Presented without comment: "Siegels get their Supes back"

[Erik Burnham]

Got this tidbit in the email.

> NY Times
> Creator's Family Reclaims the Rights to
> Superman
> March 29, 2008
> Creator's Family Reclaims the Rights to Superman
> By MICHAEL CIEPLY
>
> LOS ANGELES -- Time Warner is no longer the sole
> proprietor of Superman.
>
> A federal judge here on Wednesday ruled that the
> heirs of Jerome
> Siegel -- who 70 years ago sold the rights to the
> action hero he
> created with Joseph Shuster to Detective Comics for
> $130 -- were
> entitled to reclaim their share of the U. S.
> copyright to the
> character. The ruling left intact Time Warner's
> international rights
> to the character, which it has long owned through
> its DC Comics unit.
>
> And it reserved for trial questions about how much
> the company may owe
> the Siegel heirs for use of the character since
> 1999, when their
> ownership is deemed to have been restored. Also to
> be resolved is
> whether the heirs are entitled to payments directly
> from Time Warner's
> film unit, Warner Brothers, which took in $200
> million at the domestic
> box office with its "Superman Returns" in 2006, or
> only from the DC
> unit's Superman profits.
>
> Still, the ruling threatened to complicate Warner's
> plans to make more
> films featuring Superman, including another sequel
> and a planned movie
> based on the DC Comics' "Justice League of America,"
> in which he joins
> Batman, Wonder Woman and other superheroes to battle
> evildoers.
>
> If the decision survives a Time Warner legal
> challenge, it may also
> open the door to a similar reversion of rights to
> the estate of Mr.
> Shuster in 2013. That would give heirs of the two
> creators control
> over use of their lucrative character until at least
> 2033 -- and
> perhaps longer, if Congress once again extends
> copyright terms --
> according to Marc Toberoff, a lawyer who represents
> both the Siegels
> and the Shuster estate.
>
> "It would be very powerful," said Mr. Toberoff,
> speaking by telephone
> on Friday. "After 2013, Time Warner couldn't exploit
> any new
> Superman-derived works without a licence from the
> Siegels and Shusters."
>
> Time Warner lawyers declined through a spokesman to
> discuss the
> decision. A similar ruling in 2006 allowed the
> Siegels to recapture
> their rights in the Superboy character, without
> determining whether
> Superboy was, in fact, the basis for Warner
> Brothers's "Smallville"
> television series. The decision was later challenged
> in a case that
> has yet to be resolved, said Mr. Toberoff, who
> represented the family
> in that action.
>
> This week's decision by Stephen G. Larson, a judge
> in the U. S.
> district court for the Central District of
> California, provided
> long-sought vindication to the wife and daughter of
> Mr. Siegel, who
> bemoaned until his death in 1996 having parted so
> cheaply with rights
> to the lucrative hero.
>
> "We were just stubborn," Joanne Siegel, Mr. Siegel's
> widow, said in a
> joint interview with her daughter, Laura Siegel
> Larson. "It was a
> dream of Jerry's, and we just took up the task."
>
> The ruling specifically upheld the Seigels'
> copyright in the Superman
> material published in Detective Comics' Action
> Comics Vol. 1. The
> extent to which later iterations of the character
> are derived from
> that original was not determined by the judge.
>
> In an unusually detailed narrative, the judge's
> 72-page order
> described how Mr. Siegel and Mr. Shuster, as
> teenagers at Glenville
> High School in Cleveland became friends and
> collaborators on their
> school newspaper in 1932. They worked together on a
> short story, "The
> Reign of the Superman," in which their famous
> character first appeared
> not as hero, but villain.
>
> By 1937, the were shopping comic strips in which the
> classic Superman
> elements -- cape, logo, and Clark Kent alter-ego --
> were already set.
> When Detective Comics bought 13 pages of work for
> its new Action
> Comics series the next year, the company sent Mr.
> Siegel a check for
> $130, and received in return a release from both
> creators granting the
> company rights to Superman "to have and hold
> forever," the order noted.
>
> In the late 1940s, a referee in a New York court
> upheld Detective
> Comics' copyright, prompting Siegel and Shuster to
> drop their claim in
> exchange $94,000. More than 30 years later, DC
> Comics (the successor
> to Detective Comics) gave the creators each a
> $20,000-per-year annuity
> that was later boosted to $30,000. In 1997, however,
> Mrs. Siegel and
> her daughter served copyright termination notices
> under provisions of
> a 1976 law that permits heirs, under certain
> circumstances, to recover
> rights to creations.
>
> Mr. Toberoff, their lawyer, has been something of a
> gadfly to Warner
> in the past. In the late 1990s, for example, he
> represented Gilbert
> Ralston, a television writer, in legal battle over
> his rights in the
> CBS telvision series "Wild, Wild West," which was
> the basis for a 1999
> Warner Brothers film that starred Will Smith. The
> case, said Mr.
> Toberoff, was settled.
>
> Compensation to the Siegels would be limited to any
> work created after
> their 1999 termination date. Income from its 1978
> "Superman" film, or
> the three sequels that followed in the 1980s, are
> not at issue. But a
> "Superman Returns" sequel being planned with the
> filmmaker Bryan
> Singer ("Usual Suspects," "X-Men') might require
> payments to the
> Siegels, should they prevail in a demand that the
> studio's income, not
> just that of the comics unit, be subject to a
> court-ordered accounting.
>
> Mrs. Siegel and Ms. Larson said it was too soon to
> make future plans
> for the Superman character. But they were inclined
> to relish this moment.
>
> "I have lived in the shadow of this my whole life,"
> Ms. Larson said.
> "I am so happy now, I just can't explain it."

[Michael P]

Okay, having further destroyed my eyesight reading the decision, here is what I think it says. (Keep in mind I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV; I'm merely going by the assumption that the decision is written in American English, and my understanding of that language.)

1. DC still owns all copyright to promotional announcements for Superman that appeared in other comics prior to Action Comics 1.

2. The Superman story in Action Comics 1 is not work-for-hire, and thus DC's copyright is subject to termination.

3. A consent judgment by the mediator in the 1948 dispute over the copyright did not actually grant DC any rights to such story (or anything else), and thus the lack of mention of the ruling on the Siegels' notice of termination to DC does not invalidate the notice. (This defeats an attempt by DC to end-run around the termination by declaring the notice void on a technicality.)

4. Joanne Siegel's continued acceptance of benefits from DC, as agreed upon in the 1975 case, does not serve as a post-termination grant of copyright to DC. (Another failed end-run.)

5. The current suit falls within the applicable statute of limitations. (And another.)

6. The failed 2001-2002 negotiations do not constitute a post-termination agreement to a new assignment of copyright from the Siegels to DC, because they failed. Duh.

7. The Siegels' recaptured rights under the termination consist of: co-ownership of the copyright to the Superman story (and all unique elements within) in Action Comics 1 within the US only.

8. DC's retained rights under the termination consist of: full ownership of all foreign copyrights to the Superman story (and all unique elements within) in Action Comics 1.

9. Left undetermined by this decision: Exactly what rights DC and the Siegels have to various comics trademarks and copyrights and profits deriving from the original Superman story, both pre- and post-termination; exactly what rights the Siegels and DC (and also Warner Bros. Entertainment) have to profits from various Superman-related movies, TV shows, and other non-comics projects.

As a postscript, the termination of copyright is effective April 16, 1999.

[Carlton Donaghe]

Michael, I'm glad you posted this here as well, as I wanted to also post my question here:

Can a person own a trademark for a property for which they do not own a copyright?

For instance, say Erik writes, draws and copyrights a story that features a character named Widget-man. Widget-man has never been seen before and is derivative of no other character. A completely unique character.

Can Michael then go out and trademark the character and appearance of Widget-man, even though he shares or has no claim to any part of the copyright to Widget-man?

[KevinTBrown]

If DC ever loses control of Superman, DC will cease to exist as a publisher. And I will then be no longer reading comics......

[Michael P]

Michael, I'm glad you posted this here as well, as I wanted to also post my question here:

Can a person own a trademark for a property for which they do not own a copyright?

For instance, say Erik writes, draws and copyrights a story that features a character named Widget-man. Widget-man has never been seen before and is derivative of no other character. A completely unique character.

Can Michael then go out and trademark the character and appearance of Widget-man, even though he shares or has no claim to any part of the copyright to Widget-man?

Cross-posted from my reply on the Superman board:

No, but I can create my own, distinct Widget-Man character and story, copyright that, and then beat Comic Geek to registering the trademark for a Widget-Man comic.

Trademarks don't cover characters or stories, but brands and logos. I would own the right to use the words "Widget-Man" in a distinctive logo on the front cover of comic books (and other media, if I so desired). Comic Geek could rename his character and go ahead and publish his comic with a new title. (Something like this happened in the '90s with the title "Plasm"; Marvel had registered it, so Defiant changed the name of their comic to "Warriors of Plasm.")

