The depiction of women in comics has received its fair share of criticism in recent years, most notably in Gail Simone’s Women in Refrigerators and Valerie D’Orazio’s Occasional Superheroine. Comics have likewise sparked some controversy in regard to images of heroic homosexuality. But as the latest documents released in the Jerry Siegel case illustrate, these issues have a long history.
The documents in question: correspondence between Detective Comics and Jerry Siegel from 1939 through 1947, entered into evidence as part of DC’s attempt to establish that all the work done by Siegel & Shuster during that time was work for hire. The case still has a while to percolate — the judge has postponed the hearing on unresolved trademark/copyright issues until September 15 — but the material itself is a gold mine for folks interested in the comics history.
Even apart from the gender issues there’s a lot of amazing stuff here — the recurring savage criticism of Joe Shuster’s art; an early critique of Wayne Boring as an artist unsuitable for Superman; the hiring of Winsor McCay, Jr., as Superman ghost-artist-in-training; the insinuation that Superman was not significantly more popular than Zatara, Pep Morgan and Tex Thomson; and the prohibition on depictions of a flying Clark Kent are just a few of the historical moments in the mix.
Yet it is the sex stuff that really stands out, providing a rare insiders’ perspective on the comics writing culture of the past. One of the true highlights of the newly released correspondence is the black-and-white sketch of Lois Lane included in this post. The artist was Siegel’s and Shuster’s editor, Whitney Ellsworth, who was attempting to get the duo to make Lois Lane less curvaceous.
A little backstory is in order. Although we tend to associate comics censorship with the 1950s, in actuality the complaints arose almost as soon as superheroes made comics a ubiquitous pop phenomenon. In a letter dated February 19, 1941, Ellsworth makes clear that this was foremost on his mind when he says to Siegel, “You know as well as I do what sort of censure we are always up against, and how careful we must be.”
Which made a curvy Lois a bit of a problem. When drawn in an especially tantalizing way she posed a risk of drawing the attention of the moral watchdogs, a risk that Ellsworth tried to forestall in 1940 by ordering the duo to “de-sex” her.
After Shuster showed no sign of taking this admonition to heart, Ellsworth made an argument that seems shocking even almost seventy years later. Shuster’s Lois was so “unpleasantly sexy” that her pulchritude made her seem a bit too heavy–a problem for which Ellsworth and Murray Boltinoff had an easy solution:
[W]hy it is necessary to shade Lois’ breasts and the underside of her tummy with vertical pen-lines we can’t understand. She looks pregnant. Murray suggests that you arrange for her to have an abortion or the baby and get it over with so that her figure can return to something a little more like the tasty dish she is supposed to be.
And the criticism didn’t stop there; editorial also had problems with her hair style and her clothing,
which looked like you have apparently dressed her out of a Montgomery Ward catalogue. [Jack Liebowitz] suggests Vogue, Vanity Fair and Harper’s Bazaar as likelier spots for dress-research.
A look at Superman’s DC Archives shows that these admonitions had their intended effect. The previous two images are from Superman #7, complete with breast shading and vertical lines in her, um, lower tummy. In contrast, here she is a few months later, with a much slimmer waist and bust-reducing lapels:
The criticism did not stop with Lois, however. Another alleged problem with Shuster’s artwork is that it made Superman look gay — or in the period slang of Ellsworth’s January 22, 1940, letter, “lah-de-dah” with a “nice fat bottom”:
What’s worse, the pose in the second panel also reminded Ellsworth of “certain FLIT ads done by a cartoonist who signs himself ‘Dr. Seuss.’”
For a cultural historian, documents like these are a treasure trove, providing insight into attitudes toward women, standards of beauty, images of masculinity, censorship and the interplay between comics and other illustrated media.
For Siegel and Shuster, such critiques were serious business. If you want to understand why they took the risk of suing DC in 1947 to regain the rights to Superman, read these letters — time and again the company warns them that their work borders on the “unacceptable” — “the situation is serious enough to warrant your doing some real worrying,” as DC might “make other arrangements to have [the work] done.” Since DC seemed to be building a case to get rid of them, a lawsuit — no matter how risky — seemed to have better odds than the prospect of winning over the publisher.
