http://www.joesergi.net/2/post/2009/09/sup…steps-down.html

Of course what changes will happen to the rest of the Krypton family (Power Girl, Supergirl, Mon-El, etc.) They are all connected to Krypton after all. I smell another Crisis type event in the 5 years that will attempt to once again rewrite origins.

Next, exactly what *can* be negotiated at this point? I mean, the Shuster estate gets DC’s 50% interest in 2012. Or is the issue simply pass damages?

And my God, Larson’s decisions will be appealed? Or is this such a black and white issue and/or so tight a decision that everyone knows an appeal would be meritless?

Allegedly, there was an acceptable offer from Paul Levitz on the table that the Siegels liked but Levitz’s bosses rejected.

If it was me, I’d do one of two things. Right now, I think the relationship is anyone could do anything but would have to answer to the other partner financially. So if I was the estate, I’d make Mark Millar’s dream come true and say: “You say you can save the character, etc. You have a great track record, you’re a great promoter — You have twelve issues. Go!” I’m serious. If the estate can publish a better Superman — why the hell not?

The easy out is the classic Hollywood contract, more or less: A blanket license to DC till 2013 (when it’d have to be renegotiated mostly to factor in the Shuster estate): $X per year plus a share of profits and do what you want. Of course, DC and Warner’s will screw around with the profit #s so a huge upfront’s required but still.

The off the wall variant is that in 2013 the estates can open a biding war for their character. They will completely own (in the US) the core of the character. Everything DC has is dross (cf. the current storyline.)

Larry

Batman was created when, given the success of Superman in Action, editors asked other creators to come up with superheroes. That doesn’t necessarily mean that Batman wouldn’t've been created had Superman been taken to another publisher and been popular there (certainly, plenty of publishers jumped on the bandwagon once the success of Superman was clear), but if there was no Superman and the success he brought, it seems very unlikely that there would be a Batman. And given the apparent unevenness of the finances of some involved, I’m not sure Detective Comics, Inc. would even have survived long enough to get to when Batman was created without the success of Superman.

There were a number of publishers putting out comics before Action 1 came out, but neither MLJ nor Timely were yet doing so. As such, the companies that formed into what we now know as DC Comics were the only ones publishing then that have a continuous lineage to today (unless I’m missing something – if someone can correct me, please do). It seems pretty clear that such a long run was unlikely for any company from that era, and hard to believe it would’ve happened without the major success of Superman and all he inspired.

In fact the Superman copyright SHOULD have expired back in the 1990s, with Superman entering the public domain. Several major corporations (Disney chief among them) argued and received a copyright extension, which has enabled DC to hold on to Superman for several more years.

Just to sum up:

1. The notion that Superman’s creators were “ripped off” is NOT what this fight is about. It’s about a late 1990s revision to copyright law which provides original copyright holders an opportunity to reclaim their creations. DC is simply fighting this tooth and nail.

2. The notion that Superman’s copyright was sold “permanently” is incorrect. Copyrights expire, and DC knew this when they purchased Action Comics # 1 from Superman’s creators.

Supes might be with some other company, or perhaps never have happened as far as the public is concerned. Someone else, or something else, would’ve created the costumed superhero genre. Batman was more like The Shadow than Superman anyhow, aside from the cape, tights, and undies on the outside. Just food for thought.

In the meantime, anyone interested in the early history of Siegel and Shuster should check out the August 2008 issue of Alter Ego, which provides fascinating historical material from the family of DC founder Major Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson. There’s material in this issue that helps explain Jerry Siegel’s assertion that he understood his assignment of all rights to apply only to first serial rights–a letter reproduced on p.37 indicates that with the Major, “all rights other than first serial rights” were “to be returned” to the creator “at any time, upon request.”

Related to that, you get a sense that Siegel made a tragic decision in waiting to sell the character. The Major wanted to publish Superman before 1938, but, as Siegel indicates in his unpublished memoirs, the Major’s touch-and-go financial situation led Siegel and Shuster to hold off of a deal that likely would have left them with all rights to Superman except those to the first publication. Siegel and Shuster ultimately sold the character when payment of the page rates seemed more certain, but in return they got a contract that they would resent for decades to come.

Can you clarify something for me? When Siegel and Shuster originally sold Superman to DC in the 30s, were they selling off all rights to the character, or just licensing him off for a specific number of years? When S&S tried to get back control of the character in the 40s, did they have any legal right to do so? That would color my opinion on the whole matter. If they signed off on all rights and no legal right to try to get control of character back, then the Siegel estate shouldn’t have the right to do what they’re doing now.

But as far as the judge goes, good for him. Go all Solomon on them; if they can’t come to an agreement, cut the baby in half, give each party a piece and let them try to figure it out by themselves.

Perhaps. And if it wasn’t for S&S bringing Superman to the company, what would Detective Comics, Inc. be today?