Trademarks also expire through lack of use. It's possible, but not likely, that the Siegels could prevent DC from publishing Superman comics long enough that the trademark expires, at which time they could swoop in and claim it. But as I said, it's not likely that this will happen.

The idea of DC owning the Superman trademark but not the copyright is something heretofore unseen in intellectual property law. As such, there's no real way to tell what might happen in such a situation until it happens, and a judge rules on it.

YABS's own Jim MacQuarrie is much more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am, and I leave any further questions or corrections to him.

[PatrickG]

Michael, I'm glad you posted this here as well, as I wanted to also post my question here:

Can a person own a trademark for a property for which they do not own a copyright?

For instance, say Erik writes, draws and copyrights a story that features a character named Widget-man. Widget-man has never been seen before and is derivative of no other character. A completely unique character.

Can Michael then go out and trademark the character and appearance of Widget-man, even though he shares or has no claim to any part of the copyright to Widget-man?

PREFACE: I'm not a lawyer.

The copyright is on a published work not the character.

Depending upon the nuances in play, I suppose it would be possible for Michael to own A "Widget-man" although Erik's existing published efforts should be grandfathered. I think if Michael deliberately took Erik's Widget-man wholesale and not just in name, that's where there might be charges of theft. Bottom line, this would go to court where the specifics would dictate what happens.

My understanding is that if you started a business called "McDonald's Hamburgers" in 1930 and ran it in continuous operation until now, the larger chain which started in the 50s would have to honor your existence. However, since they have the registered claim to the trademark, they would hold rights on expansion and your rights would be limited. However, more than likely, the big company would sue you anyway and even though you're in the right, you'd wind up footing the legal bill to establish your claim, which would only be limited rights anyway since you never registered. In a case like this, you'd probably be lucky to get McDonald's (the chain) to buy you off since it would save them money on lawyers if your price is right and because they wouldn't want marketplace confusion (ie. they'd be worried you have bigger rats at your burger joint than they do).

What you describe sounds like a clear cut case of theft. However, if you change the scenario just SLIGHTLY, well... It's no coincidence a TON of Marvel characters recycled Golden-Age names that had fallen out of usage but their versions are distinct enough that they get by with Captain Marvel and Daredevil and Dr. Doom and Spider-man because they aren't appropriating trademarks wholesale but simply using a dormant name, thus not creating any marketplace confusion.

That's the heart of trademarks: Does it confuse the marketplace? (And do you have the money to back it up.)

Margarett Mitchell, to my knowledge, never marketed anything under the Rhett Butler name. Thus you could have a book called "The Adventures of Rhett Butler" but there would be a series of tests you'd have to pass in court, among which being whether you stole the essence of her copyrighted work.

You might be innocent of any TRADEMARK wrongdoing in such a case but you would be violating Mitchell's COPYRIGHT (her rights to her published story as opposed to her rights to names or images for use in marketing) if you take essential story elements.

You could have a dozen Widget-men and the first one to register trademarks gets to start publishing WIDGET-MAN WEEKLY and sell Widget-man underoos. However, those rights would not extend to a story or story elements that someone else owned or trademarks used by someone else.

(Marvel might have had more issues if Mar-Vell wore a red and yellow costume with a white cape and a lightning bolt on the chest and had a cousin named Mari.)

[Michael P]

If DC ever loses control of Superman, DC will cease to exist as a publisher. And I will then be no longer reading comics.

Because DC comics are the only kind worth reading?

[PatrickG]

Trademarks also expire through lack of use. It's possible, but not likely, that the Siegels could prevent DC from publishing Superman comics long enough that the trademark expires, at which time they could swoop in and claim it. But as I said, it's not likely that this will happen.

I think that would require the Shuster's swooping in and assisting them in 2013.

It's exceptionally complicated but I recall rumblings back in 1999 that the split ownership might function as follows:

- The Siegels can do what they wish with Superman.

- DC can do what they wish with Superman.

- Either party must share 50% of profits with the other party.

In theory, based on my understanding, the Siegels could, say, give Todd McFarlane rights to make Superman a supporting character in Spawn. DC could not stop them but could demand 50% of whatever they got for the deal.

No exclusivity exists unless both parties agree.

As for the Superman film(s), I'm going to take a stab here. Jon Peters had exclusive rights to Superman sold to him by TW when TW was the sole owner. Unless he has reupped his agreement since 1999, the issue of the films is murky since Peters was sold his rights by what was the sole owner for a set duration of time. The question might arise whether the Siegel's termination voids his "lease".

It's like this:

You sign a ten year lease with a realty company. After five years, someone sues and gains 50% ownership of your apartment building. The question here is whether the new 50% owner is obligated to honor the remaining 5 years of your lease, which was made with the sole owner prior to the transfer.

This gets complicated. My grandfather lost his retirement because the company was bought out and the new company was not compelled to honor the old company's agreement. However, he did sue the new company in a class action case over his exposure to asbestos and they were liable for that.

The lawyers will have to sort this out. But it may be that while the Siegels would be entitled to any proceeds from Smallville, JLU or Justice League, Peters' film rights -- which were legally sold before the termination back in the mid-90s -- may enable him to be the ONLY person right now who can tell Superman stories without the Siegels receiving compensation.

If licensees DID pay Time Warner for 10+ year agreements before the termination and a court rules that the Siegels have sway over these agreements -- which were entered into before they regained rights retroactively in 1999 -- these licensees might have a compelling case to sue Time Warner for damages as TW would be (involuntarily) defaulting on a legal agreement. And that's just the tip of the iceburg!

Imagine if you bought a house and five years later, it was retroactively determined that the person who sold you the house didn't own it!

This is why we have lawyers -- and why I have aspirin.

[PatrickG]

BTW:

The Siegels don't own the Superman TRADEMARK.

But owning the copyright to ACTION #1 gives them rights to all subsequent "derivative works" as well as to create "derivative works". I think that's where the compensation issue would come in.

One thing I had pondered for a long time:

The Fleischer Studios Superman cartoons were allowed to lapse into the public domain. In theory, this should mean that anyone could create "derivative works" based on these shorts.

You couldn't market it as "Superman" since you don't own the trademark. However, you could possibly use Superman in a manner consistent with and solely derived from those shorts in an original story.

You WOULD get sued. Almost absolutely certain. But you might win if you could afford the appeals.

I've suspected for awhile that this is the loophole that Mark Millar once met with some entertainment lawyers about when he was discussing the idea of doing his own Superman comic without cutting in DC.

[Carlton Donaghe]

Good discussion, gentlemen, thank you.

I now look forward to what MacQuarrie has to say... or anyone else, for that matter.

[Carlton Donaghe]

PatrickG, thanks for bringing up the point of the Fleischer Superman cartoons-- because one thing that is happening is that several different companies, none affiliated with Time-Warner, are putting out copies of these cartoons. The ones that I have seen aren't marketed with the name or logo of "Superman" on the packaging.

If the Siegels owned the copyright to the Superman material which appeared in Action Comics #1 outright, they could conceivably publish that material, but not in a package which used the trademarked name or logo on the cover or in the marketing.

However, since they only own half the copyright, I'm not sure they could even do that.

[K-DoG7p7]

had this been Mr Siegel himself that was behind all of thise.. i would never had said anything.. but iots not.. its just family members that are trying to make a profit of what he did... and i find it discusting!

[KevinTBrown]

Because DC comics are the only kind worth reading?

They're the only ones I feel are worth reading, yes. (Except for The Boys.) So I'd actually be down to one if DC ceased publishing....

[rick]

had this been Mr Siegel himself that was behind all of thise.. i would never had said anything.. but iots not.. its just family members that are trying to make a profit of what he did... and i find it discusting!


It is his widow and only child that we are talking about here, not some third cousin or something.

Wouldn't it seem resonable that Siegel himself would want them to get the benifits of his labor?

[the4thpip]

They're the only ones I feel are worth reading, yes. (Except for The Boys.) So I'd actually be down to one if DC ceased publishing....

And you know, if chicken went extinct I would eat very little meat.

[KevinTBrown]

And you know, if chicken went extinct I would eat very little meat.

I buy what I enjoy. Nothing more, nothing less.

[K-DoG7p7]

It is his widow and only child that we are talking about here, not some third cousin or something.

Wouldn't it seem resonable that Siegel himself would want them to get the benifits of his labor?

and they did in the 70's and are still getting it..
even thou mr siegel is dead and that contract expired with his death, DC is still paying out ALOT! to his estate

[Erik Burnham]

and they did in the 70's and are still getting it..
even thou mr siegel is dead and that contract expired with his death, DC is still paying out ALOT! to his estate

Define a lot, though. If you're making hundreds of millions per year, what's 30,000?