(This is entry is cross-posted from Jeff’s Uncivil Society blog.)
August 8th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Fascinating stuff… If a bit surprising and almost humorous by today’s standards. I say “almost,” because there was nothing funny about the way Siegel and Shuster were being treated by the company.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I’m sorry but having looked through all of the notes in the PDF that Ellsworth made over and over again, there were no outrageous request. He continually asked Seigel to submit his scripts far enough in advance so that they could edit the script before the pages were drawn. Suddenly artwork would show up for a script that hasn’t been approved? As an editor I would be livid as well. And on top of it , any changes that I asked for were ignored on top of it? Heads would roll frankly.
Inspite of what you may believe about how they were treated by national at the time, they worked for them. They sold Superman to National and were employees of National, that means you do what you’re told. What it looks like to me as an observer and as someone who has worked on both sides of the editorial fence, is that they let their egos get out of control in regards to Superman’s success. I think they believed their involvement was the key to the characters success but as history has proven, he survived and prospered without them.
Yes, they created Superman, but it’s immediately obvious to me that from the beginning they needed constant oversight and that the germ of the idea of Superman would not have gotten off the ground if it wasn’t for Whitney ellsworth.
August 8th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Reading through the PDF now. It’s snarky and obnoxious, especially considering how consistently they’re taking advantage of these young creators. Fascinating documents. Glad they kept them.
August 8th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
It should probably be noted that Jamal Igle works for DC on a title which could be impacted by the results these legal issues.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Which is neither here nor there and have nothing to do with my opinion. Again we’re only getting one side , there are no copies of Seigel’s responses. Without a full picture of what was going on, it’s unfair to take Seigel and Shusters side. I make the point continually that Seigel and Shuster had been working in Syndicated newspaper distribution for a few years before they sold Superman, so they knew what they wee getting into. If for example Funnyman, or Slam Bradley or Doctor Occult started doing better than Superman, they would probably had not even gone after National. They entered into a good faith deal and reneged on it twice.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Jamal, you hear anything from anyone at Geoff’s message board? I’m suffering withdrawl symptoms again!! (Sight unseen, I expect to hear it’s similar to what happened last time the boards crashed)
August 8th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
The part I thought interesting in the article was the bit where the editors suggested they look at some trendier magazines for ideas on how a woman dresses. That seems like a pretty timeless thing, I’ve seen much more modern artists make who needed to hear that.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
“I think they believed their involvement was the key to the characters success but as history has proven, he survived and prospered without them.”
Yeah, I mean, all they did was make him a thing that existed. How dare they have the temerity to have pride over something as insignificant as creating what turned out to be the second most recognizable fictional character on Earth. It’s this sort of attitude that makes me look forward to Superman becoming public domain or better yet reverting back to the estates of his creators. It’s a pretty sad state of affairs when the average person on the street probably has more respect for Superman’s legacy than the people that currently have control over him.
August 8th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Leroy, I don’t think you’re giving Jamal’s opinion its due.
Yes, Siegel and Schuster came up with the original idea for Superman. But as Jamal pointed out, it didn’t become “the second most recognizable fictional character on Earth” purely through their efforts. They’d actually tried other versions of Superman before and not been successful.
DC provided a lot of input and then Superman became huge. It’s not unreasonable to say that that input was a big part of what made Superman so successful.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Also Leroy you have to keep in mind that the major elements we know about Superman, most of his powers,his weaknesses his enemies, incuding Lex Luthor weren’t created by Seigel and Shuster. Joe Suster stopped drawing the comic in 1940. Jimmy Olsen ,The Daily Planet, Perry White were created by other writers on the radio show,which if you look at correspondence,they also had nothing to do with it.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
From Barry Windsor Smith’s Eisner Awards Hall of Fame speech:
“But to those who really want to know, I say that the major companies’ standard contract, deceptively titled “work for hire,” is a legal but unethical instrument designed to rape and plunder young talents of every possible prerogative they would otherwise possess if they had the fortune to work for more scrupulous, morally invested, publishers.”
