William Moulton Marston & Wonder Woman Contract

[moneyspider]

Is it true that Wonder Woman creator William Moulton Marston signed a contract with DC which stated that the Wonder Woman comic book can never be cancelled under any circumstances, and that the character must always appear in print if the company wants to retain the rights to the character?

[4PointOh]

Is it true that Wonder Woman creator William Moulton Marston signed a contract with DC which stated that the Wonder Woman comic book can never be cancelled under any circumstances, and that the character must always appear in print if the company wants to retain the rights to the character?

It WAS true. But in the last several years, the terms of that contract have expired apparently.

[nerites]

Interesting.

[ben c]

i think kurt busiek has posted about it in more detail, somewhere in this forum.

[Lynda_Carter]

Ask Andy, he knows EVERYTHING about Wonder Woman!

[Peter Svensson]

That contract is why Kurt Busiek and Trina Robbins did the "Legend of Wonder Woman" miniseries before the Perez revamp, because DC was contractually obligated to release a certain number of Wonder Woman issues per year or else lose publication rights.

Since then, from what I understand, DC has purchased the character completely.

[thwhtGuardian]

I don't know if they do though, because if that were true than you'd think the guest spot embargo would be lifted...and it is still painfully in effect.

[JKCarrier]

I don't know if they do though, because if that were true than you'd think the guest spot embargo would be lifted...and it is still painfully in effect.

Supposedly, the purchase of the character came with conditions: "We'll sign the rights over to you, but you have to promise to do this and not do that etc. etc." and that's where the "no guest roles, only starring roles" restriction comes from. But this all rumor and hearsay...nobody who's actually seen the contracts has spoken publicly about it as far as I know.

[Brian Canuck]

Just a thought regarding the Wonder Woman embargo regarding certain TV shows like Smallville, the recent animated Teen Titans show, and Batman Brave and the Bold....

There could possibly be other licensing deals that preclude Wonder Woman's representation on these shows. Depending on what corporate sponsors are behind these shows (if any), there could be possible conflict if the Wonder Woman character is licensed out to a competitor company.

In the 1980's the U.S. Government and DC Comics put out a series of anti-drug comics and even a television PSA starring the New Teen Titans. Robin, because he was licensed out to a rival company of corporate sponsor Keebler Foods, was magically transformed into a new character called The Protector. Basically the Protector was Robin. I think Robin's costume was literally whited out on the original art and a God-awful makeshift Protector costume drawn over it. The character talked, acted, and interacted with the other Titans exactly like Robin in the comics. Other cosmetic changes happened to the other Titans as well, like a total costume redesign for Starfire to tone down the overt sexiness of her original costume. I think Wonder Girl's plunging V-neckline was modified as well.

There could very-well be a "no guest-star" clause now concerning Wonder Woman, and yet, in the past she has been a guest-star on other shows.

Puzzling isn't it?

[Peter Svensson]

At least some of the Wonder Woman rights issues are tied up with the film that is perpetually in pre-production. There's more to it than that, but some of it is that one part of Warner Bros has strict rights to use Wonder Woman in certain media, and while they never get it off the ground, those rights still prevent use by other departments. Internal politics is a pain.

But the "can't be a guest star" bit is also there. And yes, given the timing involved, it seems that was added when DC bought the character. Possibly as a means to ensure that Diana didn't become someone else's sidekick.

[marvelboy74]

I've heard about this deal before too, like the minimum number of issues and royalties. I found this online:

The Ownership of Wonder Woman

The following was posted by comics writer Kurt Busiek to the DC Comics Message Boards on 25 January 2005:

Q: For years there have been rumors that if DC were to quit publishing Wonder Woman for a certain length of time, that ownership of the character would revert back to the Martson estate. A few years ago some people on the old DC boards were stating that you had refuted those claims in a post.

So are the rumors true? Were they ever true? Or, do you just not know, one way or the other?

A: They are no longer true, but they were true for a long time — as I understand it, the terms were that DC had to publish at least four issues with "Wonder Woman" as the banner lead feature or rights would revert. That's why DC did the LEGEND OF WONDER WOMAN mini-series that I wrote and Trina Robbins drew — the Perez revamp was in development, but coming along slowly, and they had to publish something to fulfil the contract terms.

They specifically didn't want something that would be attention-getting, because they didn't want to undercut the revamp. So they wanted something gentle and nostalgic, and we had fun doing it.

In the intervening years, though, I'm given to understand that at some point DC bought the character outright, and thus those contract terms are no longer in force.

[Seant]

Trina Robbins gave a talk about Wonder Woman at the Museum of Sex here in NYC, and Pete Marston was there as well, and he came to the front to answer questions from the audience. Someone asked him about the contract, and he said that no one was allowed to divulge the stipulations of the contract-- so I'm thinking it's probably more complicated than an outright ownership by DC.

[dshipp17]

Trina Robbins gave a talk about Wonder Woman at the Museum of Sex here in NYC, and Pete Marston was there as well, and he came to the front to answer questions from the audience. Someone asked him about the contract, and he said that no one was allowed to divulge the stipulations of the contract-- so I'm thinking it's probably more complicated than an outright ownership by DC.

When was that con held? Doesn't Pete post here? Perhaps Pete can tell us whether DC has complete ownership of the character. I may be wrong, but ownership with stipulations would seem to imply that the Marston estate still has some control over the character. I hope that those stipulations didn't limit some things Gail may have wanted to do with the character, thus limiting the quality of her stories, but that could really clarify things if it did, as Gail would be bound by silence. Although I hope such is not the case, I hope that certain stipulations would not limit how sexy JMS might want to make the character or changing her shoes or changing her costume a little or bringing more bondage to the stories, although there are a number of indications in other places which would appear otherwise, or add a little tentacles or produce credible threats or better develop Dr. Psycho and the rest of Wonder Woman's villains.

[Peter Svensson]

The way giant corporations like Time Warner operate, there is almost certainly a gag order involved that prevents Pete from even mentioning the slightest detail about the contract.

So far, we've yet to hear Wondy creators talk about THE CONTRACT being an issue with the sort of stories they've wanted to tell, and its very unlikely that it would have clauses about how to write the comic. At least, nothing that would directly impact most writers.

[AndyMangels]

Ask Andy, he knows EVERYTHING about Wonder Woman!

Thanks for the vote of confidence!

I haven't seen the contract, so thus know only hearsay details from various DC employees and others "in the know."

Kurt's account jibes with much of what I've heard, and Pete saying he can't talk about the details dovetails with what else I've heard. I know some other details, but out of respect for the Marstons, am staying quiet.

As DC-Warner has no compelling reason to EVER reveal the details, it's unlikely that the full story will be revealed.

But stranger stories have leaked out eventually, so I'm not saying that those interested will never know, just that the hearsay on this forum is only a small part of the complete story.