The copyright law gave the loophole. It pretty much means that the Siegels (and, I suspect before too long, the closest remaining Shusters) will get a big chunk of money - bigger than 30,000 anyways.

WB will pay it out, and I sincerely doubt it will make a huge dent, unless it hits somewhere in the eight zero range for both parties. Even then, the property will eventually make it back... because forget the comics. He's on peanut butter. T-shirts. That S brand is recognized the world over and is worth into the billions for merchandising, licensing, and etc.

[Red Jack]

and they did in the 70's and are still getting it..
even thou mr siegel is dead and that contract expired with his death, DC is still paying out ALOT! to his estate

You think it's greed? Really? I'm honestly shocked by that.

I'm always happy when the little guy forces a corporation to pay. Obviously the nice judge felt they were owed more and ruled accordingly. Nothing disgusting about the creator of something passing the legacy of that creation down to their kids.

[king mob]

and they did in the 70's and are still getting it..
even thou mr siegel is dead and that contract expired with his death, DC is still paying out ALOT! to his estate

As pointed out Warners can afford to fork out a reasonable sum of money to Siegel's estate without going bankrupt. It's also something that might give other creators and their families what's due to them so really what is the problem?

[Tobias March]

As pointed out Warners can afford to fork out a reasonable sum of money to Siegel's estate without going bankrupt. It's also something that might give other creators and their families what's due to them so really what is the problem?

The urge to be a contrarian I suspect.

[KingMixer]

had this been Mr Siegel himself that was behind all of thise.. i would never had said anything.. but iots not.. its just family members that are trying to make a profit of what he did... and i find it discusting!

Why is that so disgusting? If you died wouldn't you want your wife to be well taken care of and your son for something you created? I know I sure would. I'm sure those are his wishes as well and why he made them his hiers. There's nothing disgusting about it at all.

[Corrina]

Well, it looks like DC & TimeWarner lost the chance to keep this out of trial with several technical end-runs--like the ones that claimed that various acceptance of money/settlements/ or even the one on employment termination meant that the rights to Superman had been de facto given up.

Hard to tell what would happen during a trial. DC might stall and try to cost legal fees, since they're more able to incur them.

But if Time Warner wants this settled once and for all, they'd come up with a very good sum but one that they can reasonably afford ($5 to $10 million) and offer that to settle all the claims to rights. Given that the Siegels probably need the money and that they might lose at trial, they'd possible take that.

Also, a settlement would prevent a win by the Siegels from setting a precedent in other cases of creators suing Time Warner.

In other words, the stakes if Time Warner loses at trial are really, really high and there's no guarantee that they'd win. They'd be smart to throw a good sum of money at it now that the case won't be dismissed on summary judgment, get it in writing what they need, and avoid lawsuits from other creators in the future. AT this point, it's either they come up with money to set the 'who gets what' themselves or wait and see what an unpredictable court system might rule.

As this risks one of their biggest money makers, they should go with the first option.

[Lester C.]

I would love to be the lawyers on either side of the argument as somebody making serious bank.:)

[Tad Sivana]

Can we assume that this is a 'one-off' ruling for the Siegels because of the 1999 'termination' and that the Kirby estate, Cockrum estate, et al...are still out in the cold?

[Erik Burnham]

Can we assume that this is a 'one-off' ruling for the Siegels because of the 1999 'termination' and that the Kirby estate, Cockrum estate, et al...are still out in the cold?

From what I've read, the circumstances differ significantly. So yeah.

[Charles RB]

The BBC happily manages to use & merchandise the Daleks, Cybermen et al despite the original creators & their estates owning half the rights. Shouldn't be that hard for DC to keep Superman going on, when I doubt the Seigel's are going to want DC to stop publishing it regularly (less money that way).

[PatrickG]

Can we assume that this is a 'one-off' ruling for the Siegels because of the 1999 'termination' and that the Kirby estate, Cockrum estate, et al...are still out in the cold?

It does apply to a number of properties in the Golden Age however.

I believe there has been a copyright termination filed on the first appearance of Alan Scott/Green Lantern. And this has raised questions to what degree these kinds of things affect a character with multiple incarnations.

Also... I believe Simon had done a similar termination on Marvel Comics #1's Captain America story.

Now, if you imagine that Marvel's first mutants (Namor and Angel and Toro) and Human Torch and Captain America...

Well, I think we'll see these companies, with labyrinthine continuities, forced to separate what is or is not derivative and maybe take an active interest in keeping stories less intertangled and intertwined to avoid the legal issues it may raise.

[AllisterH]

But if Time Warner wants this settled once and for all, they'd come up with a very good sum but one that they can reasonably afford ($5 to $10 million) and offer that to settle all the claims to rights. Given that the Siegels probably need the money and that they might lose at trial, they'd possible take that.

.

While I do think Warner is better off by settling, it isn't going to be cheap. We're talking at least 100 million here and if it reaches 250 million, I'd say Warner got a good deal.

Seriously, Superman is worth a LOT. 5-10 million is pocket change (that's what Blade I think is worth...)

[Corrina]

Yeah, but if you're Siegel's kid and you want to take care of your mother and fast, $10 million is going to look pretty damn good, especially when a decision that favors you can then be appealed yet again.

[rick]

and they did in the 70's and are still getting it..
even thou mr siegel is dead and that contract expired with his death, DC is still paying out ALOT! to his estate



$30,000 a year is not alot of anything.

And taking care of your widow and child is not greed.

[KevinTBrown]

As I said elsewhere, I'm just waiting for the lawsuit to get the copyright to Slam Bradley.... because this is all about creators rights and certainly not about money, isn't it?

[rick]

As I said elsewhere, I'm just waiting for the lawsuit to get the copyright to Slam Bradley.... because this is all about creators rights and certainly not about money, isn't it?


Don't be silly, it is completly about the money.

But the ownership of the character, and the characters value as a property, are as basic an issue of creators rights as you can get.

[Erik Burnham]

As I said elsewhere, I'm just waiting for the lawsuit to get the copyright to Slam Bradley.... because this is all about creators rights and certainly not about money, isn't it?

Of course it's about money - via the exercise of rights already provided.

(I mean, what good are the rights if they aren't made use of?)

The end result will be: Superman will remain where he is. Money will go to the Siegels and Shusters.

And, if this specific right is exercised again (I believe Alan Scott was mentioned) than there it is.

Not EVERY character/creator meets the criteria to exercise this option, now... or I'm sure more would be gone after. Even the forgotten-by-general-public ones.

Still, the rights were there, the Siegels filed legally, and WB said "Wait, you can't..." instead of just paying off from go. lol.

Don't worry, Kevin, Superman peanut butter nearly guarantees nothing will change but the money those two families have made this millennium.

[KevinTBrown]

I guess I didn't "drip" enough sarcasm into my post.... ;)

Of COURSE I know it's about money. Hence the reason I'm not for the "little guy" for a change. In the end, the Siegels, and eventually the Shusters, will get their multi-million dollar pay-off and go away.

The funny thing is though, Siegel's SECOND wife wasn't even in the picture when Superman was created. She didn't marry him until 1948....

[Erik Burnham]

I guess I didn't "drip" enough sarcasm into my post.... ;)

Of COURSE I know it's about money. Hence the reason I'm not for the "little guy" for a change. In the end, the Siegels, and eventually the Shusters, will get their multi-million dollar pay-off and go away.

The funny thing is though, Siegel's SECOND wife wasn't even in the picture when Superman was created. She didn't marry him until 1948....

I caught the sarcasm.

But sometimes, ya just can't resist stating the obvious.

This is the internet - are you new here? (;

[rick]

I guess I didn't "drip" enough sarcasm into my post.... ;)

Of COURSE I know it's about money. Hence the reason I'm not for the "little guy" for a change. In the end, the Siegels, and eventually the Shusters, will get their multi-million dollar pay-off and go away.

The funny thing is though, Siegel's SECOND wife wasn't even in the picture when Superman was created. She didn't marry him until 1948....


So?

I would think that being married to the guy from the 1940's on would certainly qualify her to be the mans legitimate widow.

Let me ask you, since you seem to have trouble with the Seigels getting these rights, who is it who should make money off of Superman underwear, dolls, and holloween costumes if not the Seigels and Shusters?

[Sabrinaset]

Don't worry, DC has a plan for taking care of the Siegels lawsuit ... part one of their master plan? Austen and Liefeld on Superman! Now NO ONE will make a dime off the franchise!

[PatrickG]

I guess I didn't "drip" enough sarcasm into my post.... ;)

Of COURSE I know it's about money. Hence the reason I'm not for the "little guy" for a change. In the end, the Siegels, and eventually the Shusters, will get their multi-million dollar pay-off and go away.

