the Superboy lawsuit

[jadegiant77]

Ok if anyone in their right mind thinks that Warner Bros. and their army of lawyers is going to loose the rights to Superboy to the Siegels, think again! I hope they just settle this crap outta court and give them some royalty checks or something. If the Siegels do win, will they have sole ownership of the character?

[DonC]

The Siegel and Shuster familes have won. The case is on appeal.

And yes, to the best of my knowledge, they would have sole ownership of the character. They would, I'm sure license or sell the rights to a comic company, though.

[Beast]

Which is why Superboy in the upcoming 'Legion of Super-Heroes' Animated series is being called Young Superman instead. It's likely also why Superboy was killed at the end of Infinite Crisis.

[Ontir]

The question is, would they license "Superboy" to DC, or to someone else?

[Beast]

The question is, would they license "Superboy" to DC, or to someone else?
It would be amusing if Marvel licensed it. :D

[Buried Alien]

I hope Siegel and Shuster's estates decide to license Superboy back to DC. The idea of a DCU without a Superboy...or Superboy published by a different comics company...just seems *wrong* somehow.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[shaxper]

If they sold Superboy to another company, wouldn't they pretty much have to change everything except the name? Otherwise, the costume, identity, supporting cast, and backstory would steal from the Superman property (still owned by DC).

[chrismileslord]

if they sold superboy...they would have to change everything..like shaxper said, so even if he had the name, would it matter anyway? It would be a completely different character..

[elheffe]

I hope they just settle this crap outta court and give them some royalty checks or something.
Well let's see: creating a character that's reaped millions maybe billions of dollars for a huge corporation; yeah, a few royalty checks should cover it.

[Ronnigon]

Which is why Superboy in the upcoming 'Legion of Super-Heroes' Animated series is being called Young Superman instead. It's likely also why Superboy was killed at the end of Infinite Crisis.

How utterly hilarious.

The entire ridiculous bowel movement that was Infinite Crisis, was nothing more than a financing dodge, to avoid having to pay the Siegels for use of their own character.

:D How appropriately nauseating.

[dancj]

Which is why Superboy in the upcoming 'Legion of Super-Heroes' Animated series is being called Young Superman instead. It's likely also why Superboy was killed at the end of Infinite Crisis.

I was under the impression that the judge had rules that Clark in Smallville was actually Superboy (though he never uses the name or wears a costume) and that he was therefore covered by this too. If that's the case I can't imagine calling him Young Superman will get him out of it

[MythicBrawn]

I saw the ad for the Legion of Super-Heroes cartoon and thought it odd that he was being called Superman. Now, I know why. They should just call him Kal. It certainly sounds better than Young Superman.

[aukevin]

I wonder what ramifications will arise for characters like Lana Lang who was first introduced in a Superboy comic?

[Effect]

I wonder what ramifications will arise for characters like Lana Lang who was first introduced in a Superboy comic?

I hadn't even considered that. If their claim on Superboy (which is rightfully theirs I feel) gives them control of ther Superboy name, does this extend to other characters created by Siegel and Shuster when Superboy was created?

Also why would everything but the name Superboy have to be changed? I figured when designing and creating a character that the the foundation of the character (who he is and where he comes from) is covered in the creation and there fore apart of it. If that's the case, then there really is nothing stopping whoever they licenese the rights out to from using the whole Krypton, etc material is there as long as it's directly related to the Superboy character. It's part of the character.

[Captain Jim]

The Siegel and Shuster familes have won. The case is on appeal.

This may be unpopular to say, and I don't wish the Siegals any ill will, and I certainly do agree that Jerry got shafted... but I find the court's determination that Superboy is an entirely different character than Superman to be ludicrous.

The version of the character that Siegal created was Superman when he was a boy, Clark Kent, rocketed from the doomed planet Krypton. How on earth can you possibly say it's not the same character?

[Captain Jim]

I hope Siegel and Shuster's estates decide to license Superboy back to DC. The idea of a DCU without a Superboy...or Superboy published by a different comics company...just seems *wrong* somehow.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

Indeed. And now that we've gotten Superman and Superman Family volumes of Showcase, I really, really want a Superboy volume, containing all those silver age stories from Superboy and Adventure.

[protonik]

Which is why Superboy in the upcoming 'Legion of Super-Heroes' Animated series is being called Young Superman instead. It's likely also why Superboy was killed at the end of Infinite Crisis.

The first part yes, the second part NO. That isn't how trademark and copyright laws work. They own the rights to Superboy as a trade name, they can use the trademark. They can publish comics featuring a young Clark Kent, Lana Lang, Lex Luthor, Ma and Pa kent etc. but they can't stop DC from having a SUperboy character that isn't Clark Kent. Connor Kent died because Didio thought he was redundant. Connor Kent died because they needed a major heroic sacrifice. Connor Kent has NO BEARING on the Superboy suit. If DC wants to create another Superboy and put him in ANY book they can. Why else would Marvel and DC both have characters called Captain Marvel or Lobo. How about Spawn and the OTHER Spawn characters that BOTH companies have published.

[Ronnigon]

And God forbid we call the character "Superboy" and just pay Siegel and Shuster some royalties.

But, oh no... we can't do that. Then we might not be able to defecate in solid gold toilets and keep our plasticine bimbos and house-boys in Gucci and nose candy.

[Ontir]

It's not that simple. The case is still in appeals, and you can offer the Siegels any amount of money, but that doesn't mean they're going to be willing to take it.

Owning Superboy outright, and owning a portion of the rights to Superman, they may have some really interesting options open to them now. Options that don't include DC and Warner Bros.

[the film freak]

It's not that simple. The case is still in appeals, and you can offer the Siegels any amount of money, but that doesn't mean they're going to be willing to take it.

Owning Superboy outright, and owning a portion of the rights to Superman, they may have some really interesting options open to them now. Options that don't include DC and Warner Bros.

Since Time Warner has owns most of the Superman mythos they would have to change Superboy. I mean if they took Superboy to Marvel or Darkhorse they wouldn't be use Kryptonite, Lana Lang, the Superman costume and S-Logo, Ma and Pa Kent. They probably just own the name and basic concept of a kid with super powers.

[Apathy Boy]

Which is why Superboy in the upcoming 'Legion of Super-Heroes' Animated series is being called Young Superman instead. It's likely also why Superboy was killed at the end of Infinite Crisis.Yeah, but that doesn't explain the "Superman was Superboy in Smallville" retcon.

And I think "Li'l Superman" has a nice ring to it.

[SensorBoy]

Coming in 2007:

Superboy & The Legion of Great Lakes Champions!

[Ontir]

Since Time Warner has owns most of the Superman mythos they would have to change Superboy. I mean if they took Superboy to Marvel or Darkhorse they wouldn't be use Kryptonite, Lana Lang, the Superman costume and S-Logo, Ma and Pa Kent. They probably just own the name and basic concept of a kid with super powers.

I'm not so sure about that. Apparently the Siegels own Smallville. Add to that there owning a percentage of the rights to Superman, and the fact that DC didn't invent kryptonite, and the possibilites begin to mount.

[Ronnigon]

While we're on the topic of DC being a pack of corporate thugs...

I just read an article in the most recent issue of Wizard Magazine that DC did the same thing with the character of Captain Marvel, back in the early 1940's.

Apparently, Captain Marvel was owned by a company called Fawcett and was totally trouncing Superman and DC in readership sales.

To remedy this problem, apparently DC (then called National, presumptuously), took Fawcett to court and was able to finagle a $400,000 award from the courts, under the bull-$#!# argument that Captain Marvel was "essentially a Superman rip-off".

And, of course, that amount of money was a lot back in the 1940's, and Fawcett went under... and the Captain Marvel character was not able to resurface once Marvel Comics adopted a "Captain Marvel" character of their own.

Now, of course, the ravenous and egomaniacal amoeba that is DC has purchased the Captain Marvel character, and has suddenly decided that it's "okay" to promote him... especially since the money now goes to them.

And to add insult to injury, none other than Judd Winick -- the sneaky weasel from MTV's Real World series -- has been placed at the helm to "revive" the Captain Marvel character.

(Mind you, the character has always been more interesting than Superman, and never would have needed "reviving", had the underhanded DC Comics not sabotaged Captain Marvel's sales to begin with.)

I grew up with DC Comics but, after that discovering that DC has really always been just a pack of villainous phonies pretending to be good guys, I'm through ever buying DC again.

Make mine Marvel... maybe.

