Two sixth-grade boys near Walnut Grove, Ala., were arrested yesterday after school officials discovered a Death Note-inspired notebook containing the names of faculty, staff and students.

The notebook was discovered Wednesday and turned over to the principal of West End Elementary, who then gave it to the Etowah County Sheriff’s Department.

The hit Death Note manga and anime center on a high school student who sets out to rid the world of evil using a supernatural notebook that kills anyone whose name is written in it.

Although the notebook contained what authorities described as terrorist threats, a sheriff’s department spokesman said there was nothing to indicate the two 12-year-olds planned to carry out any kind of attack. The students considered it a joke.

The students have been suspended indefinitely pending orders from juvenile court.

Yesterday we observed that the copyright interest awarded to the Siegel heirs was not the same as what Siegel and Shuster would have if they’d created Superman today. The reason for this lies in the rather arcane set of rules that govern copyrighted material created and sold before 1978.

If you think I’m exaggerating with the word “arcane,” take a look at this chart on the length of copyright. And I do mean just “take a look,” because people who spend more than a few moments to trying to figure it out tend to wind up muttering to themselves incoherently or deciding to go to law school.

(more…)

On March 1, 1938, Detective Comics paid Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster one hundred and thirty dollars, reflecting their standard page rate, for the Superman story in Action Comics #1. Enclosed with the check: a contract assigning the company “exclusive right[s]” to Superman “to have and hold forever.” Not only did Siegel and Shuster sign the contract, but in September of that same year they signed an employment agreement acknowledging that the company owned Superman. (10)

That we are now talking about Siegel’s family gaining co-ownership of Superman is something of a miracle. Time and again, Siegel’s fight for the rights to the character ended in bitter disappointment. In a 1948 settlement, Siegel and Shuster once again acknowledged that Detective Comics “owned all rights to Superman.” (16) In 1974, a federal appeals court affirmed a lower court ruling that when Siegel and Shuster transferred “all their rights” to Superman “forever,” they signed away the possibility of getting him back. (17)

How could a court today possibly bring Siegel’s claim back from the dead?

To understand what happened, it will help if we first identify exactly what rights the court says Siegel’s heirs now possess. Since other experts have provided useful summaries of the entire court opinion, here I want to boil it down even further to just the core rulings:

The Siegels’ copyright interest: The Siegel family has regained the copyright to the Superman material in Action Comics #1, effective April 16, 1999. (56, 72)

House ads: The house ads published prior to Action Comics #1 merely give DC Comics a copyright interest in “the image of a person of extraordinary strength who wears a black and white leotard and cape.” (40)

Work-for-hire: No part of the Superman material in Action Comics #1 can be carved out as work for hire. (41-48 )

International rights: The Siegel’s regained copyright interest only extends to domestic U.S. rights. It does not include any rights gained under foreign laws, including rights to international profits. (65-66)

Accounting for profits: DC must account to the Siegels, as co-owners, for the profits from Superman material derived from Actions Comics #1–with the exception of derivative works prepared before April 16, 1999. The court does not resolve the question of what, if anything, the Siegels should be paid for pre-termination derivative works that have in some way been altered since April 16, 1999. (66-68)

Trademark: The Siegels cannot share in profits purely attributable to Superman trademark rights. However, the court does not determine whether they are entitled to profits from mixed trademark uses that include elements of the Siegels’ copyrighted material. (66-68)

Superman movies and TV shows: The court does not resolve the issue of Superman profits generated by Warner Brothers Entertainment and Time Warner, Inc. (71) The court ruling calls for “a trial on whether to include the profits generated by DC Comics’ corporate sibling’s [sic] exploitation of the Superman copyright.” (72)

As we can see from the above, what happened with the judge’s ruling may have been miraculous, but it wasn’t simply a case of restoring all the rights that Siegel signed away. Why that’s the case–and what this means for creators today–will be the subject of my next post.

Over the past week, there’s been a considerable amount of speculation as to what the Siegel decision means for the future of the Superman franchise. There’s also been some discussion as to how the Siegel family could regain fifty-percent share of the Superman copyright decades after Siegel and Shuster sold it to the company that we now know as DC Comics.