The funny thing is though, Siegel's SECOND wife wasn't even in the picture when Superman was created. She didn't marry him until 1948....

But wasn't she modeling for him and Joe as Lois earlier in the comic's run?

[KevinTBrown]

So?

I would think that being married to the guy from the 1940's on would certainly qualify her to be the mans legitimate widow.

Let me ask you, since you seem to have trouble with the Seigels getting these rights, who is it who should make money off of Superman underwear, dolls, and holloween costumes if not the Seigels and Shusters?

They signed a contract. They sold the rights. It should be "end of story". But there's been some retroactive changes made in the copyright laws....

I just seriously have a problem with a contract now not being worth the paper it's written on.... or was written on... or something along those lines.

99.9% of the time I'm all for the little guy. But not this time.

If this was JERRY SIEGEL or JOE SHUSTER going after Warners and DC, I'm fucking right there behind them. It isn't. This is family trying to reap the benefits of something that had NOTHING to do with. Hence my reason for bringing up the fact that his wife wasn't even in the picture when Superman was created.

Yeah, odds are they signed a bum deal back in 1938, but they were adults. No one twisted their arms to do it. I think it sucks how creators were all treated back then.... Some got robbed, some didn't.

Again, I just don't like how they can now in essence say, "That contract your spouse signed 70 years ago? Forget it. Doesn't matter now."

[KevinTBrown]

But wasn't she modeling for him and Joe as Lois earlier in the comic's run?

I thought that was Bella, Siegel's first wife, that was the model for Lois....

[mgs]

Don't worry, DC has a plan for taking care of the Siegels lawsuit ... part one of their master plan? Austen and Liefeld on Superman! Now NO ONE will make a dime off the franchise!

lol. :) sadly though, I actually enjoyed Austen's little run on Superman. edit: wait, or was it in Action Comics?

[Michael P]

I thought that was Bella, Siegel's first wife, that was the model for Lois....

Nope, his second, for whom he eventually left the first.

[mgs]

Nope, his second, for whom he eventually left the first.

that makes sense too. :) not encouraging divorce, but most people seem to leave sig. others for better looking ones.

[Michael P]

that makes sense too. :) not encouraging divorce, but most people seem to leave sig. others for better looking ones.

It wasn't because she was better looking. I'm not saying she wasn't, but that's not the reason. Read Gerard Jones's Men of Tomorrow.

[mgs]

It wasn't because she was better looking. I'm not saying she wasn't, but that's not the reason. Read Gerard Jones's Men of Tomorrow.

oh, thanks, I'm just assuming, since Lois is not exactly ugly or anything. I'll check what that book(?) has to say. :)

[rick]

They signed a contract. They sold the rights. It should be "end of story". But there's been some retroactive changes made in the copyright laws....

I just seriously have a problem with a contract now not being worth the paper it's written on.... or was written on... or something along those lines.

99.9% of the time I'm all for the little guy. But not this time.

If this was JERRY SIEGEL or JOE SHUSTER going after Warners and DC, I'm fucking right there behind them. It isn't. This is family trying to reap the benefits of something that had NOTHING to do with. Hence my reason for bringing up the fact that his wife wasn't even in the picture when Superman was created.

Yeah, odds are they signed a bum deal back in 1938, but they were adults. No one twisted their arms to do it. I think it sucks how creators were all treated back then.... Some got robbed, some didn't.

Again, I just don't like how they can now in essence say, "That contract your spouse signed 70 years ago? Forget it. Doesn't matter now."


You still don't make sense.

It would be fine with you if it was Jerry or Joe, but not their widows?

If you died, wouldn't you want your wife, children and grandchildren to benifit from your labor?

[KevinTBrown]

You still don't make sense.

It would be fine with you if it was Jerry or Joe, but not their widows?

If you died, wouldn't you want your wife, children and grandchildren to benifit from your labor?

Of course, but if I had signed a contract decades ago, why should it be over turned? I signed it in good faith then and I would expect it to be held up.

[Evan Waters]

Of course, but if I had signed a contract decades ago, why should it be over turned? I signed it in good faith then and I would expect it to be held up.

You signed it under different copyright laws and an inequitable arrangement.

When Siegel and Shuster signed away Superman, it was with the understanding that DC would have the character until it became public domain in X number of years. When Congress extended copyright terms, X became much greater, thus they recognized that creators may want to revisit the deals they made beforehand, and so gave them that option.

And I'm fairly sure TW wasn't lobbying against the extension of copyright at any point...

[Erik Burnham]

Of course, but if I had signed a contract decades ago, why should it be over turned? I signed it in good faith then and I would expect it to be held up.

Because the laws involved with copyrights were fudged with enough that eventually something would work in favor of the creators or their heirs... what the heck.

[KevinTBrown]

You signed it under different copyright laws and an inequitable arrangement.

When Siegel and Shuster signed away Superman, it was with the understanding that DC would have the character until it became public domain in X number of years. When Congress extended copyright terms, X became much greater, thus they recognized that creators may want to revisit the deals they made beforehand, and so gave them that option.

And I'm fairly sure TW wasn't lobbying against the extension of copyright at any point...

Yeah, the "ret-con" of copyright laws caused this clusterfuck.....

[PatrickG]

I'm really curious what happens to contracts and licenses established in good faith with Time Warner PRIOR to 1999.

Just to reiterate this point.

For instance, Jon Peters bought the film rights PRIOR to 1999.

[kingdom2000]

I disagree with the ruling. The two, repeatedly, gave up their rights to the characters and repeatedly accepted money in liue of those ownership rights to the character. They could have, at any time, especially in the last few decades, got a lawyer to help them make a good decision but chose not to.

The heirs, now seeing a cha-ching moment, use copyright laws which, ironically have been wrecked to all hell and back by corporate america, to their benefit. Yay them for some but still doesn't make it right. Lets face it, all this wasn't done for love of the character, it was done because of money. Do you seriousily think the family would have fought (or cared) about the character if it hadn't been popular? There is nobility in the actions of either party, the family or Time Warner. It was greed pure and simple.

As for the character entering public domain, forget about it. The mickey mouse laws that congress approves every decade or so will prevent it. The laws and implementation copyright, trademark, patents, etc need a huge overhaul in this country so that they are simple to understand and apply. No 5 year old trial etc needed. Just straight up, this is your idea, if you didn't sign it away this is what owned until such and such date when it enters public domain. Straight forward and simple.

Never happen, but that would be ideal. The confusion is mostly corporations fault for abusing the system so little ironic they are getting a kick up the rear on this one using the very same system they created...but I still disagree with the decision.

Any case, since this whole thing comes down to money I guarantee that in this "wishes of Superman's creators" the two families will come to a financial arrangement with Time Warner that allows them to not have to work ever again. I just hope all the family members have good prenups since they, assuming the appeals fail, have essentially won the lottery with all the joys and problems that come with.

And don't get me started on patents where an idea gets owned whether its feasible or not. You could "patent" the idea of a real life flux capaciter using chronitons and if years later someone actually invents it in some way similar to your patent, your family could claim a license fee is owed. Its mornic. An idea (in patent terms not fictional) shouldn't be "owned" until it can be proven to exist.

[MacQuarrie]

Michael, I'm glad you posted this here as well, as I wanted to also post my question here:

Can a person own a trademark for a property for which they do not own a copyright?

For instance, say Erik writes, draws and copyrights a story that features a character named Widget-man. Widget-man has never been seen before and is derivative of no other character. A completely unique character.

Can Michael then go out and trademark the character and appearance of Widget-man, even though he shares or has no claim to any part of the copyright to Widget-man?
Yes.

Erik can't copyright the name Widget-man. Names, titles, and ideas are not protected by copyright; only the actual execution of a particular work is protected. In other words, Erik does not own a copyright on Widget-man; he owns copyright on the scripts and art pages for the actual comics that he has actually produced.

If Michael were to create his own original drawing of the Widget-man character, he could apply for and possibly be granted trademark protection on the character design. He could certainly be granted trademark for the name, provided he produced a product to be represented by that mark. Since a trademark is only in force while it's in use, the trademark is useless without a trade for it to represent.

[MacQuarrie]

As for the character entering public domain, forget about it. The mickey mouse laws that congress approves every decade or so will prevent it. The laws and implementation copyright, trademark, patents, etc need a huge overhaul in this country so that they are simple to understand and apply. No 5 year old trial etc needed. Just straight up, this is your idea, if you didn't sign it away this is what owned until such and such date when it enters public domain. Straight forward and simple.

The characters will not enter public domain, because they are trademarked and trademarks don't expire. The individual comics and movies and such will go into the public domain because Copyrights have expiration dates.