[Ronnigon]

You people are totally missing the point here.

You're sitting here trying to make these pieces fit into continuity, as if they were somehow ordained from Heaven and you must now scramble like rats in a maze, every time "the man" moves your cheese.

The point here is that DC is a company that is so obsessive about corporate control and cheapness, that it's willing to actually conspire to maintain those standards by creating elaborate and far-reaching hype campaigns like Infinite Crisis, which ultimately turn out to exist for nothing more than the purpose of eliminating one specific character that the company would otherwise have to pay for use of.

I don't know about you guys, but I don't like being duped and used like that.

What's more, that's no ordinary character. That's Superman/Superboy... the very character that put them on the map in the first place, and the creators of that very character, Siegel and Shuster.

So, who cares about all these piddly plot and continuity details from within the storyline? It's the real-world plot that sucks here.

[SensorBoy]

And to add insult to injury, none other than Judd Winick -- the sneaky weasel from MTV's Real World series -- has been placed at the helm to "revive" the Captain Marvel character.


$5 on Billy having HIV or coming out of the closet.

[Buried Alien]

While DC Comics should definitely make amends to the Siegel and Shuster estates and deal fairly with the Siegel and Shuster descendents for profits earned from Siegel and Shuster's creations, the loss of Superboy and possibly even Superman from DC Comics is *not* something that we fans should celebrate. DC's rich universe of characters and stories depend on the SUPERMAN franchise (and to an almost equal extent, the BATMAN franchise) as the center of its creative gravity. Without Superman as that center, the gravity would dissipate and that universe would unravel.

DC Comics would certainly lose, but so would us fans. That's hardly a prospect worth salivating over.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[the film freak]

I'm not so sure about that. Apparently the Siegels own Smallville. Add to that there owning a percentage of the rights to Superman, and the fact that DC didn't invent kryptonite, and the possibilites begin to mount.

Smallville righs are bing contested by Time Warner. Considering he's never called Superboy in the series other then the occasional joke. I'm sure it'll end up being partial ownership.

The DC didn't invent Kryptonite but neither did Jerry Siegel. DC probably had a conract with whoever did the radio show that anything created in the show is owned by DC. So far no one has contested DC for ownership of kryponite. This case may open the doors for something like that but DC owns kryptonite so far.

And while the Siegels and Time Warner share Superman rights. I doubt the Siegels are going to bring Superboy elsewhere without Time Warner putting up a fight. And if they did they would have to change the character considerably.

Most likely Time Warner and the Siegels will play nice and work up some sort of liscensing deal.

[DonC]

While we're on the topic of DC being a pack of corporate thugs...

I just read an article in the most recent issue of Wizard Magazine that DC did the same thing with the character of Captain Marvel, back in the early 1940's.

Apparently, Captain Marvel was owned by a company called Fawcett and was totally trouncing Superman and DC in readership sales.

To remedy this problem, apparently DC (then called National, presumptuously), took Fawcett to court and was able to finagle a $400,000 award from the courts, under the bull-$#!# argument that Captain Marvel was "essentially a Superman rip-off".


He was. Back in the 40s Superman's powers were, feel free to sing along, I know you know the words, faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

In other words, he was really fast, strong and hard to hurt and could jump 1/8 of a mile.

Captain Marvel's powers? Well, he was really fast, strong and hard to hurt and could fly.

And remember, copyright laws back then were very different than now. DC had a right to claim infringement and they won in a court of law.

[Ontir]

Ronningon, your statements are both hyperbolic, and largely inaccurate, even when they begin with some truth. "Captain Marvel," from Fawcett Comics (The Captain Fawcett who ran it, is the grand-father of Farrah Fawcett.), WAS very much like National's "Superman," who appeared first. Losing the lawsuit to National, along with wartime paper shortages, and the post-war recession, lead to the demise of Fawcett Comics, and when Cap ceased publication, the rest of the lawsuits ceased. Years later, the former National, now DC, bought the assets of Fawcett, including the Marvel Family, Bulletman, and a number of other characters.

Film Freak, I know Siegel didn't invent kryptonite, but I believe it was eventually used in the dailies that Siegel and Shuster did. Both estates are also part-owners of Superman now, along with DC. This combination, along with the current and standing ruling re: Smallville, might give them considerable leeway, in terms of what they do with the property.

[Captain Jim]

I'm not sure anybody still has the details completely right. Wikipedia has a nice article about this here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Comics_Publications_v._Fawcett_Publicatio ns).

[Ontir]

Interesting, and a bit different than what I'd read previously, which is what my prior post was based upon. The "per-use" is kind of odd, and seemed to lead directly to the further fading of the character, from the public's consciosness.

[Ontir]

This link provides more info on the suits, and what the Siegels own at least a share of, which included kryptonite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Siegel

[Ronnigon]

Ontir,

In spite of your claims that I'm wildly and erratically inaccurate, I'm failing to see how you disproved my charges against DC.

Are you claiming that Captain Marvel was not originally powered by Shazam, and did not derive his powers through magical means? Did they not derive from the first letters of the names of all the various gods that go into the word "Shazam"?

If Captain Marvel was built around all these things even back then, then, no, he wasn't a rip-off character. He had a completely different, magical derivation to his character.

[dancj]

In a world of comics that weren't dominated by superheros (as was the case back then), Captain Marvel was a blatant rip-off of Superman regardless of his origin and personality. He had pretty much the same powers and a cape. Whether that should have been sueable is another thing. These days there are lots of characters who are more similar to Superman than Captain Marvel, but that wasn't the case back then.

[Yoda]

Ontir,

In spite of your claims that I'm wildly and erratically inaccurate, I'm failing to see how you disproved my charges against DC.

Are you claiming that Captain Marvel was not originally powered by Shazam, and did not derive his powers through magical means? Did they not derive from the first letters of the names of all the various gods that go into the word "Shazam"?

If Captain Marvel was built around all these things even back then, then, no, he wasn't a rip-off character. He had a completely different, magical derivation to his character.

He still could violate DC's copyright in Superman.

[Yoda]

You people are totally missing the point here.

You're sitting here trying to make these pieces fit into continuity, as if they were somehow ordained from Heaven and you must now scramble like rats in a maze, every time "the man" moves your cheese.

The point here is that DC is a company that is so obsessive about corporate control and cheapness, that it's willing to actually conspire to maintain those standards by creating elaborate and far-reaching hype campaigns like Infinite Crisis, which ultimately turn out to exist for nothing more than the purpose of eliminating one specific character that the company would otherwise have to pay for use of.

I don't know about you guys, but I don't like being duped and used like that.

What's more, that's no ordinary character. That's Superman/Superboy... the very character that put them on the map in the first place, and the creators of that very character, Siegel and Shuster.

So, who cares about all these piddly plot and continuity details from within the storyline? It's the real-world plot that sucks here.

A Corporation wants to make money? You're kidding me! A corporation wants to protect one of their most recognizable and well know pop culture characters in the world. Nonsense!

And if you really believe that DC orcestrated the entire Infinite Crisis to kill off Superboy, i have a nice bridge to sell you, i'll even throw in a slightly used Big Dig tunnel. It's a fixeruper but, i'll give you a good deal.

[Kara Zor El]

What a terrible pity it came to this. What a shame Jerry and Joe have suffered so much at the hands of their own creations.

[Ronnigon]

And if you really believe that DC orcestrated the entire Infinite Crisis to kill off Superboy, i have a nice bridge to sell you, i'll even throw in a slightly used Big Dig tunnel. It's a fixeruper but, i'll give you a good deal.

I never argue with yes men and zealots.

[Brian Cronin]

I should do a FAQ on this someday. :)

Heck, maybe I can do one today!!

In any event, here's what we have at the moment...

1. As of right this second, the Siegels own the copyright for Superboy for the next seventeen years (as of right this second - it is sure to be appealed, though).

2. As of right this second, the Siegels are going to court to see whether Smallville infringes upon their (as of right this second) copyright on Superboy. DC says it's a young Clark Kent. Siegels say otherwise. A judge mentioned that, in HIS PERSONAL opinion, he thought the Siegels were correct. He did not think it was clear enough, though, for him to legally rule that.

3. DC owns a trademark on the name Superboy as well as the stylized red S that Superboy wears. Therefore, if someone were to do a Superboy comic book, it could not use the NAME Superboy or the costume in any advertisements or covers of the book. That severely curtails any, well, POINT of making a Superboy comic book without DC.

