First of all, it constantly amazes me that so-called “fans” are inevitably company men to the bitter @#$%ing end. In any legal dispute about the rights to a character or a story, it seems, the “fans” will vigorously defend the comicbook company — no matter how clearly in the wrong they are.

A few of the basic reasons you’re wrong in your uninformed opinions:

* They created “Superman”. Then they SOLD the rights to it.

Wrong. They sold some rights to it. Exactly which rights still remain — 70 years and multiple lawsuits later — a bit unclear. As the original copyright owners, Siegel & Shuster did not necessarily give up all claim to their work by accepting money for it. Authors accept money from book publishers and magazines all the time without giving up their copyright on their work. There has to be a contract spelling out what rights got sold, and if the purchaser doesn’t live up to their end of the agreement, the copyright-holder can seek to terminate the contract. Almost since the beginning, Siegel complained that National Periodicals (aka DC) made promises and assertions that they never lived up to.

* “The creators weren’t blind sided when they originally made the deal with DC, they were after making a profit.”

That’s hardly all they were after. From the beginning, Siegel wanted (and claims he was promised) creative involvement and control. That was his constant and impassioned claim during several legal battles throughout the years.

* The family has NO RIGHTS to the characters that their relatives signed away in 1938. Consider it lessons learned the hard way.

Wrong. First of all, it’s far from clear that Siegel & Shuster signed away all rights. Secondly, Congress rewrote copyright laws in the ’70s, partly to allow creators to redress unfair and predatory practices that had been exercised in the past. One of the provisions allowed creators to act to terminate certain kinds of transfers of copyright — and that’s what this case is all about. In pursuing this matter, the family is undoubtedly within its rights.

* “The sadness of all this, is that the family want MONEY…”

If you’d read anything about the emotional reaction of Siegel’s widow and daughter regarding the ruling, you’d realize that this was as much about vindicating Jerry as anything else.

Get some more actual information before randomly shooting your mouth off about what you think happened in this case.

I’m sure that if you’re family was morally entitled to millions of dollars of money that DC/Warner had raped your father for, you’d be more sympathetic.

But, from the sounds of it, you’re only concerned your own enjoyment, and your own needs.

What exactly did you learn from those thousands of superhero comics you’ve read? Apparently nothing.

Ugh.