There are certain Superman cartoons that are in the public domain for one reason or another; anyone who wants to can make copies of them and sell them wherever they want. Go to the 99 cent store and take a look, you'll find them. Does that mean people can copy other Superman cartoons? No, of course not. Works featuring Superman are already in the public domain, but Superman is not and never will be.

If DC Comics stopped publishing Superman tomorrow, the Superman trademark would be inactive and eventually abandoned for comics. It would remain in force for any other Superman merchandise that continues to be produced, whether pajamas or movies or peanut butter bars.

If the heirs of Seigel & Shuster then decided to publish their own Superman comics, they could be able to acquire the Trademark. Or if they decided not to, and some other random person decided to create a new Superman, they could possibly acquire the Trademark. In no case would it ever be public domain. It's either active or dead.

[KevinTBrown]

I disagree with the ruling. The two, repeatedly, gave up their rights to the characters and repeatedly accepted money in liue of those ownership rights to the character. They could have, at any time, especially in the last few decades, got a lawyer to help them make a good decision but chose not to.

The heirs, now seeing a cha-ching moment, use copyright laws which, ironically have been wrecked to all hell and back by corporate america, to their benefit. Yay them for some but still doesn't make it right. Lets face it, all this wasn't done for love of the character, it was done because of money. Do you seriousily think the family would have fought (or cared) about the character if it hadn't been popular? There is nobility in the actions of either party, the family or Time Warner. It was greed pure and simple.

As for the character entering public domain, forget about it. The mickey mouse laws that congress approves every decade or so will prevent it. The laws and implementation copyright, trademark, patents, etc need a huge overhaul in this country so that they are simple to understand and apply. No 5 year old trial etc needed. Just straight up, this is your idea, if you didn't sign it away this is what owned until such and such date when it enters public domain. Straight forward and simple.

Never happen, but that would be ideal. The confusion is mostly corporations fault for abusing the system so little ironic they are getting a kick up the rear on this one using the very same system they created...but I still disagree with the decision.

Any case, since this whole thing comes down to money I guarantee that in this "wishes of Superman's creators" the two families will come to a financial arrangement with Time Warner that allows them to not have to work ever again. I just hope all the family members have good prenups since they, assuming the appeals fail, have essentially won the lottery with all the joys and problems that come with.

And don't get me started on patents where an idea gets owned whether its feasible or not. You could "patent" the idea of a real life flux capaciter using chronitons and if years later someone actually invents it in some way similar to your patent, your family could claim a license fee is owed. Its mornic. An idea (in patent terms not fictional) shouldn't be "owned" until it can be proven to exist.

I agree with what you said. It's all about money.

If National totally fucked over Siegel and Shuster decades ago (i.e. take their creation and kicked them to the curb), I'd be a lot more sympathetic then. That didn't happen. National hired them to continue the work and they worked on Action and other Superman projects for years.

I'm not so naive as to think that the contracts weren't heavily weighted in National's direction, but that's corporate life. If you have something you wanted to see in print that you created, you had to sign away the rights. That's STILL the case today. Not nearly as much, but it still is.....

As I said, if this was SIEGEL & SHUSTER themselves going after Warners and DC, I'd be all for it. THEY did all the work. THEY know what they signed. Their heirs? Um, no.

[Erik Burnham]

As I said, if this was SIEGEL & SHUSTER themselves going after Warners and DC, I'd be all for it. THEY did all the work. THEY know what they signed. Their heirs? Um, no.

Let me ask this... the corporations did a lot of the lobbying for the extension of copyright laws, etc. And the language allowing this to happen was put in their. The corporations have reaped a lot of benefit from these laws... right or wrong. If all conditions are met to satisfy the law as it stands, why shouldn't the heirs be able to file a termination according to the law?

It isn't "going after" them. (That's the Superboy case, a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)

If an opportunity like that is presented, why should a person not take it? There's no real world reason. It's not even the result of a suit, just a little backfire from the attempts to keep copyrights going.

I don't think there's any mustache twirling, and I can't begrudge anyone taking advantage of that kind of opportunity. The Siegels (and maybe Shusters) are the only ones anything will change for in the long run. Not TW, not the fans... so really.

[rick]

Would one of you please explain to me just what is wrong with Siegel’s family wanting the money?

I keep reading these contemptuous statements about how the Siegel’s are only in it for the cash, as if that is some kind of crass, tacky thing for the widow and child of the Superman creator to want.

And why all of this support for DC, even though the company totally screwed the two creators back in the 1940’s by not fulfilling their contract and then managed to outspend the two men in the courthouse to the point where they simply could not afford to keep fighting their case?

Don’t get me wrong, Jeanette Khan did a good thing when she helped guilt Warner into giving the two men a pension, but $30,000 a year for a character that has generated more than a billion dollars, is not a fair situation, contract or no contract.

The law for copyright was changed, not just for Superman, but for all creators, and there is simply no reason why the Siegel family should not reap those benefits.

[Erik Burnham]

Would one of you please explain to me just what is wrong with Siegel’s family wanting the money?

I can't speak for Kevin... but as someone who has seen more than a few down times, I don't see anything wrong with it. They're taking advantage of a favorable situation.

Speaking generally, there are a lot of reasons for irritation or outrage. One I see in Kevin's argument is similar to an article I read about lottery winners or heirs of rich people; people see them as undeserving of their money because they didn't work for it.

One could argue some feel that the heirs getting the money is akin to getting the credit or benefit of someone else's work. That sits wrong for some.

Some feel it will ruin Superman and DC somehow. (Which is unrealistic, but many fans overreact when it comes to something they're emotionally invested in -- please see "One More Day." )

Sometimes, deep down, it's jealousy.

Me? Heck. Give 'em the money. They'd have it anyway if S&S had gotten certain monies earlier. And there's nothing underhanded. Law says they can file for the copyright - what have they got to LOSE?

[Ed Cunard]

Would one of you please explain to me just what is wrong with Siegel’s family wanting the money?

Don't you get it, Rick? It's really not about money. It's about ownership. Regardless of who owns the trademarks and copyrights, it's the fans that own Superman, and this challenges their god-given right to stories about the last man from Krypton.

At least, that's the gist of what I've read elsewhere.

[rick]

Don't you get it, Rick? It's really not about money. It's about ownership. Regardless of who owns the trademarks and copyrights, it's the fans that own Superman, and this challenges their god-given right to stories about the last man from Krypton.

At least, that's the gist of what I've read elsewhere.


Well. I've got to say that I suspected as much.

[Ed Cunard]

It's actually more widespread, that thinking, now that I dwell on it a little more--it often comes up when there is something that challenges a fan's entitlement.

CrossGen not paying its employees? Negative coverage affecting the company? THIS WILL KEEP US FROM THE BOOKS WE LOVE DAMN YOU PEOPLE YOU SHOULD WORK FOR FREE ON THESE AWESOME COMICS SO I CAN HAVE MY COMICS.

TV Writer's go on strike? No more new shows for a while? I NEED MY FRIEND JACK BAUER FUCK YOU GREEDY WRITER TYPES.

[NickThompson]

Don’t get me wrong, Jeanette Khan did a good thing when she helped guilt Warner into giving the two men a pension, but $30,000 a year for a character that has generated more than a billion dollars, is not a fair situation, contract or no contract.

It's a totally fair situation if that's what they were contracted for.

In this case there was more to it, so good for them.

[PatrickG]

I disagree with the ruling. The two, repeatedly, gave up their rights to the characters and repeatedly accepted money in liue of those ownership rights to the character. They could have, at any time, especially in the last few decades, got a lawyer to help them make a good decision but chose not to.

The heirs, now seeing a cha-ching moment, use copyright laws which, ironically have been wrecked to all hell and back by corporate america, to their benefit. Yay them for some but still doesn't make it right. Lets face it, all this wasn't done for love of the character, it was done because of money. Do you seriousily think the family would have fought (or cared) about the character if it hadn't been popular? There is nobility in the actions of either party, the family or Time Warner. It was greed pure and simple.


This pretty much sums up my view.

Siegel and Shuster were desparate and stupid on multiple occasions. Ethically, they shouldn't be able to reclaim the character, who they have sold and accepted others' ownership of knowingly, no matter how much they bitched about it.

The side story is one of big, evil corporations who have screwed up, overcomplicated and meddled with IP law and their chickens came home to roost here.

The one provision I would make is that I do feel no small amount of pathos for the Siegel and Shuster families. (At least the Shusters had that famous Canadian comedian guy in their family; near as I can tell, the Siegels have had a rough go of things.)

And that's essentially the third story here, where plots A and B meet. Siegel and Shuster were a couple of kids with more imagination than sense of self-worth who were repeatedly pressured and manipulated by business and publishing interests. And in the end, I gather that the runaround has continued with their heirs, with Time Warner acting like a crooked insurance company in its agreements to take care of a woman in very poor health. Had TW showed more sense and compassion, I don't think the "cash in" mentality would have taken hold.

