: In 1937 and again in September, 1938, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster signed employment agreements that also gave DC the right of first refusal in any new material developed outside the scope of their employment. In November 1938, Siegel proposed a Superboy series to Detective Comics. The company declined. Siegel tried again in 1940, this time submitting a “lengthy script,” but once his offer was refused. (4)
In his Superboy opinion, Judge Larson ruled that because Siegel created this material in conjunction with the right of first refusal provision in his previous contract, Siegel’s Superboy material was not work made for hire. This means, at least theoretically, that the Siegels might be able to exercise termination rights. (53)
The idea/expression dichotomy: After Siegel entered the Army in 1943, Detective Comics paid Shuster for drawing a Superboy story in More Fun Comics #101. The fact that Siegel proposed a Superboy character earlier, however, does not automatically mean that he has a copyright interest in this material. As Judge Larson observed, copyright does not apply to the idea of a work; it applies only to a concrete expression. Based on the information he had at hand, Judge Larson was unable to determine “[w]hether any of the copyrightable material in Siegel’s Superboy submissions was in fact later published.” (65)
Joint work: The Siegels argued that Superboy was entirely the creation of Jerry Siegel. However, the judge raised serious questions as to whether this was the case. (53-65) Even if we assume that the DC’s Superboy contained Siegel’s copyrighted material, there was substantial evidence that Superboy was a joint work created with Shuster, with Shuster drawing the Superboy pages either as Siegel’s co-creator or as an employee of Detective Comics. Either way, the most the Siegels could get would be a 50% co-ownership interest in the character.
Derivative work: All of the above could be irrelevant, however, if the judge ultimately concludes that Superboy is completely derivative of Superman, with no original copyrightable elements attributable to Siegel. According to DC, Superboy is wholly based on pre-existing elements; there is nothing distinct except the trivial difference in age. The Siegels counter that Superboy, while partially derivative of Superman, nonetheless has distinctly original elements sufficient for copyright protection. (66-72)
Back when Judge Larson issued his opinion, finding Superboy to be a trivial variation on Superman would have killed the Siegels’ claim. Because Superman was wholly owned by DC at the time, the company would have owned all of Superboy as well.
What next: The Superman ruling changes the game. If Superboy is wholly derivative of Superman, he is arguably co-owned by the Siegels, since they regained half the copyright interest in the Superman material in Action Comics #1. Thus DC’s previous arguments in the Superboy case may actually work against the company’s own interest. Whereas before the Superman ruling it benefited DC to claim that Superboy is completely derived from Superman, now DC’s own arguments provide a basis for finding that the Siegels by extension own half of Superboy.
Nonetheless, the Superman opinion also flips the Siegels’ arguments in the Superboy case. If the judge were to agree that Superboy is substantially distinct from Superman, applying the Siegels’ own arguments to recent Superman material could significantly lower their percentage of the profits. DC could argue that just as the Siegels contend Superboy is distinct from Superman, most if not all of the current Superman is new — after all, the character in Action #1 did not fly in space, live in alternate universes or turn electric blue.
Likewise recent Superboys: Action Comics #1 does not contain a youthful clone, nor does it envision a non-costumed teen who hangs around with Luthor and the nascent Justice League. Even if such characters are partially derived from Siegel’s work, the Siegels’ own arguments would seem to bolster the claim that a substantial portion of recent Superboy material is original to — and owned by — DC.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Not a lawyer, but wouldn’t determining that Superboy is not a wholly derivative work still leave open the claim that he is at least 50% owned by Siegel?
April 16th, 2008 at 11:24 am
@Jusarian: Yes, that claim would still be viable. The judge indicates that the Siegels will be at best co-owners of Superboy. In the context of the Superboy case this was actually a win for DC, since the Siegels had sought–and initially won–the entire copyright in the character.
If the Superman ruling holds and the Siegels retain their co-ownership interest in Superman, there’s a good chance DC would want the court to determine that current Superboy material contains relatively little of the original, so as to reduce the amount to be allocated to the Siegels.
That’s why the arguments are flipped. In the Superboy case, DC was trying to whittle down the Siegels’ potential interest by emphasizing how much Superboy was derived from Superman. The Siegels, conversely, argued that he was distinct, since the more he was based on Superman the less was original to Siegel. Now the Siegels want Superboy to be at least partially derived from Superman, because that would give Siegel by extension a partial interest in the character, regardless of whether DC used any of Siegel’s earlier Superboy material.