4. The reason the Siegels own Superboy, but not Superman is that Superboy was part of a separate deal where Joe Siegel came up with a Superboy pitch for DC. They looked at it, said they'd think about it, then came out with a Superboy comic while he was in the Armed Services. A judge ruled this was unfair, and awarded Siegel ownership of Superboy. Unlike Superman, which was a co-ownership deal, this was strictly for Joe Siegel.

5. After the ruling (in 1947), Siegel sold the copyright to DC. Later changes in copyright law gave owners of copyrights an extra nineteen years. The law says that sales of copyrights (like this) revert back to the original owner for the extra time period (as it would be unfair to let the buyers of the copyright get the extra time).

6. The courts never had a final ruling against Fawcett. There WAS an initial ruling against Fawcett, but it was overturned. Fawcett settled the case because Captain Marvel simply wasn't selling enough to warrant an expensive lawsuit. So after the case settled, they simply stopped making superhero comics.

7. Did DC kill Superboy because of this? Seems fairly likely, but also note that all they have to do is bring Conner Kent back with a new name and they're fine, as Conner Kent has really no ties to the copyrighted Superboy.

That is about it.

-Brian

[Kara Zor El]

Thanks Brian, you've unmuddled the muddle for me. Does this meen that Superkid or Superlad, or even Superteen is on the way?

[Torchbot]

And God forbid we call the character "Superboy" and just pay Siegel and Shuster some royalties.

But, oh no... we can't do that. Then we might not be able to defecate in solid gold toilets and keep our plasticine bimbos and house-boys in Gucci and nose candy.

Siegel and Shuster are dead, and have been for quite a while. They deserve all the recognition in the world for the creation of the character, but I don't see how their families deserve anything, because they didn't do anything.

Besides, as previously mentioned, Superman and Superboy are one and the same. It's ludicrous to rule that the two are different characters. Superboy is just a young Superman (or at least the one conceived by Siegel and Shuster is).

Siegel and Shuster are two of the most recognized names in comics, and I can agree that they deserve even more recognition (similar to what Bob Kane gets with Batman), but that's it. Comic characters are defined by the writers. Superman and Superboy have evolved into their own through the writing of many others over the decades, and I don't see why all the credit should rest of the initial creators, especially given that the Superboy that was in DC prior to Infinite Crisis was a completely different character than the one created by Siegel and Shuster.

[Kara Zor El]

Siegel and Shuster are dead, and have been for quite a while. They deserve all the recognition in the world for the creation of the character, but I don't see how their families deserve anything, because they didn't do anything.

Besides, as previously mentioned, Superman and Superboy are one and the same. It's ludicrous to rule that the two are different characters. Superboy is just a young Superman (or at least the one conceived by Siegel and Shuster is).

Siegel and Shuster are two of the most recognized names in comics, and I can agree that they deserve even more recognition (similar to what Bob Kane gets with Batman), but that's it. Comic characters are defined by the writers. Superman and Superboy have evolved into their own through the writing of many others over the decades, and I don't see why all the credit should rest of the initial creators, especially given that the Superboy that was in DC prior to Infinite Crisis was a completely different character than the one created by Siegel and Shuster.

Wouldn't you rather members of your family got your legacy rather than a corporate company that ripped you off?

[Torchbot]

Wouldn't you rather members of your family got your legacy rather than a corporate company that ripped you off?

I don't believe that family members should become reliant on their ancestors' wealth or prominence in order to succeed in life. If they are, then they are just leeching off of their ancestors' accomplishments, instead of their own. We all have to make our own way in this world, and we will never do that if all we do is rely on our parents/grandparents/etc. for everything. We may be wealthy, but we will not leave our mark on this world.

However, I agree that if the wives of Siegel and Shuster are still alive and are in need of money (which I highly doubt on both accounts since DC had been paying Siegel and Shuster a decent back salary for a while before their deaths and their wives are probably dead anyway), then I agree they should be cared for.

But should they receive multi-millions of dollars just for being related to the creators of a character that has evolved quite a bit over the past half-century? Hell no! Should their children (who are elderly themselves by now) receive a dime? Hell no!

[Michael P]

Besides, as previously mentioned, Superman and Superboy are one and the same. It's ludicrous to rule that the two are different characters. Superboy is just a young Superman (or at least the one conceived by Siegel and Shuster is).

Don't take this the wrong way, but that's rather a naive viewpoint that's wholly ignorant of the realities and necessities of intellectual property law.


Siegel and Shuster are two of the most recognized names in comics, and I can agree that they deserve even more recognition (similar to what Bob Kane gets with Batman), but that's it.
As opposed, I guess, to what Bill Finger gets with Batman.

[davids]

after making sure to inform the other side that they intend to fight the superboy thing for the next 20 years in court. So they can look forward to a court case for the next decade or two. Or the family can sign over the rights now for an amount of money they can agree to with the WB.

kryptonite came from the radio show not the comics, so who will be suing DC next the Blue or red network? {Old radio networks]

[Lorendiac]

I don't believe that family members should become reliant on their ancestors' wealth or prominence in order to succeed in life. If they are, then they are just leeching off of their ancestors' accomplishments, instead of their own. We all have to make our own way in this world, and we will never do that if all we do is rely on our parents/grandparents/etc. for everything. We may be wealthy, but we will not leave our mark on this world.

However, I agree that if the wives of Siegel and Shuster are still alive and are in need of money (which I highly doubt on both accounts since DC had been paying Siegel and Shuster a decent back salary for a while before their deaths and their wives are probably dead anyway), then I agree they should be cared for.

But should they receive multi-millions of dollars just for being related to the creators of a character that has evolved quite a bit over the past half-century? Hell no! Should their children (who are elderly themselves by now) receive a dime? Hell no!

If I understand the ideas you are expressing, then it seems you are talking entirely about your own personal opinion of the "ethics" of the situation, as you see it, when a creator's heirs want to collect royalties and claim copyright ownership of a character and so forth.

In other words, you seem to have Zero Concern with anything so trivial and inconvenient as whatever the laws may already say in a particular situation, if the law of the land happens to disagree with your personal feelings about who deserves what. (Contracts, copyright ownership laws, previous court decisions in lawsuits, and all that sort of boring legal stuff.)

Is that a fair summary of your general attitude here? Or did I miss something important?

[Torchbot]

As opposed, I guess, to what Bill Finger gets with Batman.

If by that, you mean that Finger gets royally screwed over in terms of recognition so that a character the he had a major hand in creating is attributed solely and completely to another person, then yes. I agree that it's horrible how Kane screwed over his associate, Finger, and I can't stand that DC still maintains the deal they made with Kane years ago. At the least, add Finger's name alongside Kane's on all Batman related materials.

Anyway, I would wholeheartedly support Siegel and Shuster having a similar deal with Superman/Superboy. Make it crystal clear that they created the character(s). Make their names as recognizable to non-comic fans as Bob Kane and Stan Lee. Anything less is a slap in the face.

[Torchbot]

If I understand the ideas you are expressing, then it seems you are talking entirely about your own personal opinion of the "ethics" of the situation, as you see it, when a creator's heirs want to collect royalties and claim copyright ownership of a character and so forth.

In other words, you seem to have Zero Concern with anything so trivial and inconvenient as whatever the laws may already say in a particular situation, if the law of the land happens to disagree with your personal feelings about who deserves what. (Contracts, copyright ownership laws, previous court decisions in lawsuits, and all that sort of boring legal stuff.)

Is that a fair summary of your general attitude here? Or did I miss something important?

Correct, I'm expressing my personal opinion about how I believe the case should play out while completely ignoring the laws as they are written, because I do not agree with them.

I don't see why that's necessarily a bad thing. We all know what the laws say (or at least I presume most of us do). The issue is how we think it should be handled, which really doesn't have much to do with the law in my opinion. That being said, if I have lead you or anyone else to believe that I am citing law or legal precedent, as opposed to my own philosophical beliefs, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

[Lorendiac]

Correct, I'm expressing my personal opinion about how I believe the case should play out while completely ignoring the laws as they are written, because I do not agree with them.

Coming in late, I read some of the things you had said and other people had said in response, and that was exactly the impression I got: That you were completely uninterested in worrying about the legal fine points of the situation, but that not everybody in this thread clearly understood how little interest you had in the legal aspects one way or the other!