If you’re one of those confused by all this, don’t worry. You’re not alone. The law in this case is really complex — the history even more so — and that has understandably given rise to a tremendous amount of uncertainty.

In this post, we’re going to do what the law clerks most likely did when advising the judge: distill the whirl of claims and questions into a simple timeline. Our main focus for now: concerns that the ruling may spell the end of Superman.

April 16, 1999: The date that, according to the judge’s ruling, the Siegel heirs legally regained co-ownership of the Superman material in Action Comics #1. How is this possible if copyright lasts for life + 70 years? If, as some have explained, the Siegels got this right due to a change in copyright law back in 1976, why didn’t they claim it earlier? Does this mean that there can be no Superman comics, movies or merchandise without the Siegels’ permission? Can the Siegels really sell Superman to a rival publisher? Even if DC retains some creative control, will the Siegel payout make the Superman franchise unprofitable? And what does the ruling mean for aspects of the Superman mythos that weren’t in Action Comics #1?

2006: Superboy (Kon-El) dies in Infinite Crisis. Did DC kill him off because of the Siegels’ lawsuit? What does the most recent opinion mean for the future of the Superboy character?

(more…)

The Siegel ruling is a model of clear legal reasoning, but because it’s written primarily for lawyers it leaves a number of basic concepts undefined. Among these: copyright and trademark.

Which one applies can make a huge difference in the protection your work receives. For example, the length of time for trademark protection is only ten years, but the trademark owner can keep renewing it indefinitely so long as the mark is being used in commerce. By contrast, copyright protection lasts for the life of the creator plus seventy years (in the case of works for hire, 95 to 120 years), but then that’s it–after the term expires, the material enters the public domain.

The various rules for copyright and trademark protection can get a bit confusing, but here’s a relatively simple way to distinguish between the two. Copyright protects original creative works, such as music, art, and writing. Trademark serves to identify and distinguish products in the marketplace.

Often the line between the two seems pretty obvious. For instance, this post is an original work of authorship protected by copyright; it isn’t a word, name or symbol being used to market goods or services. If you look on your computer, however, you’ll see a logo–an apple, “Vaio,” “Dell”–whose primary function is to tell you the brand.

But this is also where it gets a bit more complicated. Creative works don’t always fall neatly into one or the other category. Consider this original work of graphic design that DC registered as a trademark back in 1941:

Besides being a trademark, the graphic nonetheless also enjoys copyright protection as an original creative work. While trademark protection may seem like overkill, DC would have been foolish not to get it–not only were they using the image on covers at the time, but even after the copyright expires, the image will continue to have trademark protection so long as DC keeps the registration alive.

Here’s where the Siegel case gets particularly tricky. DC has an array of trademarks related to Superman, many of which include designs arguably derived from the copyrighted Superman material in Action Comics #1. The “S” symbol, the Superman character, his home planet and Lois Lane–these are but a few of the elements that the Siegels’ attorneys claim have been incorporated into trademarks used to identify or distinguish branded products.

Over the next few days we’ll have a lot more to say about copyright, trademark and what this means for the future of Superman. Until then, if you’re interested in finding registered trademarks for comic characters or companies, here’s the trademark search page for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Before we go to the text of the Siegel opinion, I want to call attention to an aspect of the case that is truly unusual. Not the awarding of copyright to the co-creator’s heirs–while this is indeed historic, it is nonetheless an outcome envisioned by the statute.

No, for me the most striking thing about this case is how many people are reading court documents without getting graded or paid. Despite all my years hanging with lawyers and law students, I’ve rarely encountered anyone whose idea of weekend entertainment was to knock back a seventy-two page ruling on the termination of transfers.

Yet over the past few days I’ve watched in amazement as the link to the opinion racked up dozens . . . then hundreds . . . now thousands of downloads.

Even more incredible: you’re actually reading it. Quoting favorite lines, citing page numbers, arguing over what passages mean–it’s a powerful reminder that Siegel and Shuster did not just create a character.

