When we last left our discussion of the dispute over the copyrights to Superman and Superboy, the judge had ordered the Siegels, DC and Time Warner to engage in settlement negotiations. Originally the mediation was to last 60 days, but scheduling conflicts pushed the deadline for the parties’ joint progress report back to the end of June.
As Newsarama readers have noted, DC Comics Executive Editor Dan DiDio made an offhand comment this weekend at Wizard World Chicago that has led some to wonder whether the Superboy lawsuit has been settled. Here’s the scoop from the “DCU Crisis” panel:
DiDio also paused to point out the special nature of Legion of Three Worlds. “We’ve got Geoff, we’ve got George, we’ve got SuperBOY Prime (yes, we can say that again).”
This could reasonably be taken as a sign that the Superboy lawsuit is over — after all, it was the Siegel family’s initially successful (but later vacated) attempt to reclaim the character that apparently led DC to take the name off the market.
However, DiDio’s reference to Superboy is not the only piece of evidence to emerge this weekend. On Friday, the Siegels and Time Warner filed their joint progress report in the Superboy and Superman lawsuits. This report states that the parties have not reached a settlement, despite four mediation sessions attended by their lawyers and DC President and Publisher Paul Levitz.
But that does not mean that the situation is hopeless. The progress report concludes by noting that after the mediator returns from vacation, “he would be contacting the parties … to potentially continue settlement discussions.”
In light of this report, DiDio’s reference to Superboy becomes even more interesting. It could be a sign that the parties, despite not reaching a complete settlement in time for the required report, have at least reached a shared decision regarding Superboy and are optimistic that the resolution of the remaining issues is in sight, if not already accomplished.
Still, for one party to reveal an agreement in principle before the settlement is finalized is not standard practice, particularly given the confidentiality agreement that parties often sign before a mediation begins. DiDio’s statement could be a slip — but it also could be a sign of something else.
Although I have not been reporting it here — sometimes details can be more confusing than helpful — the parties have not been silent over the past three months. There have been multiple filings and responses, with each side asserting that the other has no case. By reclaiming Superboy, DC might be sending a message that it does not think the Siegels’ claim to the character is viable, especially in regard to a super-powered villain.
There is also a potential explanation that is less overtly tactical. Based on Judge Larson’s ruling in the Superboy case, DC might have concluded that the worst they’ll end up with is 50 percent of the character as a joint work. Since the main issue is profit allocation, they might have figured that it’s better to share money from successful characters than to kill them off or end their adolescence prematurely. Moreover, in light of the court’s recent decision to give the Siegels half of the Superman material in Action Comics #1, changing Superboy to Superman arguably does not accomplish all that much — either way DC faces the prospect of having to pay the Siegels something for the work.
Of course, as is often the case in the black box of settlement negotiations, these aren’t the only possibilities. There could be a reason that only someone privy to inside information is likely to know. What we can say based on the latest court filing is that this crisis isn’t final — yet.
June 29th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
As long as they make a fair and equitable settlement that gives the Siegel and Shuster estates their due, I’ll be fine with it. DC/WB has nothing to gain by stonewalling the estates. Just find a nice compromise with them, let them have their cut of Superman, and be done with it. No harm, no foul, everyone goes home happy.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:38 am
I’m pretty sure I heard Didio say Superboy with less flare back at NYCC, so I really don’t think it was a sign of any settlement talk progress. Much more likely that it’s just a realization that the tact wasn’t the best way to tackle the problem.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:15 am
I agree, green. There are two facts here: Superboy belongs at DC and the Siegles deserve to be properly compensated. One of them follows the other and once that’ settled, the world will be in harmony.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:26 am
This is exactly what I was waiting for when I heard Dan get so vehement and specific about SuperBOY.
I expect we’ll hear more details soon.
“Just find a nice compromise with them, let them have their cut of Superman, and be done with it. No harm, no foul, everyone goes home happy.”