August 8th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
OK, I’ll bite… Who’s the MOST recognizable fictional character if it’s not Supes?
I’m tempted to go with the Homer Simpson answer myself (”God… My favorite fictional character.”), but I’m not sure that’s what you were going for there.
This is a bit off topic… But as for current respect for the Superman character, someone deserves a slap upside the head for allowing Busiek to keep using the Chris Kent character in Superman (proper) when the mega-delayed Johns/Donner “Last Son” over in Action finally ended with Chris being forced to reside in the Phantom Zone. At the very least, it shows DC Editorial has very little respect for its readers. Then again, there have been plenty of examples of that lately.
August 8th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Then don’t do work for hire..publish independently, stick with creator owned projects. However, if you want to work on Superman at DC, it’s work for hire. It’s not that complicated, especially nowadays. The fact remains is that in this business ,where there isn’t a lot of money, most of work in comics more for the love of the medium. I have no delusions about comics publishing.
Do I agree with Barry’s smtatement. No. It’s not unethical. There are plenty of creators who are able to make arrangements for compensation now, just like there were then. For every Seigel and Shuster thter is a Bob Kane, Will Eisner or Frank King who created and retained the rights to Gasoline Alley.
If i were to create another creator owned series, and decided to take it to a mainstream publisher i would damn well make sure i was A)getting proper compensation B)retaining a portion of the rights, in writing, Just like Lee Falk did for the Phantom and Mandrake the magician.
August 8th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Defending the old policies in this day and age is a bit like defending Comiskey’s management of the White Sox. Nowadays everyone knows the score and there’s a kind of royalty system in place, but at the time, you had an industry quickly growing, a lot of people jumping in, and a lot of people getting screwed.
August 8th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
The Powers That Be at DC may have added some sizzle, but without the steak you go hungry.
August 8th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
And without the sizzle you never sell a steak in the first place because everyone’s eating at the pasta place across the street.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Evan Waters Says:
August 8th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Defending the old policies in this day and age is a bit like defending Comiskey’s management of the White Sox. Nowadays everyone knows the score and there’s a kind of royalty system in place, but at the time, you had an industry quickly growing, a lot of people jumping in, and a lot of people getting screwed.
Actually that’s not true either, newspaper syndication on which the comics were built on as a model had existed for 20 years prior, and people were able to have creator ownershio then. Seigel and Shuster made a deal. Whether it’s a good or bad deal isn’t up for debate. The fact remains that was the deal they made and they walked into it with their eyes open. They were desperate to sell their idea and took the deal with National because no one else at the time wanted to to touch Superman.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Leroy Morgenstern Says:
August 8th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
The Powers That Be at DC may have added some sizzle, but without the steak you go hungry.
Sorry but as anyone who knows their way around a barbecue will tell you, it’s not the steak but how it’s cooked that counts.
An idea is just that an idea…crude, unformed and unrefined. It’s only after the idea is fleshed out and explored is it worth something. It’s all about the execution.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:30 am
I call for a motion ending all food analogies.
August 9th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Those documents read like the self-justifying ravings of a micromanaging madman with barely a glimmer of understanding as to how important Superman was and would be. It’s a BRILLIANT example of how NOT to be an editor…or for that matter, conduct business in any form. I’m sure Siegel was hard to deal with, but talking to your creators like they’re trained monkeys is BS that shouldn’t be tolerated or defended by anyone in this business.
Valerie’s post on the matter is dead on:
http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/2008/08/straws-that-broke-jerry-siegels-back.html
August 9th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Here’s the test. Which is more likely?
A) Siegel and Shuster’s creation would have still taken off if put out by some other publisher (remember that DC was no industry titan at that time).
or
B) DC would have had as much success if they’d focused on Zatara.