I figured it might clarify things if I expressed my own understanding of where you were coming from on this one, so that you could explicitly confirm or deny :)

For what it's worth, I personally didn't get the feeling that you were claiming to have lots of laws and previous court cases lined up to support your point of view "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a court of law. After all, we're not arguing this case in front of the United States Supreme Court. We're just chatting back and forth, informally, on any basis we happen to feel like! :)

Just a side note: Some time ago I read a book written by a guy who had worked as a clerk at the Supreme Court for a couple of years after he graduated from law school. He said that not understanding the critical difference between making "emotional" or "ethical" arguments on the one hand, and strictly "legal" arguments on the other hand, depending on the setting, was probably the most common mistake he saw when lawyers arrived to present the final arguments in cases that had attracted the official attention of the Supreme Court.

The lawyer said that it happened several times that he'd see some young idealistic lawyer arrive to appeal a death penalty case, and the lawyer would get very emotional and try to tug hard on the heartstrings of the Court by arguing that letting her client get executed would be "unfair" and "unethical" and just really a bad idea. The problem was that the members of the Supreme Court are supposed to be clever legal scholars who regard it as their sacred duty to decide whether something that was done was definitely unconstitutional; not just whether or not it was perfectly "fair," or how sorry someone tries to make them feel, emotionally, for the convicted felon in question after all he's been through.

So often a lawyer who sounded like she was lecturing the Court on its "moral duty" or whatever would end up losing her case because she had not stuck to building a very convincing airtight case full of legal precedents and nitpicking procedural points and other stuff that presented "logical" reasons for ruling that her client had been treated not just "badly" but unconstitutionally. An approach that might have worked on an ordinary jury of 12 randomly selected American citizens was entirely wrong at the level of the Supreme Court.

But we're not in front of the Supreme Court, so go right ahead and argue on any basis you feel like!

(I just thought it might help to have other people realize just what sort of basis you were interested in talking about so they'd quit trying to criticize your understanding of the legal aspects of the problem as if you even cared about those! :))

[Ontir]

Ontir,

In spite of your claims that I'm wildly and erratically inaccurate, I'm failing to see how you disproved my charges against DC.

Are you claiming that Captain Marvel was not originally powered by Shazam, and did not derive his powers through magical means? Did they not derive from the first letters of the names of all the various gods that go into the word "Shazam"?

If Captain Marvel was built around all these things even back then, then, no, he wasn't a rip-off character. He had a completely different, magical derivation to his character.

I never said "erratically inaccurate." I said hyperbolic and inaccurate.

There WAS a court ruling that said Capt. Marvel was a rip-off of Superman, and early on, he pretty much was. Despite the origins of their powers, they were largely identical in abilities. It was additions to the character largely from the cartoons and comic strips, that really turned Superman into the character we know today. Again, I didn't say he was, or wasn't a rip-off of Superman.

Everybody makes mistakes, and I've been known to retract now and again, myself, but you seem to go off half-cocked, fairly often, even when your post follows a link to a pretty thourough outline of a chain of events. To compound it by dubbing your statement, "the truth," and others "yes men," is just odd.

[dancj]

I never said "erratically inaccurate." I said hyperbolic and inaccurate.

So you're saying he was talking 'bolics!

[Tequilamokinbrd]

This may be unpopular to say..... but I find the court's determination that Superboy is an entirely different character than Superman to be ludicrous.

The version of the character that Siegal created was Superman when he was a boy, Clark Kent, rocketed from the doomed planet Krypton. How on earth can you possibly say it's not the same character?



Agreed.

If I make a movie, and then I make a sequel to it which takes places ten years later, the main character isn't a different guy just because he's older.


Is Obi Wan Kenobi from Episode III the same guy from Episode V? Why yes, yes he is.


And it doesn't hold up even if there's a change in codename, when Alan Scott started calling himself Sentinel, did that make him a different character? Nope.




I think creating that type of distinction opens up a huge can of worms, it would mean that (for example) the creator of Captain America could sue Marvel for double royalties because they use WWII era Captain America as well as Present-Day Captain America, it's the same F'n guy!

[protonik]

You people are totally missing the point here.

You're sitting here trying to make these pieces fit into continuity, as if they were somehow ordained from Heaven and you must now scramble like rats in a maze, every time "the man" moves your cheese.

The point here is that DC is a company that is so obsessive about corporate control and cheapness, that it's willing to actually conspire to maintain those standards by creating elaborate and far-reaching hype campaigns like Infinite Crisis, which ultimately turn out to exist for nothing more than the purpose of eliminating one specific character that the company would otherwise have to pay for use of.

I don't know about you guys, but I don't like being duped and used like that.

What's more, that's no ordinary character. That's Superman/Superboy... the very character that put them on the map in the first place, and the creators of that very character, Siegel and Shuster.

So, who cares about all these piddly plot and continuity details from within the storyline? It's the real-world plot that sucks here.

Ok, repeat after me: DC Comics would NOT have to pay for the continued use of Conner Kent, aka Superboy even if they called him Superboy. He is a totally different character than what the Siegels won in court. TOTALLY. Its like Marvel's Captain Marvel and DC's Captain Marvel etc. The Siegels won the rights to Clark Kent as a boy along with his supporting cast like Ma and Pa Kent (who were NOT in Superman), Lana Lang, Pete Ross etc. I can create a book and have a Superboy character in it as long as I do try and market that name because I do not own the trademark. This means if I wanted to do a miniseries for MY Superboy I would need to find a different title for the book to go by besides Superboy but he would STILL be Superboy.

[Superboy Sr]

Just out of my need to know what does the Seigel victory in court mean for them and Superboy? Does he become a free agent like in football or is he still stuck in DCU as a psychotic villian and dead clone?

[Rylon]

Wouldn't you rather members of your family got your legacy rather than a corporate company that ripped you off?You didn't ask me, but this is a discussion board, so I’m going to answer anyways.

If I ever own any intellectual property, (technically, I suppose I do, but it's not like it generates any money) I would rather transfer it to the public domain rather than transfer it to my heirs.

I say this not because I hate my future children, but because I believe that intellectual property should eventually become public domain. Moving beyond copyright, think about patents. What if one company owned Von Newman Architecture? What if the underlying structure of electronic computers had been owned by a single company instead of being in public domain? The explosion of computers in the 20th century was only possible because the basic workings could not be patented by their inventors. The inventors of ENIAC couldn’t patent their machine because it was a government project. I’m not saying they don’t deserve credit, they deserve as much credit as von Neumann, but many of the things we take for granted today are a direct result of multiple people and companies being able to build and manufacture computers. For example, a famous quote has an IBM executive saying that there only a market for about 5 computers in the whole world. If IBM didn’t have competition in the computer market, they would likely have never even thought about making a personal computer.

As far as I’m concerned, I think copyright and patent law should change so that the original inventors or authors own a work or invention until they die and then it would pass into the public domain. If the original author or inventor is an corporation or other institution I think the time period should be fixed with not possibility to extend. If the copyright or patent gets transfed or sold, then the work or invention would still pass into public domain upon the death of the original authors or inventors. I wouldn’t change trademark law.

This way important artistic works move into the public domain only when the artist(s) die, they can profit from it as long as they live, but afterwards, the artistic work can be used in the same way The Oresteia, The Wizard of Oz, and other classics are.

Also, I don’t need to inherit anything from my family. I love my family very much and whatever they own can go to charity if they so wish, I don’t need anything. I would like a few things, for sentimentality, but the time I’ve spent with them is enough for me. I hope that any children I might have will feel the same way about me.

[Kara Zor El]

You didn't ask me, but this is a discussion board, so I’m going to answer anyways.

If I ever own any intellectual property, (technically, I suppose I do, but it's not like it generates any money) I would rather transfer it to the public domain rather than transfer it to my heirs.

I say this not because I hate my future children, but because I believe that intellectual property should eventually become public domain. Moving beyond copyright, think about patents. What if one company owned Von Newman Architecture? What if the underlying structure of electronic computers had been owned by a single company instead of being in public domain? The explosion of computers in the 20th century was only possible because the basic workings could not be patented by their inventors. The inventors of ENIAC couldn’t patent their machine because it was a government project. I’m not saying they don’t deserve credit, they deserve as much credit as von Neumann, but many of the things we take for granted today are a direct result of multiple people and companies being able to build and manufacture computers. For example, a famous quote has an IBM executive saying that there only a market for about 5 computers in the whole world. If IBM didn’t have competition in the computer market, they would likely have never even thought about making a personal computer.

As far as I’m concerned, I think copyright and patent law should change so that the original inventors or authors own a work or invention until they die and then it would pass into the public domain. If the original author or inventor is an corporation or other institution I think the time period should be fixed with not possibility to extend. If the copyright or patent gets transfed or sold, then the work or invention would still pass into public domain upon the death of the original authors or inventors. I wouldn’t change trademark law.