At the very least, one of the companies responsible for today's mess of copyright law should have the sense to butter up creators' heirs when copyright termination dates roll around.

Redjack has had some interesting discussions on these boards about IP law. I believe he compared a story to a finely crafted antique chair that should pass on to your descendants in perpetuity. While I don't agree with that entirely, that type of thinking should be what supports the Siegels here. However, if a story IS a piece of craftsmanship and not social property which we secure rewards for the originator of for a limited duration (as I see it) then when somebody sells the story, it shouldn't be something you can get back.

As a kid, I had a large stuffed dog which I had named Furry Doledo. It was given to me by a wealthy elderly woman when my family had little money and few prospects. That stuffed animal meant the world to me and I crafted a personality for him in my imagination as a young child. When I was 8 and beginning to get stupid, drunk on pre-adolescence, I didn't see the value of a treasured old furry playmate and so I put him up for sale at my grandparents' yard sale (there was a practice in the town where everyone in town would have a yard sale on this one special day and there were parades and firecrackers and hot dogs). After I got my $5 (or thirty pieces of silver) for selling my old buddy, I remember getting a bit misty eyed and feeling as though I'd made a bad deal. In an emotional sense, the dog was my creation and would always belong to me on some level.

But even assuming someone had preserved and cleaned him these past 20 years and put him in a glass case, I could hardly terminate the sale on a technicality (yard sales not having a business permit?) and take him back, even if it were viable legally.

I think the Siegels DO deserve more and better. However, this whole turn leaves me personally feeling conflicted. They'll no doubt get a better return on the debt society owes them as the loved ones of a dead visionary as a result of this. And yet, I can't find an underlying and consistent spirit of the law which supports this kind of ruling, however much the letter does. And I don't believe that in law should be governed by a harsh reading of the letter nor do I believe in "ends justifying the means" results like trumping up tax fraud charges against murderers.

In my mind, the law and the processes of justice and equity should be governed by logic and not code and the actions of government should form a flowing, poetic, reasoned narrative more than mad scratchings littered with footnotes.

I almost think court cases (legal or civil) should be presented in five acts, required to conform to the ideals of the poetics, make emotional and ethical appeals, require eloquence to win and showcase rising action. Even in traffic or small claims court.

The ends here are just. The means that these ends are achieved are deeply flawed.

And while the treatment of the Siegels is deeply flawed, I feel that this whole scenario is flawed. The narrative of justice demands eloquence. Until eloquence is achieved, there will be no peace nor justice in any dispute.

That's why we have comments like Jeremiah Wright's and Jerry Falwell's. Racism is, for the most part, civilly and legally resolved as an issue but the matter has not (and may never) have closure and eloquence and so the narrative of racism meanders on, denying the American people of true justice.

This ruling temporarily legally and civilly resolves the dispute (until the next appeal or a settlement, I assume) but the arguments are not spiritually at rest because the solution, while technically accurate, lack a definitive feeling of eloquence and closure that respects the events of the past 80 years of disputes, sales, compromises and grumblings.

[KevinTBrown]

Don't you get it, Rick? It's really not about money. It's about ownership. Regardless of who owns the trademarks and copyrights, it's the fans that own Superman, and this challenges their god-given right to stories about the last man from Krypton.

At least, that's the gist of what I've read elsewhere.

Well, that's NOT how I feel about it. For me it's about honoring the agreement they signed years ago. Including the one in 1948 in which Siegel signed away all rights, and agreed to not come back later to try to claim the rights. NO ONE twisted his arm to do that....

I think this is a very bad precedent to set and the families are just seeing dollar signs now. They could give a flying you-know-what about the character as long as they get their millions on something someone else created.

[Ryan Day]

As I said, if this was SIEGEL & SHUSTER themselves going after Warners and DC, I'd be all for it. THEY did all the work. THEY know what they signed. Their heirs? Um, no.

So if, for the sake of argument, DC acted unethically and completely screwed over Siegel and Shuster, it becomes irrelevant as soon as they die?

That's a lousy philosophy. Either Siegel & Shuster are entitled to the work or they aren't. If they are, then that entitlement passes down to their heirs, because that's the way it works.

[Ed Cunard]

I think this is a very bad precedent to set and the families are just seeing dollar signs now. They could give a flying you-know-what about the character as long as they get their millions on something someone else created.

Yes. As I said, the people who really care about Superman and know what's best for him are not Time-Warner (technically, they also could be considered as not "giv[ing] a flying you-know-what about the character as long as they get their millions on something someone else created"), nor Siegel's heirs.

No, it's the fans. They know best.

[KevinTBrown]

So if, for the sake of argument, DC acted unethically and completely screwed over Siegel and Shuster, it becomes irrelevant as soon as they die?

That's a lousy philosophy. Either Siegel & Shuster are entitled to the work or they aren't. If they are, then that entitlement passes down to their heirs, because that's the way it works.

Siegel & Shuster both know what they did. They both know they legally and willfully signed away the character they created. They knew that had no legal leg to stand on. If they truly felt they had a chance to get Superman back under their control, they would have done so. As was mentioned before, Jeanette Kahn made sure they got something for their creation monetarily speaking. I think it should have been a 100 times what they got though....

The laws have changed enough now that anyone related to the Siegels or Shusters can now stake a claim. To me, that's bullshit and an end run around the contracts that they never signed. Again, all the families are seeing is $$$$$$$$$$$ in their eyes.

And we'll never know if National acted completely and totally unethical in their dealings with S&S. We can assume they did, but we'll never know the full circumstances and that may not have been the case. The little guy tended to get screwed more often than not... but no one ever held a gun to their head.

I just have major problems with someone else coming in after the fact to try to gain control of something that had nothing to do with....

[Erik Burnham]

Well, that's NOT how I feel about it. For me it's about honoring the agreement they signed years ago. Including the one in 1948 in which Siegel signed away all rights, and agreed to not come back later to try to claim the rights. NO ONE twisted his arm to do that....

I think this is a very bad precedent to set and the families are just seeing dollar signs now. They could give a flying you-know-what about the character as long as they get their millions on something someone else created.

Certain conditions have to be present to file the way they did. And not everything has the same worth as Superman. Not everything is worth millions.

(As to no one twisting Siegel's arm -- for all we know, they did. It isn't relevant to this situation. Superboy, maybe, but that isn't what this discussion is about.)

This could be considered part of the price TW has to pay to keep things IN copyright. It just so happens to have a face on it.

[Major Comma]

so, will DC kill Superman or take him off the stage somehow if they feel they are going to lose the copyright?

[Erik Burnham]

The laws have changed enough now that anyone related to the Siegels or Shusters can now stake a claim. To me, that's bullshit and an end run around the contracts that they never signed. Again, all the families are seeing is $$$$$$$$$$$ in their eyes.

And we'll never know if National acted completely and totally unethical in their dealings with S&S. We can assume they did, but we'll never know the full circumstances and that may not have been the case. The little guy tended to get screwed more often than not... but no one ever held a gun to their head.

I just have major problems with someone else coming in after the fact to try to gain control of something that had nothing to do with....

1. So what if they're seeing $?

2. As far as "holding a gun to one's head" if it's like the situations my dad has been through with some of the stuff he's invented, no, they don't hold a literal gun to your head. Though they might as well.

3. Who's gaining CONTROL? They're seeing $, right? There's no money in the control without more money to exploit that control -- which the Siegels don't have and is useless without the trademarks or the copyright to all of the other important parts of the mythos. (:

[Erik Burnham]

so, will DC kill Superman or take him off the stage somehow if they feel they are going to lose the copyright?

I wouldn't lose sleep over it. (;

[PatrickG]

Don't you get it, Rick? It's really not about money. It's about ownership. Regardless of who owns the trademarks and copyrights, it's the fans that own Superman, and this challenges their god-given right to stories about the last man from Krypton.

At least, that's the gist of what I've read elsewhere.

You know, though, I think this sentiment speaks to why we should have a public domain.

I think a pivotal moment in the coming of age for a generation is when we inherit the fables, bedtime stories and myths that we grew up with. I don't think adulthood exists without a public domain.

You can't be a man until you own your Peter Pan.

One of the reasons why I think the original 14 years and 14 renewable was essential for the social good, perhaps even in spite of creator rights.

28 years is about how long it takes for a generation to fully come of age. And then 28 years is enough time for the novels and works you enjoyed as an adult to ascend into the culture when you die.

I think that about the time when public domain really started slowing was when people stopped coming of age. We must inherit the stories told to us and take societal ownership of them or we never fully gestate the mythologies in our head.