This isn’t the only place where previous arguments undermine present claims, a sign of just how complex this case has grown over the years. It’s also a good reason for both sides to settle.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
So… what’s the Shuster Family’s take on all this?
April 16th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
The Shuster family is in an interesting position. The key issue is the unresolved matter of whether and how Superboy is a joint work.
If the judge finds that Siegel created Superboy in collaboration with Shuster, DC would own the rights for now because Shuster has not, to my or apparently the court’s knowledge, made a termination filing. I haven’t done the math as to when they could file, but I imagine if the Superboy case goes in this direction the estate will take any available action.
If the judge determines that Shuster’s contribution was work for hire, then the Shuster estate can’t get the copyright back because Shuster never had it.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
This case is going to end in a settlement at some point. DC, the Siegel heirs and the Shuster estate need to put all the crap aside, debate and then agree on a fair settlement and move on.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:24 am
Page 19, footnote 3 of the opinion indicates that the Shusters have filed termination notices to reclaim the copyright in Superman.
Marc Toberoff, the Siegels’ counsel, also claims to represent the Shuster Estate in that termination as well …
http://www.portfolio.com/culture-lifestyle/culture-inc/arts/2007/09/17/Time-Warner-Superman-Suit
April 17th, 2008 at 2:28 am
y’know i’m not trying to be a jerk but i don’t get money for ANYTHING that ANY of my ancestors have done. don’t Siegel’s heirs already have a lot of money? but then again i’m a guy who doesn’t have money. i hope they just figure it out, people get what they deserve, and superman AND superboy can still be in DC Comics. it seems the Siegels want superman/boy for money… would they cease the publishing of his comic-books because of this?! that would be absurd.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:37 am
I gotta say, I really miss the latest version of Superboy
April 17th, 2008 at 2:42 am
“y’know i’m not trying to be a jerk but i don’t get money for ANYTHING that ANY of my ancestors have done. don’t Siegel’s heirs already have a lot of money?”
And this affects the fact that WB’s copyright on Superman expired and reverted back to the Siegel estate how, exactly?
The “they already have enough money” argument is meaningless because no matter what, the copyright reverted back to the estate. And WB has only themselves to blame because they were among those who pushed for the copyright law that gave them extended ownership back in 1976 in exchange for eventual copyright reversion back to the creators and/or their heirs. Had the 1976 copyright law never happened, the Superman copyright would have become public domain and WB could still get full profits off the trademarks. As it stands, now they have to share.
I don’t see how or why the Siegel estate shouldn’t have exercised their legal right to the Superma copyright by reclaiming it at the time of expiration.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:14 am
I think the argument isn’t so much that they already have money, but that they shouldn’t profit from the past toils of the dead.
I neither agree nor disagree with point, it just seems to me like that’s the point that is trying to be made.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:51 am
“I think the argument isn’t so much that they already have money, but that they shouldn’t profit from the past toils of the dead.”
Which is a fair point, but I’d say it’s just as fair to level at DC.
My position is that copyrights shouldn’t outlive creators. While I find the Superboy and Superman cases very important both for symbolic reasons and for the ramifications for other, still-living creators, I also think that, damn it, copyrights shouldn’t last for seventy years. Superman should belong to the world.
But that, of course, is outside the scope of this legal dispute; as the Supreme Court has already ruled current copyright terms constitutional, it’s up to the Legislative Branch to change them, not the Judicial. And as far as these cases are concerned, I’m pulling for the Siegel family, for the reasons I already mentioned: it’s too late to right the wrongs of the past, but Jerry deserves vindication, and living creators deserve the opportunity this precedent could provide.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Although Superboy (in his various incarnations) has had his own supporting cast, a distinct name and costume, etc., it seems obvious to me that the only aspects which are worth anything are those which are derivative of Superman.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:06 am
DC should have just BUY Superman, cancel off Superman’s patents, copyrights, and trademarks, make a new Superman and register new patents, copyrights, and trademarks right away!