The simple problem is that in today’s litigious world, compromise = potential further suit later. Corporations usually have a very “all or nothing” view of ownership. If they have to share ownership with anyone, they see it as a threat to their ownership. Their fear is if they even acknoledge that Joe Writer created Hero-man, a lawyer will come along and say, “Well, if Joe CREATED him, isn’t he due some profits?”. Give them an inch…
But personally, Superman is SUCH a unique case (There’s never gonna be another first superhero) that I think WB could (indeed, could HAVE) make a very generous settlement (more than the several they already have over the years, that is) without fearing they were creating a legal precedent.
It’s what I’ve said before, there’s a difference (alas) between what’s “required” and what’s “right”, and what’s “nice”. Legally, WB doesn’t have to do a thing, they can keep fighting this endlessly. From a PR or just plain “Right thing to do” viewpoint, they could lay a massive bunch of cash on the estate, sponsor the Superman anniversary events in Cleveland, rebuild the guys’ homes, and it still wouldn’t make a dent in what Superman has made them over the years. But the lawyers will fear that it’s the thin end of the wedge, and they’ll never allow it.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Sounds like everyone will be taken care (the fans too).
Compensation is one thing – glad that angle’s almost over.
The other aspect is credit – and kudos to DC for their long established practice of outting “created by’s” in their Superman, Batman & Wonder Woman books.
Now if only Marvel would do the same for Kirby & Ditko. They are LONG past due for such acknowledgement.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Thanks for the update. I really do hope this all gets settled soon to both parties satisfaction.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Is everyone forgetting that the Siegels already won and received money years ago over Superman? Thanks to a new law it allowed them to sue again. Does DC get the money back for what they thought was settled the first time? No. And before everyone thinks I am all for corporate america think about it like this. You get sued over something then finally get it over with after dragging through the court system for years and spending money on lawyers. Then after the matter is settled years later you find out you are going to be sued again over the same matter thanks to a new law.
Here is the kicker. Congress could always pass another law down the road and the Siegels could sue yet again.
It be like me selling a character I created and it goes on to make a company millions but at the time I sold it for less than a grand. Do I then sue? No, if the character ended up costing a company money they can’t sue me to get their loses back.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Rod: Time Warner/DC, and other corporations, benefited greatly from changes to U.S. copyright law. Clauses allowing authors, their heirs and estates to terminate assignment of copyright at certain times are simply an attempt at fairness, as the terms (and duration) of the original agreement have been changed.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:58 am
If the law wasn’t changed, Superman would be in the public domain already. The law changed, DC still has the copyright, and the Siegel’s were screwed for making a deal that would only have given Superman to DC for 56 years. Since the copyright did not expire, why not let them sure again?
Your view, Rod, is only from one side of the argument.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
“Does DC get the money back for what they thought was settled the first time? ”
DC already got what they bought the first time. The extended copyright term didn’t exist then. When Congress created this new extension, it was a humongous gift to the big media companies like Time Warner… and they also had a bit of a gift for the original creators and their families.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I just want Conner Kent back
June 30th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Vinnie: The problem with “being nice” is that it never is a matter of “in this one case”. It does becomes precedent, embodying the principal of “no good deed goes unpunished”
June 30th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Whatever happened to “a deal’s a deal”? Wasn’t Superman created on a “work-for-hire” basis? Doesn’t that mean the company owns what you create? Somehow the comic book industry got along for years without the whole “creator-owned” shtick. Now it seems you can’t so much as turn your head without getting caught up in red tape over creators’ rights. I kinda miss the old days when it was the characters, not the creators, who were important.
June 30th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
No, Superman wasn’t created on a “work-for-hire basis.”
June 30th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
What does Tony Isabella think?
June 30th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
This whole thing would have made a great episode of Harvey Birdman…
June 30th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Tony Isabella thinks DC should pay him his share of the Black Lightning action figures they sold last year.
But if that’s not what you were asking about…
grin
…then I think what I’ve been proclaiming all along.
DC and its corporate masters should quickly settle this to the satisfaction of the Siegels and start treating comics creators, past, present, and future in a more equitable manner.
Because DC Comics will never luck into another Superman as long as they keep screwing creators.
Such a policy would be better for creators, better for comics, and better, in the long run, for DC.
