CBR: Court Rules DC & WB Didn't Violate Superman Agreement w/ Siegels

[CBR News]

A court has ruled that DC Comics and Warner Bros. Entertainment did not violate a licensing agreement with Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel's heirs with respect to "Superman Returns" and "Smallville."


Full article here.

[Joe Franklin]

Isn't it awesome when family members try to scam money off of people and companies in the name of their dead relatives.

It's the American way.

[CYOTI]

I'm sure there are many cases of corporate america ripping off the little guy however this isn't one of these cases. S&S were being paid the present day equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars to work on the Superman comic, all the while trying to sue DC Comics. The sole reason they were left destitute in the end were because of the enormous legal fees that they racked up in their frivolous suits against DC Comics.

DC has been more than magnanimous in regards to S&S when they should have been shown the door at the first momemt of a lawsuit.

[CYOTI]

Isn't it awesome when family members try to scam money off of people and companies in the name of their dead relatives.

It's the American way.

Schuster is Canadian so it's really the "Canadian Way".

[CYOTI]

Well then perhaps S&S shouldn't have sold Superman to DC, but then why penalize the company decades later for a bad business decision made by the creators?

[connor_kent]

The point is despite the fact that yes Joe and Jerry were royally screwed that doesnt give their surviving family members the right to try and sue DC every time they dont feel like they are getting a big enough piece of the pie especially when they had nothing to do with the creation of the character. First they want sole ownership of the Superboy name and now this? Cmon seriously!

[Adam C]

I'm sure there are many cases of corporate america ripping off the little guy however this isn't one of these cases. S&S were being paid the present day equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars to work on the Superman comic, all the while trying to sue DC Comics. The sole reason they were left destitute in the end were because of the enormous legal fees that they racked up in their frivolous suits against DC Comics.

Except that they didn't sue National Publications (which eventually became DC comics) until 1946 near the end of their ten-year contract with the company. And as for the equivalent of "hundreds of thousands of dollars" you'll have to cite a source. According to an article on the matter.

Working at the fringes of the law, Donenfeld had a gangster's sense of ethics, allowing him to be generous but only on his own terms. Like the filmic Godfather, he enjoyed being magnanimous to those who showed him loyalty. In 1938, he and his business partners promised Siegel and Shuster that they would be looked after. This pledge was honoured for a decade until 1948, with the two artists allowed to run a studio and periodically given bonuses.

But when Siegel and Shuster asked for royalties, they were told, absurdly, that there was no money in the till. In 1941, Donenfeld's accountant, Jack Liebowitz, informed the cartoonists that his figures showed "that we lost money and therefore you are entitled to no royalties." This was at a period when Superman comics were selling in the millions and the character was spun off in a popular radio show and animated cartoon series. In total, DC Comics has made more than $1bn from Superman in the last 70 years. Throughout that period, Siegel and Shuster enjoyed royalties that amounted to less than less then $500,000 (in contemporary dollars), plus a decent pension (won through a degrading public campaign).

That's not exactly good faith business dealing. It's also worth noting that the company only snatched up the idea to Superboy after Siegel was off in the army when he was unable to claim credit after having rejected his original pitch.

Also if legal fees are the sole reason for their destitution, then why was Joe Shuster forced to give up his job due to blindness while Siegel complained he made only a fraction of his former page rate while working for Mort Weisinger? I'd be less skeptical if there was a source to back this up.

DC has been more than magnanimous in regards to S&S when they should have been shown the door at the first momemt of a lawsuit.

Which is what happened when when they sued National in 1946. DC only gave them the annual $20,000 pension and health benefits in 1975 after fellow cartoonists mounted a publicity campaign in Siegel and Shuster's honour.

[dancj]

That's not exactly good faith business dealing. It's also worth noting that the company only snatched up the idea to Superboy after Siegel was off in the army when he was unable to claim credit after having rejected his original pitch.

I don't know nearly enough about whether or not Seigel and Shuster were screwed over, but it's a joke to suggest that DC/National Periodicals stole Superboy. They already owned Superman - and therefore the young version of Superman.

If that's not the case I'm going to go an pitch Young Mickey Mouse to Disney and then sue them if they ever do it themselves without paying me.

[CYOTI]

as for the equivalent of "hundreds of thousands of dollars" you'll have to cite a source.

$30000 was their cited annual income in their original claims against DC, which was in Gerad Jones book Men of Tomorrow. Using an inflation calculator thats $200,000+ in todays money. Of course they still owed close to 100,000 (around 800,000 in todays terms) in legal fees after their frivolous suit against DC combined with their inability to create another success after Superman and their departure from DC compounded their financial problems.

Yes the creation of Superman was indeed mired in greed and wrongdoing, but not on the part of his publishers, but on the part of his creators, two men who suffered from feelings of entitlement on par with Todd Mcfarlane and Rob Liefeld.

[Expletive Deleted]

I don't know nearly enough about whether or not Seigel and Shuster were screwed over, but it's a joke to suggest that DC/National Periodicals stole Superboy. They already owned Superman - and therefore the young version of Superman.

If that's not the case I'm going to go an pitch Young Mickey Mouse to Disney and then sue them if they ever do it themselves without paying me.

That's more or less DC's position: that Superboy is wholly derivative of Superman. The Siegels' position is that Superboy is sufficiently different from Superman as he was portrayed at the time (ie. Action Comics #1 era) to warrant a separate copyright. He had a different setting, a different set of relationships, and a generally different characterization. It's worth noting that the Siegels aren't claiming they should own all the rights to Superboy. Just that, based on Siegel's original work-for-hire contract (DC had the right of first refusal on his ideas and they passed on Superboy), he should have been entitled to a share. They're suing for the right of termination to that share, if a judge agrees that it exists.

[sam55]

The family is just trying to flex their muscles. I feel very sorry for the original creators but Superman is such a huge cash cow now and they just want to milk it in any way they can. I think that taking away Superboy was a sign that they don't care about the legacy of the characters cause taking them away from the fans and out of print is stopping something the creators lived for.




Join my group for the Othersiders.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Ot...3122891?ref=ts

[Mat001]

The family is doing this because before he died, Jerry Siegel told them to keep fighting. He was still fighting it clear up to his death in 1996. Had he not died then, he would've filed it in 1997 and it would take effect in 1999. As to the Superboy claim, there is sufficent evidence that Siegel and Shuster were due for their share of the precentage. DC/National has fought against that, because they know that they are in the wrong.

Let's put this in perspective, if you created something and got screwed, would you really go, "Oh well!"? I don't think so. You'd want is owed to you. Jerry and Joe didn't hire a lawyer like Bob Kane did. That's why they got screwed in the first place.

[Joe Franklin]

The family is doing this because before he died, Jerry Siegel told them to keep fighting.

I'm guessing it has more to do with stealing money from a corporation that none of them earned with their own hands and talents.

[Joe Franklin]

Hey Joe, If you created something in your life of value, and got ripped off by some company wouldn't you want your children or grandchildren to be able to profit from it in years to come?
How you can sympathize with a large faceless corporation over the actual relatives of the creators is beyond me to understand. Is it ignorance, or stupidity that causes your rationale?

I'm too young to retire from my job, so I'll use my 65 year old retired father as an example instead.

Do I feel my father was underpaid, and underappreciated for the job he did for his employer for over 30 years? Yes I do.

Because of this, do I feel his former employer owes me money for what I feel was shafting my father for all of those years, no I don't.

[carabas]

Would you feel the same if your father had invented Windows and Microsoft had conned him out of any serious money from it by buying it for $100.000? And then had spent most of his life in poverty watching Bill Gates get richer and richer on his invention?