April 17th, 2008 at 9:10 am
“Although Superboy (in his various incarnations) has had his own supporting cast, a distinct name and costume, etc., it seems obvious to me that the only aspects which are worth anything are those which are derivative of Superman.”
In the comics, maybe. I’m sure the CW and the producers of Smallville would beg to differ on the TV front, though.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Hey greeneclipse – uhm..he probably didn’t know the rights treverted, I certainly did it and it adds an etxra dimension to my understanding of the case. You should just make he knew that aspect and move on.
Condescending attidues just piss on forum like this and take the focus away from wher it should be.
Speaking of which- in the last blog fourm about the Seigel’s Action # 1 rights, does anyone know if they now have right to fully publish the limited version of the character with anoter publisher or was that just a possible theory?
April 17th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Hey greeneclipse – uhm..he probably didn’t know the rights reverted, I certainly did’nt and it adds an etxra dimension to my understanding of the case. You should just make sure he knew that aspect and move on.
Condescending attitude just piss on forums like this and take the focus away from where it should be.
Speaking of which- in the last blog fourm about the Seigel’s Action # 1 rights, does anyone know if they now have right to fully publish that limited version of the character with another publisher or was that just a possible theory?
April 17th, 2008 at 11:08 am
haha yeah, didn’t really know that Warner lost the rights to Superman and that they returned to the Siegels. i’ve tried to keep up with the story lately since i really love comics, but i didn’t know it was Warner Bros fault in the first place for losing the copyright/trademark/what-have-you. if that’s the case, i can see WHY there’s this big struggle/debate going on, but i just hope it’s settled quickly and smartly… i don’t think anybody wants superman to be taken away from DC Comics as far as stories and comic books are concerned.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Drew… Warner has not “lost the rights to Superman” at all. No offense, but try to keep up a little harder.
Jeff’s (numerous) blog entries have been really interesting stuff. Confusing at times — as the whole Superman/Superboy/Siegel case has been — but Jeff’s doing a helluva job of keeping us informed, and of analyzing all of this for us.
Anyhow, as Jeff has stated, the liklihood of DC losing Superman any time soon is pretty low. Not impossible, just low. I think it’s more likely DC/WB will have to pay the Siegels handsomely in a settlement, and/or perhaps even have to get a license from the family to publish Superman at some point.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Superboy was sold as “the adventures of Superman when he was a boy”. Which certainly makes Superboy derivative of Superman, I would think. As far as this case….this is just DC dragging it out….because they can. Stomping on the rights of the little man…..because they can. DC is like Lex Luthor…and Lexcorp. The villains of the piece.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Zenstrive, I don’t know enough to say for certain but I think your idea could be a viable one if DC/WB and the Siegels reach some kind of settlement.
I have no idea what a fair price for simply buying the Siegel family out would be, or if it would be prudent for them to pay such a price. Would it be more than they can reasonably profit from? Or could it open the door to more lawsuits over other characters? Who knows?
But… I’m guessing WB’s pockets are pretty deep, and they could pay a pretty penny to keep Superman “in the house” and make the Siegels go away quietly, happily and filthy rich.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Nice to know this is all about the money. The Siegels trying to claim Shuster had nothing to do with Superboy. Now they are teaming up?
April 17th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Okay, maybe someone can help me; but how extensive are the Siegels taking the Superman derivative argument? Does this apply to Powergirl, Supergirl, and the Superpets? In other words, does the Siegels co-ownership of Superman extend to any being or creature that was born on the planet Krypton? Just curious on how far the Siegels are taking their argument. I’m in the camp that hopes DC/WB and the Siegels can come to some out-of-court settlement.
Oh, and good catch, from ColonelLee about Superboy as that’s the tag line that was used in the Superboy Filmation cartoons.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Either way this works out…I just hope they resurrect Conner Kent, in some form. The character’s background had so much potential for future storylines. I don’t know if anyone else thinks so, but the Teen Titans’ comic has not been the same at all since Conner died. I understand that they re-booted it from the “One Year Later” storyline but as a whole Conner brought something to the group that made them more of a team.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Paying these people (Siegels) off have not worked in the past. They just keep coming back for more and more money. They need to finish this case once and for all. I would actually like to see them try to publish a Superman the way Siegel had created him. I know I would just love to see a stronger then average man from somewhere….