Since you asked.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
If Superman was created as a work-for-hire, then DC would own it. But Siegel and Shuster created Superman in 1932, then sold the rights to DC six years later, in 1938.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
“Whatever happened to “a deal’s a deal”? Wasn’t Superman created on a “work-for-hire” basis? Doesn’t that mean the company owns what you create? Somehow the comic book industry got along for years without the whole “creator-owned” shtick. Now it seems you can’t so much as turn your head without getting caught up in red tape over creators’ rights. I kinda miss the old days when it was the characters, not the creators, who were important.”
So creators’ rights and compensation should be abolished, then? And we should scrap all the creator-owned books and go back to a 100% corporate setup where the creators get nothing and can’t take creative risks with original fare? You sure seem to be arguing for that.
And since Superman was created independent of DC/WB before being sold to them, Siegel and Shuster’s estates are indeed entitled to ownership of him.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:49 am
In reference to Tony Isabella’s comments earlier, if Mr. Isabella was working for DC Comics under a standard work for hire contract, then I really don’t think he has a leg to stand on when it comes to Black Lightning — if it was the “standard” contract where everything he creates or writes for DC belongs to them lock, stock and barrel. What would his share be of the Black Lightning action figures? Was there something in his contract that mentions he’s owed any money? I would doubt it.
If it wasn’t a standard contract then I can see him complaining about Black Lightning. But if it was then let’s just move on.
Siegel and Shuster had a different deal. They created Superman and then brought it to DC Comics, who bought the character from them. It was DC’s character to do with as they pleased and all that Siegel and Shuster were probably entitled to may have been some royalties — maybe. It was only the change in copyright laws that allowed them to file to get their share of the character back from DC. And from what I understand of the law, it only applies to those who created the character and THEN sold it to a company. Thus Spider-man, Flash, Green Arrow, Green Lantern, Black Lightning, etc., belong to the company the creator/creators were working for at the time the characters were created.
July 1st, 2008 at 4:29 am
I really do not understand this case. Siegel sold his creations to DC COMICS decades ago, they bought them and made a fortune out of it in the longrun. How can his family after all this time come and claim ownership? DC is not responsible for Mr.Siegel’s actions…
July 1st, 2008 at 10:07 am
DEAR EDITOR: SO BOTH SIDE OF THE ISSUE ARE NOW HAPPY ABOUT HOW THE SUPERBOY/SUPERMAN LAWSUIT WAS HANDLE. IT WILL BE INTERESTED TO SEE HOW LONG BEFORE DC WILL BE PUBLISHED AN ALL-NEW SUPERBOY SERIES. WILL IT STAR THE ORIGINAL SUPERBOY OR CONNOR KENT BRINGING BACK FROM THE DEAD LIKE DC DID TO BARRY ALLEN”S FLASH IN THE LATEST CRISIS STORYLINE. I CAN’T WAITED TO SEE HOW SUPERBOY WILL MADE A COMEBACK. I WANTED TO WISH BOTH SIDE OF THE ISSUE ALL THE LUCK IN THE WORLD. YOUR TRULY CHARLES DAVID HASKELL
July 1st, 2008 at 5:05 pm
[quote=Deep_Shock]I really do not understand this case. Siegel sold his creations to DC COMICS decades ago, they bought them and made a fortune out of it in the longrun. How can his family after all this time come and claim ownership? DC is not responsible for Mr.Siegel’s actions…[/quote]
Actually, they are. DC’s management in 1938 took advantage of Jerry and Joe’s youth and inexperience. They did not give them a far better deal, nor did they advise them to consult a lawyer, as Kane and Martson (sp) would do so. Afterwards, Jerry had made attempts to get back what was due him. Changes in the copyright laws in 1976 and 1998, have given his family the ability to regain Jerry’s half of the copyright, which is something he was still adamant about up until his death in 1996.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:46 pm
“How can his family after all this time come and claim ownership?”
You might as well ask how DC can claim ownership. After all, when they bought them, didn’t the copyright only last 28 years?
The answer to both questions is the same. The U.S. Congress made a law extending the copyright, and as part of that created an opportunities for the original creator or their family to reclaim the copyright. DC still got what they bought – the remainder of what had been the copyright term when they bought it.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:22 am
any new info on plans to finally do re-prints of Superboy in an Archibve Edition similar to Legion Of Superheroes???