Judge Says Siegels Now Own Half of Superman

[Kirk G]

In light of the copyright lawsuit decision in favor of the Siegle family, will DC COmics have to cease production of all Superman comics and appearances until this is settled?

Or, like Superboy, will they have an opportunity to plan ahead, and do some cliffhanger ending where Supes vanishes from the DC Universe for a time? (Or permanently?)

Or will they just dig deep into their pockets and license their biggest corporate image for a fixed period into the future and continue, business as usual?:rolleyes:

What do you think?

[COMIC GEEK]

I think its to early to tell.

[CBR News]

In a possibly historic ruling, a federal judge Wednesday determined that the heirs of Superman co-creator, Jerry Siegel, are now the rightful owners of one-half of the copyright of Superman, and have been since 1999.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/ne...m.cgi?id=13526

[Michael P]

No. Have you bothered to actually read anything about the decision?

The Siegels were awarded the copyright to the 13-page Superman story from Action Comics 1. The copyright to every other Superman story in existence, along with the trademark to Superman (copyrights and trademarks are different), are still the property of DC (for now, anyway). It's worth noting that many of these copyrights, unlike that to Action Comics 1, are not eligible for the same termination and reversion performed here, as they are unquestionably works for hire. At this point, DC is under no legal obligation to stop publishing Superman, just not to reprint his first appearance.

Joe Schuster's heirs also have a claim to the Action Comics 1 copyright, but will be unable to legally present it until 2013. At that point, if the Schuster claim is awarded as this one was, things get thorny. But a lot of things can happen in five years. DC has time to work out a deal with both families to keep things pretty much business as usual, just with a licensing fee (or possibly a continuation/betterment of the current lifelong stipend) going to the families. And that's probably just what will happen.

[Michael P]

The decision, by the way: http://uncivilsociety.org/siegel_superman_032608.pdf

[Somebody]

Of course, who knows whether Congress will pass another extension before then.

As long as Disney has money in their account, they will....

[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 Suprman 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, 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]

Here's a question:

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

For instance, say Comic Geek 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?

[Lairston]

Here's a question:
Can a person own a trademark for a property for which they do not own a copyright?

I think that's the problem the new Valiant owners were having with the VIP people so yes its possible if the Trademarks are filed legally.

[Michael P]

Here's a question:

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

For instance, say Comic Geek 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?

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.

[Carlton Donaghe]

Michael, Captain Marvel is a good example of what you are talking about.

Both Marvel and DC have a copyrighted character named "Captain Marvel." But Marvel owns the trademark and only Marvel can publish a book with that name on it.

Still, these are two distinctly different characters (even moreso as the way Stan Lee and Gene Colan originally envisioned Marvel's character).

With the Superman example, it is indeed something different.

[JimmyDee]

Yeah, it seems pretty clear that corporate America will push for another extension of some sort. Way to many copyrights to protect ...

Although, it would very interesting to see what would happen were Superman to fall into the public domain. I imagine if they're still around Dynamite, Dark Horse, IDW, Devil's Due and others would all launch Superman comics.

Think of the slaughter.

[hondobrode]

Shuster inheritors, will finally be more closely compensated for what they are owed. However, as has been pointed out, should there be a struggle between DC and the estates, it could potentially mean an end to the DC / Superman relationship, which would probably very well mean the slow demise of the character.

How many other characters would this also affect ? The LSH ? Superboy, Supergirl ?

Since the court ruled in DC's favor back in the fifties, could this mean that Captain Marvel / Shazam would be lumped in with this ? Maybe if DC lost the rights to Superman somehow (hopefully not), they would have the Big Red Cheese to fall back on and muscle up as their Main Man.

[Hellstorm]

Here's one interpretation, from The New York Times:

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 claim a share of the United States 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 over 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 “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 ruling 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 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 license from the Siegels and Shusters.”

[comicnerdaz]

So what does this mean going forward? Can DC still publish Superman comics? Do they just have to pay half the money they make off Superman to the Shusters?

Maybe in Final Crisis, Superman will be split in half and we will only see DC's half of him in the comics going forward. :D