April 17th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
God is crying because of what the Siegel are doing they are doing sin here people
April 17th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
“God is crying because of what the Siegel are doing they are doing sin here people”
So doing what copyright law permits you to do is a sin now?
Wow. Now I’ve heard everything.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I think for some fans it is hard for them to believe that the creator families are fighting for a character that is considered not just a hero within the US, but around the world. Superman was the first and many creators since then have put their spin on him and whether you love this Man of Steel or hate this big blue boy scout, there’s no denying he is worth looking up to, hero wise, not in any kind religious way. It is my hope that this could be resolved and all will be right with the world. If this somehow ends up going south, what a sad ending to perhaps the greatest hero of them all.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Wow, I dont know how to feel about the lawsuit. On the one hand that creators DID sign over all copyrights to DC, but they did get screwed out of it. If I were DC I would set up some payment plan, because the last thing DC and the comic world needs is Superman published by Marvel. However, speaking as a fan, it could be one helluva story. But I dont think Marvel or any other comic company would touch Superman with a 100 ft. pole. I am sure most creators and fans think Superman belongs with DC like Spiderman belongs to Marvel. Both characters are linchpins in their respective universes. To summerize, the Big Blue Boyscout needs to stay with DC. Come on Time Warner, pull out the check book and ask how much do they want to have the publishing rights to Superman.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I seem to be getting the feeling here that the only losers in this battle are the fans. The Siegel family are coming across as money hungry, and don’t care who gets hurt in this process.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I’m sorry, but if this was Jerry and/or Joe filing the complaints of ownership THEMSELVES, I MIGHT support them. this is a matter concerning their money hungry heirs.
in summation: if the plaintiff did not create the character(s), then too bad, so sad, get the F! out of the court!
at best, I would give 1% of profits to any immediate heirs ALIVE IN 1938. Born in ’39? so sorry, try again next lifetime.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
“I seem to be getting the feeling here that the only losers in this battle are the fans. The Siegel family are coming across as money hungry, and don’t care who gets hurt in this process.”
“I’m sorry, but if this was Jerry and/or Joe filing the complaints of ownership THEMSELVES, I MIGHT support them. this is a matter concerning their money hungry heirs.”
Am I the only who’s tired of the invalid “the Siegels don’t care about the fans, they’re just being greedy” non-argument? This is nothing but a transparent holding of the estates to one standard (they should forfeit any and all legal claims to the copyright because the fanboys want their fix at all costs) and WB to another (they should keep on collecting 100% of the profits without having to share because they provide the fanboy fix). It’s OK for WB to be greedy, but God forbid the creators’ estates want their cut.
The moral of the story? Justice and fairness mean nothing, the creators and their estates deserve nothing, and the corporation should be defended at all costs.
“in summation: if the plaintiff did not create the character(s), then too bad, so sad, get the F! out of the court!”
Literal English translation: “We don’t care that the copyright legally reverts back to you. We don’t care that the law specifically states that you own this. We don’t want you to have it, so you should forfeit it because we say so!”
The selfishness and callousness of the “fans” just never ceases to amaze me.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Anyone who support the Siegel are as moral evil as they are now because of the Siegel copyright are all being destroy because now anyone can sue someone to get something thats not theirs
April 18th, 2008 at 12:10 am
evil? whats wrong with you? how would you feel if your father/grandfather created a character, and BY LAW was owed the right to reclaim the character at a certain time. if your arguement is that the siegels dont deserve it because siegel sold superman/superboy to dc, then because dc agreed to to extend the copyright at the cost of it reverting back to its original owners at a certain point in time, than by your own reasoning the siegels have the right to reclaim superman. obviously i am no lawyer, but as i understand it, the siegels are well within their rights to go after superman/boy. and anyway, how many millions has dc/wb made from superman? minus the money dc has invested in superman through the years, i think the heirs are owed some percentage of the profits. just my opinion.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Just a couple of observations:
1.) To the Superboy argument. If you remember the original series from 1949 to the late 1970s, and the old Adventure Comics series, practically every story carried the Superboy logo, and part of that logo was a smaller box underneath that clearly states “The Adventures of Superman (logo) when he was a boy.” So it seems to me that there’s your derivative argument settled right there.