The baby boomers didn't quite come of age. Subsequent generations even less so.

This is one reason we have blossoming STDs, a president who thinks the constitution is a "goddamned piece of paper", a housing crisis, a lack of realism about fuel conservation and use and a gossip mongering press more interested in proliferating political struggles into pugilism and what female celebrity gets her junk photographed stepping out of a car.

You can't BE an adult until you take responsibility for the family business and inherit the estate. Corporations and IP law bypass the due process of inheritance, culturally and monetarily.

If the world owns Superman, we could transcend him. Instead, we have manchildren who can't because their childhood myth is still held over them. It's not the root of all evil but I think it's one of the prime reflections of the ills of our age, a society where citizens are and cannot become anything more than children to government and corporate interests.

Try complaining the next time a major chain restaurant screws up your order and see if you get treated like an adult; they'll probably either bribe you with gift cards or deny responsibility with some tautological equivalent of "because I said so". Try arguing that the government is applying law incorrectly or unconstitutionally and see if you get treated like an adult; they'll belittle your ability to make such decisions, cycle you through a hamster wheel of bureaucracy or argue that they were doing what they did to protect you and that you aren't in a position to make all decisions about your own safety.

And in case Redjack is here reading, I'm not necessarily against your ideals of protecting artists and their families. However, I would make a few provisions.

- I don't think a corporation should have the same property rights as an individual and that these entities, which can exist for hundreds of years and feed on multiple hosts, are as close as you can get in reality to a blood sucking mutant hivemind parasite. This isn't to say that I think corporations shouldn't exist but they're essentially malevolent, borderline sentient entities which should be beasts of burden and always subservient to flesh and blood human beings who drink and screw and die and have 46 chromosomes.

- I'd say that upon death of a creator (who IMO should be able to license but never sell a work of IP, since as the creator they will ALWAYS have moral ownership), work should enter a public domain-like state where it is usable by anyone and everyone but with a system of negotiation in place for heirs. Basically like compulsory licensing in music. Royalties are owed to survivors.

And by survivors, I mean the closest immediate family member alive who was alive when the creator died.

So a guy who writes a book dies, it goes to his spouse, she dies, it goes to his brother, his brother dies, it goes to the author's child at 18. All until there are no immediate family members left alive who were actually alive when the author was alive. Just cap it off once the last living contemporary immediate (spouse, child, mother, father, brother, sister) relative dies.

Then it goes full public domain.

I think that would have spiritual eloquence to it.

My mother has a French phrase for these thoughts of mine when I get ranting. I can't remember what it is but it translates to "The Light Behind the Law". I really think the law needs to reflect a spiritual, cosmic and aesthetic harmony, that justice should represent closure and resolution and that ALL secular moral, philosophical and rational arguments should be weighted as the basis for law and government rather than a heavily codified system of McGovernment.

You go to court? You or your lawyer or the prosecutor eloquently citing Descartes or St. Augustine or making a compelling observation about truth or the human condition which explains your actions sufficiently should be more valid that blurting out precedent about 500 miles away in Topeka in 1963.

We need a society of educated statesmen and stateswomen who take ownership of the law, whose ability and DUTY to reason personally is both nurtured and demanded.

[PatrickG]

So if, for the sake of argument, DC acted unethically and completely screwed over Siegel and Shuster, it becomes irrelevant as soon as they die?

That's a lousy philosophy. Either Siegel & Shuster are entitled to the work or they aren't. If they are, then that entitlement passes down to their heirs, because that's the way it works.

BTW, the argument here is NOT that DC acted unethically. That's immaterial. (I think that DC acted unethically -- and that while DC was incredibly ethical in later years, Time Warner took over as the unethical business party in this situation.)

Though the families MAY be motivated by DC's unethical actions in the past, the ruling would stand either way.

This ruling has nothing to do with DC's ethics in the eyes of the court. It has everything to do with a termination of copyright filed on a work that was sold previously and has now been reclaimed due to a loophole.

This, legally, is a technical issue and not a moral one. Were it a moral issue, the ethics of DC and Time Warner's actions in the past would be on trial; they were not. Were it a moral issue, the ethics of taking back a work that had been legally and contractually sold legitimately would be an issue; it was not.

What happened is that the estate of a dead person filed a form which allowed something seemingly impossible to happen (and happen retroactively) and the law has upheld the interpretation which supports their filing of the document.

[JKCarrier]

For decades, DC/Time-Warner used the technicalities of copyright law to rake in millions. Now for once the shoe's on the other foot, and we're supposed to feel sorry for them? Um, no. They've had 70 years to do right by Siegel and Shuster, and they fought it kicking and screaming all the way, protected by the letter of the law. I see no reason why the Siegel's heirs shouldn't get the same opportunity to use the law to their benefit.

[rick]

For decades, DC/Time-Warner used the technicalities of copyright law to rake in millions. Now for once the shoe's on the other foot, and we're supposed to feel sorry for them? Um, no. They've had 70 years to do right by Siegel and Shuster, and they fought it kicking and screaming all the way, protected by the letter of the law. I see no reason why the Siegel's heirs shouldn't get the same opportunity to use the law to their benefit.


Well said.

That is exactly the entire issue in a nutshell.

[kingdom2000]

So the arguement is the heirs got "revenge" against the evil corporate america? Gee how noble that is. Please people, get over it. This case is about money and the love of money on both sides. Superman is incidental to that. He is just a flying dollar sign with heat vision to them. Quit trying to justify the heirs action as some noble fight of the little guy getting over the big guy cause this isn't it. This is just another way of someone using the laws to take advantage of the system in a way not intended.

The creators have ample opportunity to fight back, more then 60 years and they chose not to. They bitched, moaned and groaned but chose to take no action but gladly took money when it was offered. That right there pretty much sums up exactly how these families are operating now.

[Michael P]

If Michael were to create his own original drawing of the Widget-man character, he could apply for and possibly be granted trademark protection on the character design.

Although I doubt you can trademark a stick figure.

[Michael P]

It's actually more widespread, that thinking, now that I dwell on it a little more--it often comes up when there is something that challenges a fan's entitlement.

I've seen people say, in all seriousness, that Hal Jordan's return as Green Lantern proves that the fans really own the characters, and the companies just hold them in stewardship.

Some people are just on a permanent vacation from the reality-based community.

[rick]

So the arguement is the heirs got "revenge" against the evil corporate america? Gee how noble that is. Please people, get over it. This case is about money and the love of money on both sides. Superman is incidental to that. He is just a flying dollar sign with heat vision to them. Quit trying to justify the heirs action as some noble fight of the little guy getting over the big guy cause this isn't it. This is just another way of someone using the laws to take advantage of the system in a way not intended.

The creators have ample opportunity to fight back, more then 60 years and they chose not to. They bitched, moaned and groaned but chose to take no action but gladly took money when it was offered. That right there pretty much sums up exactly how these families are operating now.


Nobody is saying that it isn't about the money.

Where are you getting that from anyway?

And while we are at it, let me ask you, since DC did there own share of legal maneuvering over the years to fight the actions of Siegel when he was still alive, why are you supportive of DC in this and also not just dismissive, but downright denigrating about Siegel’s widow and daughter making money off of Siegel’s creation?

Why do you find DC’s actions over the decades so commendable and the Siegel’s actions so low and garish?

[Erik Burnham]

So the arguement is the heirs got "revenge" against the evil corporate america? Gee how noble that is. Please people, get over it. This case is about money and the love of money on both sides. Superman is incidental to that. He is just a flying dollar sign with heat vision to them. Quit trying to justify the heirs action as some noble fight of the little guy getting over the big guy cause this isn't it. This is just another way of someone using the laws to take advantage of the system in a way not intended.

The creators have ample opportunity to fight back, more then 60 years and they chose not to. They bitched, moaned and groaned but chose to take no action but gladly took money when it was offered. That right there pretty much sums up exactly how these families are operating now.

Well, they filed when they were first allowed to file, taking action at the first legal opportunity.

There's no nobility here. And I don't think anyone is painting them as noble. They were afforded an opportunity and took it.

End of story.

[Michael P]

This is one reason we have blossoming STDs, a president who thinks the constitution is a "goddamned piece of paper", a housing crisis, a lack of realism about fuel conservation and use and a gossip mongering press more interested in proliferating political struggles into pugilism and what female celebrity gets her junk photographed stepping out of a car.

I'm sorry, did you just say copyright extension is responsible for a rise in STD infection?

[Tobias March]

I'm sorry, did you just say copyright extension is responsible for a rise in STD infection?

Omigods....that's it! It makes perfect sense.

[PatrickG]

I'm sorry, did you just say copyright extension is responsible for a rise in STD infection?

I don't think it's the CAUSE. I think it's a symptom of the same underlying issue.

