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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your view, Rod, is only from one side of the argument.

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.

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.

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.