With all due respect to Jamal, I think he’s worked in the industry so long that the way things are has completely supplanted the way things ought to be in his mind.
August 9th, 2008 at 9:25 am
“They entered into a good faith deal and reneged on it twice.”
The documents (and what we know about the Siegel-Shuster case) paint a different picture. As early as September 1938 they were being threatened by Jack Liebowitz that “we can at any time replace you in the drawing of that feature”, a threat that keeps being repeated through the following years.
There are frequent (and suspicious) mentions of the newspaper strip or radio program not making any money for DC (as late as 1947 Jack Liebowitz is saying “National Comics derives no income whatever from the syndicated Superman strip”).
In 1940, Jack Liebowitz writes “hereafter we forbid you to grant any interviews relating to Superman and its development”, surely an outrageous demand.
And the 1947 letter mentions the straw that broke the camel’s back. Siegel had submitted the idea for “Superboy” as a separate series. DC rejected it, but then prepared the series behind his back, later claiming that Superboy and Superman were exactly the same character (a fact currently under dispute, and for which we have legal precedent such as the Neil Gaiman victory regarding Medieval Spawn). Siegel and Shuster didn’t renege on their deal, DC stole from them, and Siegel was right to demand some compensation.
The complaints about lack of quality in the art, about lateness, or about Siegel not sending his scripts for approval are valid, but they do not excuse all of DC’s behavior in this matter.
August 9th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Here’s another twist on the discussion. What if Seigel continuted to ignore DC’s demands for a good reason, oh, like say, he was smart enough to know that DC didn’t know what the hell they were talking about. They created a character that was good enough for DC to pick up and publish so they probably felt they were good enough to keep it going without giving Lois an abortion or de-gaying Supe’s butt. Seigel and Shuster actually read comics. They were comics fans. A big bart of why Superman was a hit was because they knew what the comics fan wanted. Let’s say you were an artist today drawing a comic like, oh, say Supergirl, and editorial told you the design was all wrong that, say they wanted her less like Barbie and more like the Bratz and they wanted her to have lots of bling so that they could sell it at Wal-Mar and wear lots of different clothes and wigs so they could compete with Hannah Montanna. Now as a work for hire you could go three ways. You could say, well, it’s DC’s character and I’ll draw it their way even though my name will be forever associated with the crap that ruined Supergirl or you could walk away or you could stay and fight (and probably loose). Seigel and Shuster. Created Superman. They had too much financialy and emotionally invested to walk away. They had to stay and fight. The fight has lasted 70 freaking years but I think they did the right thing.
August 9th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Dean,
With all due respect, I’ve got a little more experience than you and have worked for publishers all over the world. If you think any of the comments that Ellsworth said were out of line micro managing, don’t ever do a project for a french publisher. I got worse notes than that for a year and a half. the fact remains, we’re only getting one side of the story. This is not a rallying call for creators becuase there were an entire stable of creators from that period that sung Whitney Ellsworth’s praises as an editor as well.
August 9th, 2008 at 10:42 am
The idea that Superman would not have been popular without National is not provable. That’s nothing but speculation. Just because they failed to get it off the ground before then does not mean that they couldn’t have at a later date.
At least ninety percent of the character’s popularity is due to the costume and core powers. All the rest is nearly irrelevant. Things like Lex Luthor, Perry White and all that while classic concepts are not essential to the enduring appeal. Who has ever read the title to see Jimmy Olsen or kryptonite being used?
It doesn’t really matter how amateurish the duo’s abilities were or were not. It is their concept. And let’s just say for argument that we could prove that National was indispensable for the success of the character. If that’s so, why weren’t the creators duly rewarded? The one thing that can be said is that the Superman concept would have never existed without them. If DC had duly paid them proper merchandise and publishing royalties throughout the decades, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion now.
So if they knew what they were getting into, then at some point in the decades to come they would have retired with tens of millions. Unless someone knows different, I seriously doubt that was the case. In the end, comparing the newspaper funnies with the rough and tumble comic industry is more than a little dubious. It is more likely, rather, that working for the more respectable dailies left them blindsided and unprepared for the rougher men who owned the comics biz.