On one hand, people are unwilling and/or unable to take responsibility and ownership of themselves, their responsibilities, their society and their community.

On the other hand, you have people being told what they can't own, what they can't do, that they can't take responsibility, that they don't own themselves, that they're irresponsible, that their society owns them and that their community is owned by government, special interests and mega-corps.

Both are results of a disenfranchisement.

People aren't owning up to their sexual health and people are having bullshit handed down to them in the form of abstinence only education (the government mandating a way of life) which results in people being careless and spreading STDs.

We don't own the culture. The culture owns us, or so we're led to think.

Incidentally, I don't think anybody disagrees that abstinence is generally the safest route, health benefits of safe and/or monogamous sex aside. But the ownership, enfranchisement and choice that belongs in the hands of adults and young adults has been shifted to rule by committee, much as intellectual property ownership has. What should be in the hands of the creator or the community has become the property of bloated corporations and governments which have preferential treatment and superior enforcement of rights to the individual and the community.

I may look white but I may as well be a black in 1950s Mississippi if you compare what I'm allowed and afforded and how I'm treated compared to an entity like the U.S. Military, Disney, RIAA or Microsoft.

THAT'S what I'm sayin'. That's what I'm sayin' about three generations (going on four) of Americans.

In terms of Intellectual Property, sexual health, food and drug regulation, recreational drug use, energy policy, foreign policy, corporate policy and money interests, we're being treated like servants and illiterate children who are kept on an allowance rather than being given an inheritance and prescribed, rather than being involved in, power and culture.

[JKCarrier]

The creators have ample opportunity to fight back, more then 60 years and they chose not to.

Not true. Siegel attempted every legal remedy available to him. He and Shuster sued DC in 1946 and again in 1967. When the first Superman movie was in the works in 1976, Siegel went public with his grievances, with support from people like Neal Adams and Jerry Robinson. The current action by his heirs has been going on since 1999, and the separate Superboy case is still pending.

[kingdom2000]

The law depends heavily on precedent, so if the Superman decision withstands appeal, then it the Superboy case will most likely go in favor of the creators' family since it will probably be used as a foundation for the later decision.

[MacQuarrie]

Siegel & Shuster both know what they did. They both know they legally and willfully signed away the character they created. They knew that had no legal leg to stand on. If they truly felt they had a chance to get Superman back under their control, they would have done so. As was mentioned before, Jeanette Kahn made sure they got something for their creation monetarily speaking. I think it should have been a 100 times what they got though....

Joe Shuster left the negotiating up to Jerry Seigel. He was small and shy and felt that Seigel would do a better job handling the business matters.

Jerry Seigel, unfortunately, approached negotiating from a very adolescent point of view. He was thin-skinned and prone to take things personally, and his usual approach to matters was to sulk and suck it up until the injustices became too much, then to explode in a barrage of outrageously paranoid accusations.

He was advised numerous times to consult a lawyer before signing, but his ego wouldn't let him. When he finally did hire a lawyer, the lawyer came back and told him he had no case, then accepted a position at National.

He got screwed over repeatedly, but not as often as he screwed himself over. His habitual insistence on creating an adversarial relationship with DC was the single biggest reason for not getting a better deal. At any time, he could have simply said, "Superman is making you guys a lot of money, and it's only right that we get some of it. We'd like to renegotiate our contract." Instead, he accused Leibowitz of trying to steal from him, created enmity all over the place, and sabotaged himself repeatedly.

DC Took advantage of them, exploited them, and gave them very little in return for one of the most lucrative properties in history. Just like the old blues musicians who finally recovered ownership of their songs that were swiped by the record companies, it's only good and fair and right that the artists recover their rights to their work. International copyright law now holds that art belongs to the artist by default.

But I have to say that the person who most screwed Jerry Seigel and Joe Shuster was Jerry Seigel.

[rick]

Joe Shuster left the negotiating up to Jerry Seigel. He was small and shy and felt that Seigel would do a better job handling the business matters.

Jerry Seigel, unfortunately, approached negotiating from a very adolescent point of view. He was thin-skinned and prone to take things personally, and his usual approach to matters was to sulk and suck it up until the injustices became too much, then to explode in a barrage of outrageously paranoid accusations.

He was advised numerous times to consult a lawyer before signing, but his ego wouldn't let him. When he finally did hire a lawyer, the lawyer came back and told him he had no case, then accepted a position at National.

He got screwed over repeatedly, but not as often as he screwed himself over. His habitual insistence on creating an adversarial relationship with DC was the single biggest reason for not getting a better deal. At any time, he could have simply said, "Superman is making you guys a lot of money, and it's only right that we get some of it. We'd like to renegotiate our contract." Instead, he accused Leibowitz of trying to steal from him, created enmity all over the place, and sabotaged himself repeatedly.

DC Took advantage of them, exploited them, and gave them very little in return for one of the most lucrative properties in history. Just like the old blues musicians who finally recovered ownership of their songs that were swiped by the record companies, it's only good and fair and right that the artists recover their rights to their work. International copyright law now holds that art belongs to the artist by default.

But I have to say that the person who most screwed Jerry Seigel and Joe Shuster was Jerry Seigel.


While I certainly agree that Siegel’s biggest problem was that he made some bad decisions, such as not going out and getting a real lawyer, I think that it is a bit disingenuous to say that all Siegel had to do was just ask Jack Leibowitz in a nice way, and suddenly he would reopen negotiations over Superman and get more money for Jerry and Joe.

That certainly doesn’t sound like the Leibowitz I’ve read about.

Also, it is pretty clear that Siegel had a point in accusing the National Publisher of stealing from him, when during the 1940’s Leibowitz was making millions off of the character, through radio, movies and the ever popular merchandising, while in comparison both Siegel and Schuster were getting a pittance.

Now truth be told, before the big break-up in the late 40’s, the duo was easily making more money then any other comic writers or artists, but it was still only a middle class wage while the publishers were getting rich.

[Crowley]

Neal Adams said it best:

"Others made millions while Superman's creators lived in near-poverty. Jerry was a clerk and Joe was a legally blind man who lived in his brother's apartment, slept on a cot, and worked as a messenger. I met and fought for their small remaining rights when they both turned only 60 years old. Not 'old' by any definition. The battle took months and the settlement was meager, but it let the men live the remaining years of their lives with dignity. You know what they cared about most? They cared about having their names, once again, associated with their character, Superman! Why? Because it was what they were as people. They were their work."

Another fun fact if you listen to Neal Adams Word Balloon episode... DC/ National never gave any of the artists back their work prior to the time Neal showed up.

DC and Time Warner have made billions and they should pay the Siegel and Shuster families a percentage of the profit they've made off of their flagship character.

[Tad Sivana]

I have to agree that all this emotion and history of who got screwed and who did the screwing is irrelevant.
It's business.
If the families can get control of the character now, they will.
If National can prevent them, it will.
This is about opportunity based on changes in the law, not revenge.
While Siegel and Shuster can be forgiven (in some ways) for signing away their rights, there's no way they OR National could have forseen the character market that would emerge for Superman.
In many ways, Superman (and the other iconic characters of that era) CREATED this part of our culture. Placement of characters on lunch boxes, etc...goes back to early Disney and independent cartoon companies and (as Disney found after Snow White) could actually pay better than the cartoon project itself so that comics and animation became loss leaders for the character franchise business.

[MacQuarrie]

While I certainly agree that Siegel’s biggest problem was that he made some bad decisions, such as not going out and getting a real lawyer, I think that it is a bit disingenuous to say that all Siegel had to do was just ask Jack Leibowitz in a nice way, and suddenly he would reopen negotiations over Superman and get more money for Jerry and Joe.

That certainly doesn’t sound like the Leibowitz I’ve read about.
That's not what I was saying. The point is, Seigel would have done a lot better if he could have dealt with DC as an adult and a businessman, rather than as a petulant and antagonistic adolescent, or let somebody else deal with them on his behalf. He made the situation far more confrontational than it had to be, and pissed people off when he should have been trying to enlist them to his side.

Donenfeld was the crook. Leibowitz had formerly been an accountant, and he did things legally and by the book, but pressing every advantage he could get. Jerry Seigel went out of his way to give Leibowitz those advantages.

Also, it is pretty clear that Siegel had a point in accusing the National Publisher of stealing from him, when during the 1940’s Leibowitz was making millions off of the character, through radio, movies and the ever popular merchandising, while in comparison both Siegel and Schuster were getting a pittance.

Now truth be told, before the big break-up in the late 40’s, the duo was easily making more money then any other comic writers or artists, but it was still only a middle class wage while the publishers were getting rich.
That's true. And they did flat-out steal Superboy from him while he was in the army. He had pitched the idea with the express intent to negotiate the deal they should have gotten in the first place. That was where the real screwing began.