This way important artistic works move into the public domain only when the artist(s) die, they can profit from it as long as they live, but afterwards, the artistic work can be used in the same way The Oresteia, The Wizard of Oz, and other classics are.

Also, I don’t need to inherit anything from my family. I love my family very much and whatever they own can go to charity if they so wish, I don’t need anything. I would like a few things, for sentimentality, but the time I’ve spent with them is enough for me. I hope that any children I might have will feel the same way about me.

I don't think you can equate a comic book character, no matter how iconic and successful with humanity benefiting technology.

I don't agree with you.

Just because you don't want to leave your kids anything of monitory worth doesn't mean it's wrong for others to.
The Terry Nation Estate has prevented the BBC from changing the Daleks beyond recognition over the years. And if they hadn't had owned the rights, then the Daleks would now be unrecognizable.

If the family member inheriting the comic character or whatever artistic creation it is, then wants to sell it to DC or a museum or give it to the Church or whatever then that would be their choice.

[Rylon]

I don't think you can equate a comic book character, no matter how iconic and successful with humanity benefiting technology.Maybe not, but art, like science, builds on what came before. It is important that artists, even those who only create popular entertainment, to be free to build on previous art.

We’re all familiar with how science builds on itself. Previous discoveries make new discoveries possible. In art, and I realize it’s not popular to call comic books art because it conjures-up images of fanboy snobs, previous art influences current art. Superman would not have been possible without John Carter or Hercules, Batman would not be possible without Zorro or even Sherlock holms. (The modern Batman certainly owes a lot to Victorian detective stories.)

This is true of classic literature. Shakespeare based Othello on Giambattista Giraldi’s Cinthio, As You Like It was based on Thomas Lodge’s Rosalynde, Romeo and Juliet was based on a 1562 narrative poem titled The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet, and Cymbeline was derived from Giovanni Boccaccio's Decameron. Imagine if each of these author’s, or their estates, had owned their works. We would be denied some of the worlds most well-loved plays. Imagine if Shakespeare had an estate that owned the copyrights to his plays, much of modern dram would not be possible. Indeed, it is sometimes only by putting-on classics that some theater companies afforded to create new works.

Now, before you say that you wouldn’t equate Shakespeare with comic books, I would like to point out that Elizabethan drama wasn’t considered classic in it’s time. The theater was considered a low form of entertainment similar to the way comics are today. In Shakespeare’s time it would have been a kind of heresy to suggest that Othello was a classic. The category of classic was reserved for ancient Greek and Roman worked. Heck, at one time the study of theater was limited only to the study of ancient texts from a literary perspective, not actually performing them.

Just because you don't want to leave your kids anything of monitory worth doesn't mean it's wrong for others to.You are completely right, it is not wrong to give something of monitory worth to your heirs. Intellectual property is different. Art is not created in a vacuum. Artist’s create their works within the community they live in, and I think there is an ethical responsibility to acknowledge that. Artists should let other’s build off their work just as they have built off of others. To not give back to the community after you are dead is, to me, a great sin.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

I don't know if this has been mentioned but I've been told if you write about Batman anywhere and say something like "Bill Finger created Batman" without saying "along with Bob Kane" then you can be sued by D.C. and the Kane estate.

That's hardcore.

[Kara Zor El]

You are completely right, it is not wrong to give something of monitory worth to your heirs. Intellectual property is different. Art is not created in a vacuum. Artist’s create their works within the community they live in, and I think there is an ethical responsibility to acknowledge that. Artists should let other’s build off their work just as they have built off of others. To not give back to the community after you are dead is, to me, a great sin.
Rylon I just think it's too soon for that. All great works of literature are usually left to heirs. It is only over a very long time they become public domain. and that's all good, if the impact warrants it. But Mickey Mouse hasn't become public domain yet so why should Superman?
Paintings are sold to rich people. They don't become public domain unless the owner wants them too.

[Rylon]

I understand what you are saying about time frame. Not to long ago the copyright could expire (or simply not exist) while the author was still alive. This is something I object to.

Mickey Mouse is protected under trademark. Steamboat Willie still under copyright because congress passed several revisions to US copyright law. The Fleischer cartoons, made over 10 years after Steamboat Willie, are in the public domain.

If DC owned them, it would have taken them years to get them to VHS or DVD. But because they don't, they've been consistently available for on DVD and VHS for over a decade.

Baum's Oz books, the last of which were published less than 100 years ago, are public domain. If they weren’t we wouldn't have had the wonderful book Wicked.

Doyle's Sherlock Holmes books are public domain and without them in the public domain, parts of Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentleman would be impossible. Indeed, without the public domain the whole of League of Extraordinary Gentleman would be impossible.

I’m not talking about physical objects. I’m not talking about paintings, sculptures, manuscripts, or anything else you can feel and touch. Let people pass their possessions to their heirs, regardless of it’s artistic value. It’s not often discussed, but the right to own property was an important part of the American Revolution. (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness used to be Life, Liberty, and Property.) And I’m for that. I’m not saying someone should donate those objects that have artistic value to a museum or a church, let a family own an original Michelangelo for hundreds of years, I don’t care.

What I’m talking about are ideas. I believe that a person who creates a work of art should own the rights to that work for their entire life. After that person as died, I don’t mind if the creator passes on the rights to his or her heirs, but only if the law limit’s the amount of time they can own them. Right now, that time frame seems undefined and almost in perpetuity. Copyright was always supposed to have a limited time frame, and I think that’s been forgotten.

[dancj]

I don't know if this has been mentioned but I've been told if you write about Batman anywhere and say something like "Bill Finger created Batman" without saying "along with Bob Kane" then you can be sued by D.C. and the Kane estate.

That's hardcore.

Certainly DC would be sued, but I don't know how much danger anyone else would be in. One small detail though - In fact DC have to say Batman was created by Bob Kane with no mention of Bill Finger at all

[Brian R]

So, in summary, may I ask this question: If the decision is upheld, would the Siegels completely own the rights to Superboy? Would they be able to shop them around to the highest bidder?

[Bored at 3:00AM]

So, in summary, may I ask this question: If the decision is upheld, would the Siegels completely own the rights to Superboy? Would they be able to shop them around to the highest bidder?

That would be highly unlikely. In the end, it would just mean Warner Bros pays the Siegels more money than they do now to use the character.

[mybotisgone]

I could be wrong but is't Marvel is in a lawsuit with Captain America creators?

[rick]

I could be wrong but is't Marvel is in a lawsuit with Captain America creators?


No.

Marvel, very wisely in my opinion, came to a friendly and quick settlement with both Joe Simon and the Kirby estate.

Too bad Jack wasn't around to see it.

[rick]

My own opinion on all of this is pretty much 100% behind the families of Siegal and Schuster.

In 1938 these guys did rather foolishly sign away the rights to Superman. But they did it in exchange for a series of financial considerations that DC did not keep during the 40’s and 50’s. And while in the 1970’s Warner did begin to make amends for the unethical treatment towards the two, in the end they only ever saw the tiniest percentage of the money their creations produced over the years.

However, since 1938 Superman has certainly through merchandise alone, generated at least a billion dollars and Siegal and Schuster never saw a dime of it.

So having the copyright laws change to return a creators intellectual property to them or their estates after an extended period is in my opinion a great bit of justice for creators everywhere.

As for their families, I think it is a far better thing for some of that money to come their way, then only into the pockets of the Time Warner shareholders.

In the end, they will settle, but they will settle for something they never got before, something fair.

[Sophisticated_Gamer]

Which is why Superboy in the upcoming 'Legion of Super-Heroes' Animated series is being called Young Superman instead. It's likely also why Superboy was killed at the end of Infinite Crisis.

SON OF A BITCH, you could of put spoiler tags around that! I was about to start reading Infinite Crisis ( i got 1 TPB to read before it) and now you spoil it !:evilangry

[rick]

SON OF A BITCH, you could of put spoiler tags around that! I was about to start reading Infinite Crisis ( i got 1 TPB to read before it) and now you spoil it !:evilangry


Well the news is like 6 months old and has been talked about in dozens of threads.

[Sophisticated_Gamer]

ya but i only have been on here for what a month, and i haven't heard that...

[Hulkamaniac]

My own opinion on all of this is pretty much 100% behind the families of Siegal and Schuster.