No, really, the whole situation is still very much up to debate. If it wasn’t, then there wouldn’t be the ongoing court case. Just ask the heirs.
At any rate, DC in the coming years will likely have to give up if not outright share the character.
And one day in the future work for hire will disappear, one way or the other. Companies will have to woo artists to publish new properties, rather than pathetically regurgitating decades old concepts.
August 9th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Only a glimmer of an understanding of how important Superman *would* be?
Yes Dean, they weren’t psychic.
What you’re pointing out as an example of how NOT to be an editor is part of how Superman became so popular. It doesn’t really make sense to point to one of the biggest success stories of all time and say that’s the wrong way to do it.
Maybe you should look at some of the other stuff Siegel and Shuster did outside of DC, like Funnyman and Tiger Girl.
http://www.toonopedia.com/funnyman.htm
http://www.toonopedia.com/tigrgrl2.htm
They also had some more successful stuff, like the Spectre, but nothing else either of them ever did was a tenth as successful as Superman.
They certainly deserve credit for what they did, I’m not disputing that at all. But everyone else who has built up Superman over the decades, including the editors, deserve credit for their work, too.
August 9th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Newsarama is probably one of the only places in the world where you can see people supporting companies for being unethical jackasses. It’s a very strange experience.
August 9th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
lunatic96
not true…go to the comics journal…there are some there that support the dc position.
August 9th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Jamaal,
im just curious. in your attempt to support dc’s position, you choose to totally ignore outright lies presented by liebowitz in regards to the popularity of the character and the financial standing of the company in regards to syndication and other media rights.
is there a reason that you are doing this?
and if you put these letters (and their overt threats) into context with what appears to be editorial mismanagement, do you not see how many are led to the assumption that what dc was attempting to do bully s&s into silence regarding their wishes for adequate compensation?
August 9th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
@ Shaun
I think Jason Bryant was referring to Mickey Mouse. God is out of the running being a real deity.
@lunatic96
It speaks volumes about comic fandom that they often support comic characters owned by corporations instead of creator-owned fare. So, is the average comic reader THAT concerned about putting principle ahead of getting his monthly fix of Superman?
August 9th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
No actually I’m very familiar with both sides of the argument.Liebowitz doesn’t talk about the sales of the comic book, he talks about the fact that National made no money of the syndicated Newspaper Strip, which is a fact. In your zeal to try to crucify Jack Liebowitz, you ignore the fact that the letter in question is dated in 1946 and seems to be an outgrowth of Jerry Segiel’s “apprehension”to take “Funnyman” to National. If you actually read the letters with an open mind you see years of an editor actually trying to teahc his creators how to work properly.
One of the things that gets glossed over alot is the amount of money Seigel and Shuster made over an 8 year period working on Superman. In 1940 the average yearly income of an entire family was just under $2000. Seigel and Shuster on average $50,000 dollars a year. if you adjusted it for inflation that means they made on average $739172.92 . They were being more than handsomely compensated for the work they did.
Fred:
It’s not about getting a monthly fix of Superman, for me it’s about honoring a deal made in good faith. They made a deal, and broke it twice because they discovered that the property could move on without them. Now it’s about getting as much money out of Warner Bros. before Superman goes into public domain.
August 9th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Uncle Joe:
Editorial Mismanagement? I think Ellsworth was more than extremely patient with Jerry and Joe. I think it’s continued unprofessionalism on their part.
August 9th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
On the TCJ messageboard someone asked if the projects I did France was something I owned a peice of , yes it was. I also did a series for Image with Jay Faerber called Venture so yes I have worked on creator owned properties. So it’s not like I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’ve also worked in publishing as an editor. So i think I have a proper handle on the situation.
August 9th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Matt Adler Says:
With all due respect to Jamal, I think he’s worked in the industry so long that the way things are has completely supplanted the way things ought to be in his mind.