They created a community.

First, a huge thank you to JK Parkin and the entire Blog@ team for inviting me to post. I’ve enjoyed reading Newsarama in its various incarnations over the years, and I’m honored to have an opportunity to get slagged in my own comments thread!

Now to the business at hand. Pretty much everyone in the comics community knows that a judge has granted the Siegel family a copyright interest in Superman. What this means, however, is far from clear.

Over the next week I’ll be cross-posting here a series of follow-ups to my original FAQ over at UncivilSociety.org. Can DC still publish Superman stories? Will Superman soon be joining the Avengers? And just what gives a family the right to regain copyright if the original creators sold it in a legal contract? These are only a few of the issues we’ll be considering–if you have questions of your own don’t hesitate to let me know.

Just be nice. After all, I’m a lawyer, and you know how easy it is to hurt our feelings.

No doubt if you read anything in the blogosphere this past weekend about the Siegel case, it probably quoted, referenced and/or linked back to Jeff Trexler’s blog Uncivil Society. I’m pleased to announce that for the next week or so, Jeff’s agreed to blog with us and hopefully help translate the sometimes murky language of the law into plain English, particularly how it applies to this case.

When he isn’t blogging about comics, legal issues or religion, Jeff teaches social entrepreneurship at Pace University in New York City. He’s also taught law at SMU and St. Louis University, and received his law degree from Yale. We’re really pleased to have him on board … look for his first post very soon!

Unless you were on Internet silence this weekend, you undoubtedly know that late Friday news broke that Jerry Siegel’s heirs have reclaimed half the copyright to the Superman material in Action Comics #1.

Should Judge Stephen Larson’s ruling survive appeal, this isn’t just the comics story of the week; it’s the story of the year. Hell, probably several years. Another trial, or else an out-of-court agreement, will determine how much Time Warner owes Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson for its use of the character since 1999 — the date their ownership was determined to have been restored.

As anyone who waded into the comments section of my initial post can attest, the ruling sparked a frenzy among a segment of fandom on a level not seen since, I don’t know, the Crash of ’29. Actually, remember the bonfire scene from The Lord of the Flies? It was a lot like that. (C’mon, guys, nobody’s “destroying” Superman. If he can survive the Mullet Years, Red/Blue and the final season of Lois & Clark, he can survive a legal battle. In all likelihood you’ll continue to get your weekly dose of Superman uninterrupted.)

I updated the initial post with worthwhile links, such as The New York Times’ report, Jeff Trexler‘s continuing coverage (including a terrific FAQ), and Tom Bondurant’s analysis for Newsarama. Since then, there has been some more notable coverage:

• At Comics Should Be Good, Brian Cronin assembles a Superman copyright FAQ that serves as a good companion to Trexler’s.

• Comics commentator Abhay Khosla looks at the decision, and the original deal between Siegel, Shuster and Detective Comics.

• At Comic Book Resources, intellectual-property attorney Brendan McFeely discusses the finer points of the ruling.

• At Journalista, Dirk Deppey “poke[s] a finger in DC Comics’ glorious misfortune,” and then settles in for a dissection of Larson’s 72-page decision.

• Variety‘s coverage focuses on Siegel attorney Marc Toberoff, whom it calls “Kryptonite to studios.”

More links as they appear.

Oakley Inc. has filed a lawsuit against Marvel, Twentieth Century Fox and a UK company over sunglasses used to promote Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.

The California-based sports clothing and equipment company contends a pair of sunglasses included in a gift packet produced to promote the movie violates its U.S. patent by copying its Penny eyeglass line.

The lawsuit, filed March 20 in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, Calif., asks that the court award an injunction to prevent Marvel, Fox and London-based RDP Unlimited from manufacturing sunglasses that infringe upon the patent. It also requests an accounting of all profits from the sales of the products, damages, and the destruction of all infringing sunglasses.

In what may shape up to be a historic ruling, a judge on Wednesday awarded Jerry Siegel’s heirs the copyright to the Superman material in Action Comics #1.