In 1938 these guys did rather foolishly sign away the rights to Superman. But they did it in exchange for a series of financial considerations that DC did not keep during the 40’s and 50’s. And while in the 1970’s Warner did begin to make amends for the unethical treatment towards the two, in the end they only ever saw the tiniest percentage of the money their creations produced over the years.

However, since 1938 Superman has certainly through merchandise alone, generated at least a billion dollars and Siegal and Schuster never saw a dime of it.

So having the copyright laws change to return a creators intellectual property to them or their estates after an extended period is in my opinion a great bit of justice for creators everywhere.

.

I like to think about it in these terms, if a guy started a company from scratch and made a billion dollar buisness and then died and gave the company to his heirs will the bigger companies or the government just dissovle the guys company among others or keep it with the heirs?
its rather a no-brainer and when you put into account how these companies screwed these guys out of their hard earned money and just lined their own pockets it just feels like enron from the 30's and 40's. I hate hearing about this crap it just turns my gears and makes me sick.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

ya but i only have been on here for what a month, and i haven't heard that...

A months old spoiler that has already been spoiled in dozens of different comics don't really require spoiler tags any longer. Superboy's death is a major plot point in various DC comics being published at the moment.

Sorry you had a surprise ruined for you, but after several months, old spoilers are fair game, otherwise 90% of all messages here on CBR would have to use spoiler tags because it might ruin a surprise for someone.

[Citizen V]

Alright,some of the content here can be a tadbit confusing.

Ok,what is with the Siegal and Schuster`s.Superboy in name,in name and in costume or not in costume or just in costume,hence the "S".What about Superman?I know that also belongs to them,but its common sence DC would protect their hold over that to the death.

What about Supergirl,Krypto and Powergirl and the whole origin of the Supers...Krypton?

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Alright,some of the content here can be a tadbit confusing.

Ok,what is with the Siegal and Schuster`s.Superboy in name,in name and in costume or not in costume or just in costume,hence the "S".What about Superman?I know that also belongs to them,but its common sence DC would protect their hold over that to the death.

What about Supergirl,Krypto and Powergirl and the whole origin of the Supers...Krypton?

Whatever anybody tells you, just remember it's all wild speculation at this point.

[Brian Cronin]

Alright,some of the content here can be a tadbit confusing.

Ok,what is with the Siegal and Schuster`s.Superboy in name,in name and in costume or not in costume or just in costume,hence the "S".What about Superman?I know that also belongs to them,but its common sence DC would protect their hold over that to the death.

What about Supergirl,Krypto and Powergirl and the whole origin of the Supers...Krypton?

It is confusing because there are two issues at play.

Copyright and trademark.

As of right this second, the Siegels own the COPYRIGHT to the character Superboy.

DC, though, still owns the TRADEMARK to the name "Superboy."

DC owns a trademark on the term "Superboy" and a trademark on the stylized "S" that Superman and Superboy wear.

Therefore, the Siegels would be unable to have a comic titled Superboy. Likewise, they wouldn't be able to have, on the cover of the comic, Superboy wearing the stylized S (or use the stylized S or the title Superboy in any advertisements).

That much is not speculation or anything, it is fact.

What IS speculation is the application of these facts, attempts to find "loopholes," etc. (like, "Could DC rename, say, like, Jono from the Teen Titans 'Superboy' and get away with it?" or "What would the Siegels be allowed to use from the mythos without getting into trouble?")

-Brian

[Buried Alien]

I keep on getting this disturbing feeling that no matter whether the Siegel and Shuster estates or DC Comics ends up prevailing in this dispute, we the fans and readers are going to be the ones who end up losing. :(

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[dancj]

Well the news is like 6 months old and has been talked about in dozens of threads.

But it hasn't been in a TPB yet so there are a lot of people who won't have read it yet. I know I'm in the minority here, but I think it's common courtesy to put spoiler warnings around any spoilers - except in threads which are labelled as spoiler threads

[Agentum]

To remedy this problem, apparently DC (then called National, presumptuously), took Fawcett to court and was able to finagle a $400,000 award from the courts, under the bull-$#!# argument that Captain Marvel was "essentially a Superman rip-off".

And, of course, that amount of money was a lot back in the 1940's, and Fawcett went under... and the Captain Marvel character was not able to resurface once Marvel Comics adopted a "Captain Marvel" character of their own.

.
Fawcett would most likely have losed that second lawsuit from DC (there was one before this that DC lost), DC had a vitness(that worked at Fawcett) that swoar that Fawcett had done a Supermanclone.
AND Captain Marvel made a lot of money for Fawcett but this last thing was settled in the end of the 40s when superheroes went under and almost disaperaed so Fawcett gladly paid those 400.000 as they saw how Cap. marvel and C: o sold worse and worse.
They would probably had to pay millions if they had lost in court.
So no they didn't go under because of this.

Before DC licensed Cap. from Fawcett Marvel comics run as fast as they could to dream up their own Captain Marvel character to get the copyrights of that name.

DC finaly bought Cap. Marvel in the 80s, but can't still produce a comic with the name Captain Marvel.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

But it hasn't been in a TPB yet so there are a lot of people who won't have read it yet. I know I'm in the minority here, but I think it's common courtesy to put spoiler warnings around any spoilers - except in threads which are labelled as spoiler threads

Sorry, it is not the policy of this board to post spoiler warnings on any Big MAJOR Events that have taken place within the DCU several months earlier. The first couple months it happens, yeah, of course we don't spoil anything without clear warning.

But, come on, Superboy dying has been common knowledge for some time now, hasn't it? Keep in mind that Superboy dying wasn't exactly a big shocking thing in the story. It was kinda obvious he was about to bite it.

I appologise if you think we should all wait until TPBs come out before talking about events like the deaths of major characters and stuff like that, but the monthly readers pay for the right to see this stuff earlier than the TPB readers. We'll post spoiler warnings about recent stuff, but once the storyarc is several months old, people should be able to talk freely without worrying about spoiling anybody.

That said, everybody should be careful about sticking spoilers in thread titles and whatnot. And try not to spoil stuff without labelling it clearly.

But, yeah, Superboy died.

[Hulkamaniac]

But it hasn't been in a TPB yet so there are a lot of people who won't have read it yet. I know I'm in the minority here, but I think it's common courtesy to put spoiler warnings around any spoilers - except in threads which are labelled as spoiler threads

thats not a good standard to use , since many comics dont even come out in trade and the companies have the ability to put out a trade at any time. should we splash spoilers on everything cuz DC or Marvel decides to put out a trade a year later? If you dont by actual comics and only trades maybe you should start a forum about TPB's. :p

[dancj]

thats not a good standard to use , since many comics dont even come out in trade and the companies have the ability to put out a trade at any time. should we splash spoilers on everything cuz DC or Marvel decides to put out a trade a year later?

Personally I'd put spoiler warnings regardless of the age of a comic and whether it has been traded or not - I used them in a Watchmen thread recently. There'll always be someone who hasn't read a comic yet, and it's no hassle to stick spoiler tags around something.

I'm only talking about what I think is decent behaviour. I know that it isn't official policy and that I'm in the minority.

Dan

[Shellhead]

I keep on getting this disturbing feeling that no matter whether the Siegel and Shuster estates or DC Comics ends up prevailing in this dispute, we the fans and readers are going to be the ones who end up losing. :(

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

I dunno. If this lawsuit keeps Superboy Prime on ice for a few decades, I would be happy with that.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

I keep on getting this disturbing feeling that no matter whether the Siegel and Shuster estates or DC Comics ends up prevailing in this dispute, we the fans and readers are going to be the ones who end up losing. :(

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

Don't we always B.A....don't we always?

Name me one time when a ruckus like this gave the comic reader something that was worth the angst.

[scratchie]

Don't we always B.A....don't we always?
Name me one time when a ruckus like this gave the comic reader something that was worth the angst.Well, not to break up the pity-party or anything, but I think it's Siegel and Shuster (and their families) who have, historically, lost the most.

Even if the decision is upheld on appeal, the Siegels (and the Shusters) have already lost much more than any comic book reader who might be denied yet another "Superboy" character in the future.

[bjtrdff]

I think if people get upset enough about spoilers to think that things that have been done for months should be put in hidden text they shouldn't be on an internet comic book message board, and should stay in their basement, avoiding all contact with the outside world.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Personally I'd put spoiler warnings regardless of the age of a comic and whether it has been traded or not - I used them in a Watchmen thread recently. There'll always be someone who hasn't read a comic yet, and it's no hassle to stick spoiler tags around something.