2.) I don’t think the people who are criticizing the Siegels quite understand their motivation. I’m not pretending that I completely have inside info on this, but consider:
Suppose your husband or father created an icon and you grew up with that icon either for most of or for all your life. Suppose also that your dad fought continually for what he felt were his rights in that icon, and continually was shut out. Suppose that he felt cheated in some way out of the rightful proceeds of his creation, but more importantly felt that this icon was not so much a creation of fiction, but in some bizarre way was more like a member of the family, more like “his baby” if you will.
Put yourself in that position and perhaps you might feel a bit more compassion for the aim of the family. I believe that it’s not just to receive what might be justly argued as having been rightfully due them in monetary terms, but also to honor the memory of their patriarch, and perhaps in some way to welcome an old family member back.
Just a feeling, and I support the Siegel family wholeheartedly.
And to those who think that by getting the rights or ownership of Superman back, they would do anything detrimental to the character himself or to the possibility of the character continuing to entertain the masses, please….use your heads.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Have the families of the creators of Batman and Wonder Woman go through the same challenges? Never seem to hear about them, only the Superman creators.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
“Anyone who support the Siegel are as moral evil as they are now because of the Siegel copyright are all being destroy because now anyone can sue someone to get something thats not theirs”
But it IS theirs. The copyright laws say they’re entitled to the rights to Superman. To claim otherwise is ridiculous, let alone to say they’re “evil” for doing what they have the legal right to do.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Theo: I’m fairly sure that Batman & Wonder Woman were created under work-for-hire arrangements, but even then the way the law works requires a period of time after the death of the respective creators to expire before copyright termination is applicable. Bob Kane didn’t die until 1998, so it’s going to be a while before Batman comes up for a similar termination (if I’m reading the law right, I think that would place the filing date in 2019(? – assuming the same law controls Schuster’s claim and Kane’s potential claim)). And that’s not even getting into the whole Bill Finger mess.
[DC always refers to Kane (and occasionally Finger) as having created Batman *for* DC, which sounds on the surface as a different situation than S&S's pitch-and-buyout Superman story]
I imagine that, as William Moulton Marston died in 1947, statute of limitations laws would block any similar claims from his estate. Just seems to be too stale in that instance.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I hope Wb trounces them soundly and get everything back at DC I’m bloody tired of these wankers and their sharks coming out of no where every few years to sue for Superman ,S&S sold him lock ,stock and barrel to DC ,whether they got screwd is up for debate ,DC had no way of knowing how big Supes would get so now they must pay because of luck of the draw? They made some restitution back in the day and they bloody did not have too as with most things in this country ,how much is enough? I do rather despise lawyers ,scourge of our country.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
“I hope Wb trounces them soundly and get everything back at DC I’m bloody tired of these wankers and their sharks coming out of no where every few years to sue for Superman ,S&S sold him lock ,stock and barrel to DC ,whether they got screwd is up for debate ,DC had no way of knowing how big Supes would get so now they must pay because of luck of the draw? They made some restitution back in the day and they bloody did not have too as with most things in this country ,how much is enough? I do rather despise lawyers ,scourge of our country”
So you want the copyright laws violated and the estates bled dry and denied their due just so you can get your fix. Gotcha.
And I love the belief that DC didn’t have to give Siegel and Shuster any creator credit or stipends in the ’70s. It really shows how selfish the “fans” truly are.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
1 Word……
GREED!!!!
On both parties. DC/WB and the Siegel’s. You are both right and you are both wrong!!!
End the craziness now. Do it for the Superman fans of yesterday, today, and tommorrow.
Just remember, If it was not for the Tom,Dick,and Harry’s, The Geeks and the nerds, The Moms and Dads, And everybody else who has bought and read the stories of The Man of Steel, There would be NO SUPERMAN!!!!
So come on guys and gals, Do it for us.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
“1 Word……
GREED!!!!
On both parties. DC/WB and the Siegel’s. You are both right and you are both wrong!!!
End the craziness now. Do it for the Superman fans of yesterday, today, and tommorrow.
Just remember, If it was not for the Tom,Dick,and Harry’s, The Geeks and the nerds, The Moms and Dads, And everybody else who has bought and read the stories of The Man of Steel, There would be NO SUPERMAN!!!!
So come on guys and gals, Do it for us.”