As Jeff Trexler points out, Judge Stephen Larson’s 71 1/2-page opinion doesn’t resolve all the issues — the separate Superboy case, division of profits, etc. — but it does seem to put an end, of sorts, to a decades-long feud. (The decision is certain to be appealed by Time Warner.)

“After seventy years,” Larson writes in his concluding paragraph, “Jerome Siegel’s heirs regain what he granted so long ago — the copyright in the Superman material that was published in Action Comics Vol. 1. What remains is an apportionment of profits, guided in some measure by the rulings contained in this Order, and a trial on whether to include the profits generated by DC Comics’ corporate sibling’s exploitation of the Superman copyright.”

Trexler also points to an analysis of the decision by William Patry, Google’s senior copyright counsel, which provides some context: “The opinion doesn’t cover Schuster’s interests, which are not subject to Section 304(c) termination, but rather a future 304(d) termination. Nor does the opinion reach the work for hire question for anything after the (justly famous and important) Action Comics Vol. 1 published on April 18, 1938 – the collateral estoppel applied on work for hire only covers Action Comics Vol. 1. Finally, there are very thorny issues of apportionment. All of these issues are likely to be the subject of subsequent motions and possibly trial.”

Expect more coverage over the weekend.

Update: The New York Times weighs in with reaction quotes from Siegel estate attorney Marc Toberoff, Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson. The Times notes that while the decision leaves intact Time Warner’s international rights to Superman, it may open the door to a similar reversion of copyright to the estate of Joe Shuster in 2013.

“After 2013, Time Warner couldn’t exploit any new Superman-derived works without a licence from the Siegels and Shusters,” said Toberoff, who also represents the Shuster estate.

Update 2 (March 29): Jeff Trexler is a step ahead of everyone else, and provides a wonderfully informative copyright decision FAQ. Those commenters in a panic over what the ruling will mean to their monthly dose of Superman comics would do well to read the article, as Trexler addresses questions of creative control, trademarks, and copyright law.

Update 3 (March 29): Blog@ contributor and attorney Tom Bondurant analyzes the ruling for the main site.

Update 4 (March 29): Mark Evanier discusses the photos of Siegel and Shuster that accompany The New York Times article.

Neil Gaiman also comments: “When I did something like this on a much smaller scale, I remember how much of a relief it was when the court awarded me my share in the characters I’d co-created. (I really ought to do something with it. Anyone want to publish an ANGELA comic? Or Medieval Spawn?)”

Update 5: Jeff Trexler continues his commentary on the ruling: “So is this the death of Superman? No, not at all. Instead of worrying about DC folding up, expect a settlement with both the Siegel and Shuster families, albeit perhaps one that is more favorable to them in terms of finances and the creators’ recognition than might have otherwise been obtained.”

A group of students at the University of Utah have started an online petition to have the graphic novel Fun Home removed from the curriculum of an English class.

“The issue is exposing people to pornography,” says Thomas Alvord, with a group called “No More Pornography.”

KSL.com reports:

Drawings depicting sex acts are included in the 230 page novel. A student in the class was offended and approached the group “No More Pornography,” which made headlines earlier this year when it staged a successful protest of music videos shown a gym in Provo. The group has started an online petition in protest of the book.

Alvord says, “It’s like they’re turning their back and pretending graphics, depiction of oral sex, are not an issue.”

Vincent Pecora, the chair of the English Department at the U says, “If we try to only choose only the novels that have a moral point of view that we agree with, we might not have a whole lot of literature to teach.”

Pecora is defending the book and the professor teaching the course. Among his reasons, the University’s accommodation policy, which allows a student to get an alternate assignment or leave the course without penalty. Four other classes fulfill the requirement.

“I think it’s really an obligation to teach this kind of literature. It’s new, it’s interesting, it’s inventive,” Pecora said.

The story has generated almost 200 heated comments as of 10:30 a.m. PT today.

Via

If you were anywhere near the Internet last week, you undoubtedly read about “marvel b0y,” who appeared to have been a disgruntled low-level Marvel employee determined to reveal spoiler-ish tidbits in between complaints about writers and editors and his menial duties.