I'm only talking about what I think is decent behaviour. I know that it isn't official policy and that I'm in the minority.

Dan

Now, I understand where you're coming from, of course, but the death of Superboy isn't exactly a secret anymore. It's like talking openly about the fact that Supergirl & The Flash died in the old Crisis and Kevin Spacey is actually the Big Baddie in the Usual Suspects. Or that Bruce Willis is actually dead.

Sorry if you haven't seen those movies yet, by the way,

[Ontir]

Bruce Willis spoiled the 6th Sense in an interview the day I went to see the film! I always go back and forth about using spoiler tags. They're easy enough to use, and people should give more consideration than they do. This was especially fierce with the intentional spoiling of Superman Returns. In general, I look at the tone of the thread. If everything has already been spoiled, I don't use tags, but as much as possible, I try to keep things under wraps, because every issue is someone's first, and I'd rather be told, "Hey, you've GOT to read issue #..." than, "OH! That's the issue where Lex finally..."

[Lorendiac]

I think if people get upset enough about spoilers to think that things that have been done for months should be put in hidden text they shouldn't be on an internet comic book message board, and should stay in their basement, avoiding all contact with the outside world.

I actually feel a lot of sympathy for your point of view! :p

Let's face it: These days, I almost always "wait for the trade." But I continue to participate in the CBR forums, and other comic book forums, on a fairly regular basis. Usually threads talking about the latest issue of something will have SPOILER warnings in the titles, and I appreciate that. It helps me figure out which threads to dodge like crazy, instead of clicking on their titles, unless I choose to take the risk of having the latest issue of "Robin" spoiled for me.

But if I stick around long enough, some of the surprises are going to get ruined for me by comments in later threads that I do read over the next several months, before I read the trade. As someone says, "It was about three months ago that we found out that Character X is really a Skrull impersonator" or something. That is the risk that I choose to take of my own free will!

(For instance, I knew which of the Outsiders had turned out to really be a traitor well before I bought the TPB collection that reprinted the issue that had nailed it down that this character was bad. Frankly, not much of a surprise, though -- I never saw any reason to trust that character in the first place!)

Personally, I think that the older a story is, the more willing I am to talk about the "surprise ending" or later retcons or whatever. If I talk about the Dark Phoenix Saga (from back around 1979 and 1980, right?) I don't try to hide the fact that Jean Grey died in it by only mentioning this inside Spoiler tags. And I don't try to hide the fact that the heart and soul of the Saga later got ripped out of it by a retcon in 1985 that established that the central character of the tragedy really wasn't Jean Grey after all!

On the other hand! (I say, doing a quick 180-degree turn! :))

If a story or story arc was set up as something of a "murder mystery," like the novels written by Agatha Christie or Rex Stout or John D. MacDonald, then I am extremely reluctant to gratuitously "ruin the surprise ending." If I were recommending an old Agatha Christie novel to a friend, I wouldn't tell her who the killer really was before she had read the book herself. Not even if the book was 50 or 60 years old! I've read hundreds upon hundreds of mystery novels in my day, and I guess I feel the rules are different when the entire point of the story is to keep the reader guessing until the very end!

That probably explains why I use SPOILER warnings in the thread titles if I start a brand new thread talking about the ending of Jeph Loeb's "The Long Halloween" in which Batman runs around Gotham for a solid year trying to figure out "Who is Holiday?" ("Holiday" was called by that name because he or she or they killed people exclusively on holidays. Starting and ending on Halloween.) I guess I feel that "The Long Halloween," and its sequel "Dark Victory," both deserve to be handled the same way I would handle a discussion of Agatha Christie's novel "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd." Even though TLH was first published as 13 monthly issues about a decade ago!

But I don't give that level of respect and consideration to every single dusty old Batman story in which there is a mysterious murder at some point in the story, and in the last scene Batman cleverly deduces that the murderer was really Professor Plum in the Library with a Candlestick! (Or whoever.) Apparently a comic book writer really has to to work hard at it to persuade me that to give away a surprise from the ending of a story arc ten or twenty years old would be the same thing as "maliciously ruining" the experience of reading it for someone who saw my comments before finding a copy of the original story arc!

[Hulkamaniac]

Personally I'd put spoiler warnings regardless of the age of a comic and whether it has been traded or not - I used them in a Watchmen thread recently. There'll always be someone who hasn't read a comic yet, and it's no hassle to stick spoiler tags around something.

I'm only talking about what I think is decent behaviour. I know that it isn't official policy and that I'm in the minority.

Dan

Wow, I dont know how to respond to this, If I was talking about the storyline of Superman #1 should I tag it with **SPOILER** warnings in case someone out there hasn't read or heard the story? come on, I think if your behind by six months or more you should have no expectations that no one will or nothing you come in contact with until you personally decide to find out the info yourself will inform you of what you have missed. Do you yell at people that tell you the days news before you get to read the newspaper for yourself?

[Hulkamaniac]

Deleted for snark by Bored at 3:00AM

[Agentum]

yeah yeah, we have heard about how sad it is to read a spoiler.

[binarysunrise]

So it's a good thing we never brought up Doomsday then, I guess :cool:


Back to the litigation, the way I figure it:
1) The impact - yes, it will effect the publication of Superboy material...DC will make less $, and will have to take that into consideration when they choose Superboy material to publish.

2) The future - the Siegels won't shop Superboy out, its ridiculous to talk about. Yes, if they were extremely upset, they could do a cease-and-decist. But they are in this for the $, as is DC. The question will be if they sell the rights back to DC as they did in the past for a flat fee, or set up some type of percentage deal with DC.

3) The tv show - I belive it is now up to a jury to decide on Smallville...last I heard, I think this was going to go down this fall. The good news is that the show is probably going to be over before this whole thing gets settled. If not, I could see the Siegels sending a cease-and-decist to WB/DC in order to finally broker a settlement. This is a separate issue, and depending on how the decision goes, I would be curious to see what their take is on the "young superman" in the new Legion cartoon....

4) The rights - These have ligitimately passed onto the Siegel estate. I think they are also entitled to back pay for the past 2 years that they have owned the rights, but nothing before that. I think that means that from this point forward, under whatever deal they broker with DC, they'll be getting a cut of whatever new or reprinted Superboy material DC puts out there.

5) The potential - A lot of people see a downside to fans for this deal. I just hope that someone sees the upside. If I were the Siegel estate's lawyer, I would realize that the Siegels will only get $ if DC publishes Superboy. So...I would try to broker a deal for a lower percentage, and get in writing a "continual publication" deal with DC - picture forcing a Superboy archive to be put on the annual release pile....

6) The interesting - at the moment, the Siegels have the rights to half of Superman as of 1999 (I'm not sure if they've ever settled on how much $ will go to them, but they do have half the rights). I believe in 7 more years the Shuster estate will get the other half, and in just 20 years after that, the whole thing enters public domain.....forever...

[Citizen V]

It is confusing because there are two issues at play.

Copyright and trademark.

As of right this second, the Siegels own the COPYRIGHT to the character Superboy.

DC, though, still owns the TRADEMARK to the name "Superboy."

DC owns a trademark on the term "Superboy" and a trademark on the stylized "S" that Superman and Superboy wear.

Therefore, the Siegels would be unable to have a comic titled Superboy. Likewise, they wouldn't be able to have, on the cover of the comic, Superboy wearing the stylized S (or use the stylized S or the title Superboy in any advertisements).

So they essentially have the character,but the name and title [Superboy and the "S"] are owned by DC.........thats hard.So if the Siegels make another comic with just the character,i doubt he would be reconized.Superman would be,he has the hair,the chin.Yet its almost useless to have the character without the name.Because they cant have a comic with Superboy on the cover,or him essentially wearing his costume [the "S"]

I keep on getting this disturbing feeling that no matter whether the Siegel and Shuster estates or DC Comics ends up prevailing in this dispute, we the fans and readers are going to be the ones who end up losing.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

After all this,i think we already lost.Im hearing that in the new LEGION cartoon Superboy is actually called "Young Superman" that`s a huge loss right there.Im sure people would rather like to hear Superboy...

[Jason1Kent]

So, do they have rights to Superman? I know they plan to get back Supergirl aswell but not sure about Supes!

I just want Conner back! #6 of IC shows something written beside conner by the artist, check it out!

[Powerboy]

if they sold superboy...they would have to change everything..like shaxper said, so even if he had the name, would it matter anyway? It would be a completely different character..