Wishes aren’t horses or else we’d all have a pony. you can talk about the way things ought to be, but let’s deal in realities here.
Siegfried Sasso Says:
And one day in the future work for hire will disappear, one way or the other. Companies will have to woo artists to publish new properties, rather than pathetically regurgitating decades old concepts.
I don’t see that happening frankly. In every creative venture you have to give something to get something. In Prose novels do you know how many submissions get rejected for every novel that sees print? 400 to 1. in 2007 Bowker.com confirmed that there were over 50000 new fiction novels published in the world last year, 960 novels a week in US. Of all of those novels how many does the general public know outside of the big names. In film and televison the numbers are even more staggering. I come across unsigned bands all the time that have day jobs and a small fan base , but they all want to be superstars. Frankly the comic book industry is very tiny in comparison in the US. there isn’t the public interest yet to support a creator fueled
As long as there are people who want to work on creative properties such as Superman or any comic book property period, there will be work for hire.
The other glaring fact as well is comic publishers including DC and Marvel develop new properties all the time. They don’t sell. Comic fans don’t support them. I buy indy ;comics, i support Indy creators, I always have. I believe that the industry can only survive if we all stick together and support one another. One of falls down, we all fall down.
August 10th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Jamal: so you don’t agree with the law that Congress passed allowing works to be reclaimed after the term of copyright they were sold under has expired? The entire basis of this case is that since Congress changed the terms of copyright, all deals made under the old term should be able to be re-evaluated. I don’t see what’s so unfair about this, and casting aspersions on a man who died in poverty is kind of gauche.
I really think everyone associated with DC would do well to just clam up about this case, because the appearance of impropriety is impossible to get away from.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:47 am
@Jamal - First off, you CLEARLY have more experience in this business than I. Heck, I’m almost brand new. And I’ll agree that seeing only one half of this argument is extremely limiting. But that doesn’t change my assessment of the rudeness of the letters. They’re really obnoxious. Maybe there are “it was a time and a place where this is the way it was” concerns that I’m not capable of accepting, but I’ve had to deal with editors like that, and apparently you have as well. Just because it happens doesn’t mean it’s right. In my experience, those people lost their jobs or ran their companies into the ground.
Superman was and still is a work-in-progress, in my opinion, currently better than he’s ever been. The reason he’s great isn’t because Siegel and Shuster were geniuses, but because they had a good idea and then THOUSANDS of poor creators like them poured their creative hearts into making him better. The good ideas stuck, the bad ones fell away. More writers and artists built on the good ideas from before. The radio show, cartoon, movies, etc. all had ideas that filtered back into the source comics, and this is still happening! But we wouldn’t have gotten that chance if Superman hadn’t sparked the public’s interest, as the tipping point between the proto-superhero, masked adventurer and the true superhero. Siegel and Shuster pulled that off, and we wouldn’t be doing what we do without them. I think that great favor to the 20th Century deserves better than a defense of their fishy work-for-hire contract.
You’re right that most of DC and Marvel’s new properties don’t sell or catch on like Superman. That’s because they’re not like Superman in the way it matters. They’re not NEW. That’s why Scott Pilgrim, Hellboy, and various manga are succeeding where the Big Two aren’t, in innovation. This could change tomorrow if Marvel and DC were ready to truly do something new.
I wish the Siegels all the best in their case, but I’m also blown away by how great DC is currently handling the character, with brilliant creative teams whose take on Superman is refreshing and traditional all at the same time. Superman’s not just a property that Time-Warner owns, though, he’s a public myth that will far outlast his corporate owners. As his current stewards, I think DC has a lot to be proud of. But the few years following his inception, National treated him and his creators poorly by any measurement. Paul Levitz, who I respect and had the sincere pleasure of meeting at SDCC the other week, even made a point of talking about the industry’s early failings in his acceptance speech at the Eisners. When I heard that speech, it really gave me hope for how DC is treating creators now.