On Friday evening, marvel b0y dropped a handful of seemingly inconsequential spoilers before signing off for the weekend. However, that post spawned a comments thread in which someone anonymously revealed what may be a half-dozen major plot points for Marvel’s Secret Invasion. (I won’t post them here. With a little Google-Fu, I’m sure you can find them.)

By early Saturday, though, marvel b0y’s blog had been deleted — something, perhaps, that writer Brian Michael Bendis had hinted at the day before: “… please, do not pay the troll any mind and it will all be resolved, hopefully, over the weekend. the hounds have been unleashed!”

His blog may be gone, but questions certainly remain. Foremost, of course, is whether marvel b0y was the real deal, or simply Marvel’s attempt at some rather bizarre viral marketing.

This morning Heidi MacDonald points to a February blog post from Tom Brevoort in which he refers to “some of the bizarre and probably ill-considered new concepts” Marvel will be “throwing out” in the coming weeks and months: “They may be stupid, or childish, or idiotic — but they won’t be boring!”

The postings of marvel b0y are certainly bizarre. Stupid, childish and ill-considered, too. But I don’t think Brevoort was referring to marvel b0y or, necessarily, marketing.

(more…)

In this week’s “Lying in the Gutters,” Rich Johnston pointed to the blog of “marvel b0y,” who characterizes himself as a low-level editorial staff member at Marvel and proceeds to drop sort of spoilers, grouse about certain writers and editors, and detail the mundaneness of his duties.

Johnston asked whether marvel b0y is an “insider whistleblower or fake.” Apparently he is an insider — albeit one who doesn’t value his job much.

Yesterday, marvel b0y posted a cease-and-desist letter from Marvel’s deputy general counsel Eli Bard in response to his reproduction of art from the unreleased New Avengers #41. (The images no longer appear on his blog, apparently because the Photobucket links were disabled.) The letter is addressed to “Mr. Conners,” in reference to the name used in the email address listed for the LiveJournal account.

Needless to say, marvel b0y’s real name isn’t “Riley Conners.”

On his own blog, writer Matt Fraction (The Immortal Iron Fist, Invincible Iron Man) recounted a phone call he received yesterday morning from Marvel informing him that there’s “a disgruntled Marvel employee out there that’s started a bitter little jagoff blog”:

(more…)

The Detroit News reports that comics retailer Michael George was found guilty of shooting his wife 17 years ago in the back room of their comic book store in Clinton Township, Mich.:

George was accused of shooting his wife, Barbara, in the head on July 13, 1990, and making the crime look like a robbery. The jury found George guilty of first-degree murder, felony firearm, insurance fraud and obtaining money from an insurance agency under false pretenses.

The four-man and eight-woman jury began deliberations Friday afternoon after listening to the testimony of nearly 50 witnesses in the trial that drew national media attention.

George is owner of Comics World in Windber, Pa., and co-founder of the Pittsburgh Comic-Con.

Closing arguments are planned today in the trial of retailer Michael George, who’s charged in the murder of his first wife 17 years ago.

The defense rested yesterday afternoon after the testimony of George’s mother Janet, who asserts that her son was asleep on her sofa at the time his wife Barbara was killed in their comic store, about 30 minutes away.

George’s two daughters, who were 4 and 2 at the time of their mother’s slaying, testified on Wednesday.

George, owner of Comics World in Windber, Pa., and co-founder of Pittsburgh Comic-Con, is accused of staging the July 13, 1990, shooting death of his first wife to look like a robbery of their Clinton Township, Mich., comic-book store.

He has pleaded not guilty to charges of first- and second-degree murder, felony firearm, insurance fraud and obtaining money from an insurance agency under false pretenses. If convicted, he faces life in prison without parole.

Update: The Detroit News summarizes the closing arguments. The jury is expected to begin deliberations this afternoon.

Just days after a South Carolina middle-school student was suspended over a Death Note notebook, a Connecticut teen was arrested after he allegedly uploaded a threatening video that used a quote from Naruto.