Why? This is between them and them only. They owe us nothing.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:45 am
To Theo: From what I’ve observed over the years, Bob Kane (Kahn) had a much different set of agreements with DC for Batman, which explains why he continued to exploit the character in various ways up to the time of his death. Apparently he also received extensive royalties from the motion pictures and other properties over the years, and wound up doing extremely well.
If this is incorrect or if anyone out there knows of more details, this might make for some interesting reading….
April 19th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Why? This is between them and them only. They owe us nothing.
Comment by greeneclipse
I am only stating that if it was not for Tom,Dick,and Harry’s, The Geeks and the nerds, The Moms and Dads, And everybody else who has bought and read the stories of The Man of Steel, There would be NO SUPERMAN!!!!
Case in point, Look at all of these companies that have failed due to the lack of fan support. ACCLAIM/VALIANT, TEKNO COMIX, DEFIANT, MALIBU/ULTRAVERSE(yes I know marvel bought them out.) NOW COMICS, CROSSGEN, etc, etc, etc.
And let’s not forget about the creator owned characters from companies like Image, Dark Horse, etc, etc, etc.
There are tons of great characters and titles that we will never see again because of lack of fan support and the $$$$ needed to keep them going.
When you say that they owe us nothing, I have to disagree. I have paid great deals of $$$$ over the last 25 years to read and to be entertained by these books. Books like Superman. I say that both DC/WB and the Siegel’s owe all of us fans everything. If it was not for our support and $$$$ where would Superman be now? Would there have been a Superman? A Batman? A Spider-man?
I have been giving my $$$$ to all comic companies, Big and small for the last 25 years. All I’m asking is that the 2 parties reach an agreement so we can continue reading Superman without any “We own!!, They own!!” crap.
April 20th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
“When you say that they owe us nothing, I have to disagree. I have paid great deals of $$$$ over the last 25 years to read and to be entertained by these books. Books like Superman. I say that both DC/WB and the Siegel’s owe all of us fans everything. If it was not for our support and $$$$ where would Superman be now? Would there have been a Superman? A Batman? A Spider-man?
I have been giving my $$$$ to all comic companies, Big and small for the last 25 years. All I’m asking is that the 2 parties reach an agreement so we can continue reading Superman without any “We own!!, They own!!” crap.”
That entitles us to nothing. We’re not owed an eternal stream of product about ANY one character, much less Superman. To think we are is the height of fanboy arrogance, and I will say that to anyone.
April 20th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
“That entitles us to nothing. We’re not owed an eternal stream of product about ANY one character, much less Superman. To think we are is the height of fanboy arrogance, and I will say that to anyone.”
Greenelipse,
I enjoy this back and forth debate,(honestly I do!!) But you don’t market a product for 70 years to the world and then all of a sudden you have a company like DC/WB not paying up because of some loopholes, Then on the other hand have the Siegel’s take their ball and go home because DC/WB isn’t playing nice!!!
This stuff happens in the real world all the time, Not just in the land of comics.
And here is 1 word for you to help clarify why they both owe us/fans something…..
…..COMMITMENT!!!
If you remember, This what most comic companies strive for.
To commit to the fans to bring them the best of the best. Great stories and great art. Why? To bring you back for more.
Which goes back to making $$$$. I think that the Siegel’s and the Shuster’s should get some $$$$, For if it wasn’t for both of those guys, Where would the world of comics be today? This is all about the all mighty dollar.
“fanboy arrogance” Wow!!! I hate to burst your bubble, But if it was not for people like me and you and the rest of the fanboys, Supe’s and the rest of comic book land would not be around today!!!
And beside, How many times did fans really have an impact on the world of comics?
It all comes back to GREED!!!! and MONEY HUNGRY PEOPLE!!!
Just pay up and reach some sort of an agreement so we can end this insanity.
Can’t wait for your reply. Remember, I’m not attacking you, Just debating.
August 23rd, 2008 at 1:14 am
The fact is that the Siegel’s do own part of Superman/boy.
Id be very angry if someone told me I couldn’t have my grandma’s painting cause she’s dead. The copywright falls under the same category.
Do I like it? NO! Do I think their greedy? YES!
The fact is DC and Warner negotiated things this way, and untill a settlement is reach Conner Kent will remain gone and Clark has a shaky future.