I am coming into this soooo late but I finally googled just to see what this was all about.

According to what I've read, Siegal's estate retains all rights to elements of Superboy, the costume, Smallville, everything that was in the Superboy concept. No Lois Lane, no Perry White or anything like that. No references to the rest of the DCU. But they could sell Marvel the rights to do a Superboy comic in Smallville with Ma and Pa Kent. DC would certainly launch every appeal and delay it could but from the way it looks they would eventually lose. In reality, they will make a huge offer to Siegal's widow and his daughter and lease the rights for another 56 years.

In some respects, its gratifying. Superman, was based (as far as powers go) on Philip Wylei's "Gladiator" but neither Wylie or his publisher chose to sue. But when Captain Marvel was published, DC slammed them with a lawsuit as they did any character that remotely resembled their character- in spite of the fact that DC hesitated to publish Superman to begin with for fear of Wylie suing them and they took a chance and just decided they would cease publication if he sued.

There is some sort of karma about them having it happen to them. Of course the DC of today is none of the same people who did that but still.

[Powerboy]

When I say the Siegal estate retains rights to things like the costume, obviously DC also co-retains those rights but, from what I have seen of the articles about it including the original Variety article, the Siegal estate owns or co-owns anything that is a part of "Superboy". They could not use the S insignia for anything else but as long as it is Superboy wearing it, it would be legal from the way it was described.

[Stressfactor]

For the Record.... CAPTAIN MARVEL....

1) The Captain Marvel who is in reality young Billy Batson and who changes into an adult when he utters the word SHAZAM! Was created and owned by Fawcett Comics. Later, DC acquired this character and all COPYRIGHTS associated with it.

2) When Fawcett went under and stopped publishing it lost the TRADEMARK to Captain Marvel, which Marvel Comics snapped up. Marvel Comics, however DID NOT acquire the original character of Captain Marvel not any COPYRIGHTS associated with it.

3) Ergo -- DC CANNOT put the words Captain Marvel on the cover of a comic book because Marvel owns the Trademark. This is why all DC Captain Marvel and Captain Marvel related comic books have "Shazam!" or some variation of such as the title. On the flip side, Marvel Comics CAN produce a comic book with the title "Captain Marvel" on it but the character inside the cover has NOTHING to do with the original Fawcett character.

Its confusing but true.

As for the Siegel and Schuster lawsuit... I'm on the fence about this one. I mean its true that DC screwed both creators over but, in all these years of back and forth lawsuits its really starting to feel like the Siegel and Schuster families are gunning more for revenge than justice. I mean, look at it -- the original guys who ran National Periodical Publications (what DC used to be known as) and were the original screwers over are all long gone and mostly dead. The ones who continued the screwing in the 1970's and 1980's are also long gone from the company.

Keep in mind, also, for those who want to crucify Dan Didio over this... Dan is EIC -- he does not own the company. Heck, even Paul Levitz, who may be "President" of DC Comics have corporate people over his head since DC is now part of the publications wing of TIme-Warner Communications.

All I'm saying is -- before you start building your cross -- make sure you get the right guys to hang on it.

[rick]

I think that it is perfectly acceptable for the families of the creators of Superman to pursue their legal rights toward the character and do whatever they can to maximize both their ownership rights as well as the amount of income they receive off of the characters publishing and merchandising.

Keep in mind that Superman is one of the most merchandised characters on the entire planet, generating tens of millions of dollars or more, every year.

It’s great that the Warner share holders make big money off of this merchandising, but it is also more then fair that the families of the people who actually created the character get a nice bite of the pie too.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Sorry if this sounds callous, but I have a hard time getting worked up over this case. Neither of the parties in question had any hand in creating Superboy. While I'm sure Seigel & Shuster would have liked their heirs to recieve as much money as possible from their work, that doesn't necessarily mean there will be better Superboy stories if they own the rights to the character. It's not like Tarzan or Sherlock Holmes have benefited from the heirs of Edgar Rice Bouroughs and Arthur Conan Doyle retaining the rights to those characters.

To be perfectly honest, Superboy is in better hands of an evil, heartless multi-media conglomorate like Time Warner than it would be in the hands of the heirs to Seigel & Shuster. This is all about money, not creativity. It doesn't really matter to me who makes money off of Superboy as long as good stories are still told with him.

[DonC]

DC CANNOT put the words Captain Marvel on the cover of a comic book because Marvel owns the Trademark. This is why all DC Captain Marvel and Captain Marvel related comic books have "Shazam!" or some variation of such as the title. On the flip side, Marvel Comics CAN produce a comic book with the title "Captain Marvel" on it but the character inside the cover has NOTHING to do with the original Fawcett character.


Untrue. While DC can not name a comic "Captain Marvel," they can put the words on the cover.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v164/Don3172/Power-shazam-01-1995.jpg

[josh straightedge]

The less Kryptonians, the better...and hopfully even less clones.

[dancj]

Untrue. While DC can not name a comic "Captain Marvel," they can put the words on the cover.
Interesting. I wonder if they cocked up there or if they're usually over-cautious. When Captain Mervel guests in other comics they don't use his name:
http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/4971/400/4971_4_039.jpg


As for the Superboy thing, the court ruling is a joke. I admit Siegel and Shuster were screwed over with the Superman thing, but in reality, Siegel didn't create a new character when he came up with Superboy. I thought of a new way of using an existing character, Superman - who already belonged to National Periodical Publications.

Right that does it I'm off to invent Young Mickey Mouse, and I'll sue Disney if they try to use the character!

[DonC]

Interesting. I wonder if they cocked up there or if they're usually over-cautious. When Captain Mervel guests in other comics they don't use his name:

I would imagine that they said "Guest starring The Power of Shazam" because they didn't want people looking for a book called "Captain Marvel."


As for the Superboy thing, the court ruling is a joke. I admit Siegel and Shuster were screwed over with the Superman thing, but in reality, Siegel didn't create a new character when he came up with Superboy. I thought of a new way of using an existing character, Superman - who already belonged to National Periodical Publications.

Right that does it I'm off to invent Young Mickey Mouse, and I'll sue Disney if they try to use the character!

Legally speaking, I don't understand this either. I think the distinction is that Siegel came up with the concept on his own, rather than as an editorial mandate. Had DC/National gone up to him and said, "Hey, Jerry, can you come up with some ideas for Superman when he was a teenager?" then it would have been a different ruling.

[Captain Jim]

As for the Superboy thing, the court ruling is a joke. I admit Siegel and Shuster were screwed over with the Superman thing, but in reality, Siegel didn't create a new character when he came up with Superboy. I thought of a new way of using an existing character, Superman - who already belonged to National Periodical Publications.

Right that does it I'm off to invent Young Mickey Mouse, and I'll sue Disney if they try to use the character!

It's evidently what the court ruled, but I think the court was nuts, for the exact reason you mention. DC has every right to appeal that decision.

[Paul Dee]

I haven't seen any mention of this yet but this week's DC titles have an advert for the 4 Sinestro Corps one-shot tie-in issues and seem to suggest the titles are about Ion, Cyborg Superman, Parallax and Superman-Prime.


(what's even stranger is that the solicits don't have anything on a Superboy-Prime one yet, but a one about the Anti-monitor)

[lovefist911]

The whole thing is stupid. DC was in the wrong.

[sabongero]

It's too bad. Superboy-Prime cannot even be addressed as Superboy then because of this. No wonder he became a part of the Sinestro Corps. So what's his name now ? Sinestro S-Prime ?

[lovefist911]

when did he break free and join the sinestro corps?

[Paul Dee]

It's too bad. Superboy-Prime cannot even be addressed as Superboy then because of this. No wonder he became a part of the Sinestro Corps. So what's his name now ? Sinestro S-Prime ?


Well, as I stated in the post on the previous page which resurrected this thread it looks like they might be referring to him as Superman-Prime now. Unless that was a ridiculous typo or the result of poor communication.



when did he break free and join the sinestro corps?


In the first issue of the Sinestro Corps War story, which was the Sinestro Corps one-shot issue.

[PretenderNX01]

Maybe they're channeling "Sins of the Youth" and calling him Superman Jr prime? :p

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/759/sinsofyouthoy1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[DonC]

Well, as I stated in the post on the previous page which resurrected this thread it looks like they might be referring to him as Superman-Prime now. Unless that was a ridiculous typo or the result of poor communication.


Ads for the Sinestro Corps War are calling him Superman Prime as well. Looks like it's official. At least until when/if he gets a villain name.