The New London, Conn., Day reports that police arrested expelled high-school student Brandon A. Brown, who on Feb. 29 had posted a homemade video to YouTube.com, directed at his former classmates. It read, “Beware All Those Who Cross My Path. On March 19, 2008, THE END IS HERE.”

The video contained a variation of the trademark line used by the Naruto character Gaara: “The Corpses Crimson Bitter Tears Will Flow And Mingle Through The Endless Sand Feeding The Chaos In Me and Making Me Stronger.”

Police say the 18-year-old Brown, who had been suspended in June, “readily admitted” that he created the video. He was charged with threatening and breach of peace and released on $2,500 bond.

Last week a middle-school student in Hartsville, S.C., was removed from school after the principal confiscated a Death Note-style notebook containing the names of seven classmates. A discipline hearing is pending.

The hit Death Note manga and anime center around a high school student who sets out to rid the world of evil using a supernatural notebook that kills anyone whose name is written in it.

(Links via Anime News Network)

Opening statements were heard yesterday in the trial of retailer Michael George, who’s charged in the 1990 murder of his first wife.

George, owner of Comics World in Windber, Pa., and co-founder of Pittsburgh Comic-Con, is accused of staging the July 13, 1990, shooting death of his first wife Barbara to look like a robbery of their Clinton Township, Mich., comic-book store.

Michigan’s Macomb Daily reports that assistant prosecutor Steven Kaplan told jurors that George shot his wife dead rather than divorce her. He also conceded that the case against the 47-year-old man is largely circumstantial.

Defense attorney Joseph Kosmala argued that George wasn’t at the store at the time of the killing, but was instead asleep on his mother’s sofa some 15 miles away. Kosmala also underscored the lack of physical evidence placing his client at the scene, and argued that prosecutors don’t have new evidence, just “changed stories” in the 17-year-old case.

The trial continues today as the prosecution calls the first of about 40 witnesses. The defense is expected to call seven.

George was arrested in August 2007 at his Windber store after Clinton Township, Mich., detectives re-examined the cold case.

He has pleaded not guilty to charges of first- and second-degree murder, felony firearm, insurance fraud and obtaining money from an insurance agency under false pretenses. If convicted, he faces life in prison without parole.

Jury selection begins today in Mount Clemens, Mich., in the trial of retailer Michael George, who’s charged in the 1990 killing of his first wife Barbara.

The Detroit News provides some solid background, and notes the number of national media that have been drawn to the case of “comic book murder.”

George, owner of Comics World in Windber, Pa., and co-founder of Pittsburgh Comic-Con, is accused of staging the July 13, 1990, shooting death of his first wife Barbara to look like a robbery of their Clinton Township, Mich., comic-book store. Prosecutors say he wanted to collect his wife’s $125,000 insurance policy and their shared estate, and start over with another woman.

George, 47, was arrested in August 2007 at his Windber store after Clinton Township, Mich., detectives re-examined the cold case.

He has pleaded not guilty to charges of first- and second-degree murder, felony firearm, insurance fraud and obtaining money from an insurance agency under false pretenses. If convicted, he faces life in prison without parole.

Rolling Stone reports that the Foo Fighters are suing Marvel Entertainment, First Serve International, Toonz Animation India and First Serve Toonz for copyright infringement:

The band alleges that Marvel used “substantial excerpts” of their songs “Best of You” and “Free Me” as the music for the trailer of the new animated series Wolverine and the X-Men. You can watch the trailer here, and it’s pretty obvious that the Foos are used to soundtrack the cartoon’s preview.

The trailer hit the ‘net back at the beginning of February and has since been pulled from YouTube.

E! Online has a few more details:

Per the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, “substantial excerpts” of the tunes “Best of You” and “Free Me,” both off the 2005 album In Your Honor, were used in a teaser for the upcoming animated series Wolverine and the X-Men.

The song samples “were copied directly from the Foo Fighters’ sound recordings of those two songs” and people can watch the trailer online, the suit alleges.

The suit was also filed on behalf of Roswell Records Inc., owners of the master recordings.

(Thanks, James!)