On the flipside of that, your defense of these letters does the opposite. Perhaps my faith in our industry isn’t your biggest concern, nor should it be, but ours is an industry of creators dying poor and corporate higher ups with retirement bonuses. I had the pleasure of frequently catching up with Marty Nodell and his wife on the circuit when I started out. The guy created Green Lantern, a dude with a ring that could make anything he could think of made out of green flame. How do you even think of that? (I asked him, and he said he “didn’t know, you know, we tried a lot of stuff back then. You had to think of something new.”) And he was selling green mouse pads with original sketches on them, happy to talk to anyone who’d stop by (and speak loudly). Our industry’s greatest strength and most serious failing is in our cheap, lo-fi, disrespected lot within the rest of entertainment. But that doesn’t mean we should have editors and managers that don’t respect comics creators too.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:36 am
My favorite quote…
“I have not received a copy of the detailed continuity which has been recently okayed by us. We are going over this script with a fine tooth comb. Please type your synopsis double spaced and on one side of the paper. Get behind your work with zest and ambition to improve and forget about book rights, movie rights, and all other dreams. I’ll let you know as soon as things happen. After all, you must realize that we have a bigger stake in it than you have and we will take care of things in the proper manner.”
That kind of talk would have had me flying to a lawyer immediately.
August 10th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Evan Waters Says:
August 10th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Jamal: so you don’t agree with the law that Congress passed allowing works to be reclaimed after the term of copyright they were sold under has expired? The entire basis of this case is that since Congress changed the terms of copyright, all deals made under the old term should be able to be re-evaluated. I don’t see what’s so unfair about this, and casting aspersions on a man who died in poverty is kind of gauche.
I really think everyone associated with DC would do well to just clam up about this case, because the appearance of impropriety is impossible to get away from.
I never said any such thing, so don’t put words into my “mouth” as it were. Frankly if they had not sold the rights in the first place I would have no argument with what’s going on. If either of the original creators were alive to benefit from the action I would also have no problems with it.
Dean: I know what you’re saying , and I agree with a lot of it and I’ll address Bob’s last statement at the same time. I have the same concerns as well. I’m still a freelancer essentially with all the downfalls involved. I don’t have a 401k, I don’t have any other retirement benefits other than the ones I create by saving my money, there are very few businesses left that do that across the board. That’s an economic reality we’ve been dealing with for almost 20 years, So to put that blame simply on the comic book industry does all freelancers a disservice.
However my problem is that a lot of you are taking these letters out of their proper context and applying 2008 thinking to the situation. DC has plenty of entirely new properties that they’ve introduced over the years and so has marvel. DC has an entire line of series that is dedicated to creating the type industry diversity.
Bob, As far as National Publications was concerned, they owned Superman: That means they can make any demands on the art and writing they saw fit , they could fire them at any time and replace them with other creators, Yes Jerry and Joe created the character. They were putting up the money, they were marketing the character and brokering the deals.
They could have had a lawyer immediately but said lawyer would have come to the same conclusion the US court system did twice. You sold the rights, they own the character.
August 10th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I also want to apologize to anyone who thinks I’m taking an antagonistic stance towards Siegel and Shuster, Independent creators and /or Indy comics. I’m not, Like I said as a former editor myself I didn’t see any of the request made in the letters as outrageous since they were repeated request over a number of years. You may disagree with the tone, but without the correspondence to compare them to, you’re only getting half a story.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:32 am
One of the comments above that inflamed me to a certain amount of professional rage (I believe by Jamal Igle) seemed to imply that somehow, the level of nastiness of the comments to Siegel and Schuster was perfectly fine because comments to writers/artists are STILL just as nasty today. I have written for a living for the last 14+ years, in industries with more at stake than the comic book industry, and it is *not* appropriate for writers or artists, employed with 401K and insurance or freelancers, to receive that level of abuse. Just because there are idiots in the comic book industry who can’t be professional and constructive *doesn’t make it right* today OR in the past.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:54 am
Jude:
I think Jamal’s point wasn’t that it was okay, but it must be taken into context.