Warner Bros. Claims "Significant Victory" In Superman Lawsuit

[adkal]

About 4 years ago in high school I had multiple teachers and friends who didn't know they still made comics and one teacher thought Superman got his powers from his costume.

You can't extrapolate ignorance like that and apply it to the wider populace.

Similarly, I can't say that because I've seen 4 sets of parents buy comics for their kids in the supermarket that all parents do the same.

[adkal]

Except that the media has reported that Superman comics are being published, to this day. Last September it was the acknowledgement of a new costume and a reboot. Last winter it was that Superman renounced his citizenship in Action Comics #900. In 2009, it was that Superman was going to be taking a walk through various states and would visit a number of cities. In 2008, the "Wednesday Comics" feature starring Superman was published in the pages of USA Today. All of this was well documented by ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX News, CNN, MSNBC and by various internet news websites.

BBC

YAY!


The Metro (free newspaper in London) and others, too.

:p

You'd have to be dead

Nah, they know...

, in a coma or in a third world country that is seriously lagging behind to not know this.

Or...just not pay any attention...

*shrug*

[Brian from Canada]

As I've said elsewhere, Batman is more of a 'boy scout' than Superman is: 'always be prepared'. All that 'with prep-time' that's been spouted about for the past couple decade or so. If they want Superman to be a 'boy scout' then embrace all that that entails - the manners, the awareness, the skills and the preparedness.

Disagree. Calling Clark a "boy scout" is meant to mean he's truthful and honest and unwilling to cross the lines, not that he's prepared — that's Batman, and in post-Crisis Batman it's been underscored most by Mark Waid in JLA with the discovery he had files on his OWN team (also reproduced in the recent film Justice League: Doom).

Batman is also the one prepared to kill: check out Batman #1 and he's willing to mow down the bad guys with the Batguns.

It was such a BS line and ignored so much of what happened since the Death (but then GJ's like that...).

For example, it ignored:
- The Supermen of America

But what good are the Supermen Of America if you can't figure out the void they fill with Superman? Superman is everywhere and everything — for a long time he wasn't limited in any way. Then factor in the problem with Superman that, because he was a symbol, DC writers were at a loss as to how go beyond that and had been for quite some time. How do you position ANYone around Superman?

New 52 is the first time in a long while that Superman's symbolism has been contained to the little guy and not the government, and more importantly that Clark's for the working class and not corporate America. (The fact that Lois is the reverse also says something about the modernization of the characters too).

- the whole world pretty much stepping up to help Superman (JLA: World War Three)
That one is huge. The people of the world stepped up to the plate and millions sacrificed themselves, yet GJ (via Batman) has the gall to claim to that Superman hasn't been a force of inspiration since he died?

There's two ways to look at it: first, the cynical way that you do; second, the cynicism of Batman that the pledging to be better after Superman's death has not made the world a better place — in fact, with Final Crisis, etc., it had only gotten worse. A lot of the final pre-52 years were dark and dreadful for the heroes of the DCU — which is not the environment that Superman inhabits.

(In fact, the best comparison comes from the animators, who said that they had to learn a whole new palette with Superman because Metropolis is bright and visible compared to the dark shadows of Gotham).

Personally, I don't think Johns truly understands Superman — not on the level he needs to be. And for all the GOOD that New 52 has done for the DCU, that's still a fundamental problem: heroes and their perceptions need to be contained. How the world treats the heroes and how they interact with it is inconsistent and difficult to navigate as a result.

[KevinTBrown]

Disagree. Calling Clark a "boy scout" is meant to mean he's truthful and honest and unwilling to cross the lines, not that he's prepared — that's Batman, and in post-Crisis Batman it's been underscored most by Mark Waid in JLA with the discovery he had files on his OWN team (also reproduced in the recent film Justice League: Doom).

Just to point this out: Calling him a boy scout is really a misnomer. Men such as Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bill Gates, Keith Richards, Marion Barry, John F. Kennedy, and Harrison Ford have all been boy scouts. Making him a boy scout doesn't make him inherently "truthful, honest and unwilling to cross the line". People who call him a boy scout really don't get him, IMO.

[Mr. Holmes]

Disagree. Calling Clark a "boy scout" is meant to mean he's truthful and honest and unwilling to cross the lines, not that he's prepared .

What comic book faboys call a boyscout and what boyscouts actually do are different things.

[Leocomix]

The heirs have the right to reclaim the copyright. The ethical thing for DC to do is acknowledge that decision. It doesn't matter whether they propose a mutually beneficial agreement.
Anyway, it makes sense for the heirs to reclaim the copyright first and negotiate after if that's what they even want. Because DC and Warner made sure they had an arrangement that benefitted to them and not to the heirs in the matter of Smallville.

[adkal]

Disagree. Calling Clark a "boy scout" is meant to mean he's truthful and honest and unwilling to cross the lines, not that he's prepared — that's Batman, and in post-Crisis Batman it's been underscored most by Mark Waid in JLA with the discovery he had files on his OWN team (also reproduced in the recent film Justice League: Doom).

I'm not sure what it is you're disagreeing with. My point was that the derogatory use of 'boy scout' for Superman is with regards to his manners and honesty (although, as others have argued, the guy repeatedly lied about his Secret so that's a dent on the 'honesty' :P ) but, given the other attributes associated with the Scouts, then Batman (Mr 'I'm prepared') should also be considered a 'boy scout'.

The way Kal took down the League members in Sacrifice is indicative of his own preparedness - he just didn't need to put things in a computer...

Batman is also the one prepared to kill: check out Batman #1

The original one?

Am I supposed to counter that with referring to scenes where GA Superman is shown to (seemingly) kill, or tossing people in the way of bullets?

Maybe you should try posting that on the Batboard? 'I don't kill' is as fundamental an aspect of Batman's character as it is Superman's.

and he's willing to mow down the bad guys with the Batguns.

'Rubber bullets. Honest.'

But what good are the Supermen Of America if you can't figure out the void they fill with Superman? Superman is everywhere and everything — for a long time he wasn't limited in any way. Then factor in the problem with Superman that, because he was a symbol, DC writers were at a loss as to how go beyond that and had been for quite some time. How do you position ANYone around Superman?

How does the writers having a problem mean that Superman, within the DCU, wasn't inspirational?

The Supermen of America came about (post-COIE) long after Superman's 'death'. They were inspired by him and were a positive influence across America (in the DCU). (The fact that Lex messed things up doesn't negate that).

New 52 is the first time in a long while that Superman's symbolism has been contained to the little guy and not the government, and more importantly that Clark's for the working class and not corporate America. (The fact that Lois is the reverse also says something about the modernization of the characters too).

Seriously? Are you stuck reading Miller or something?

As much as I diss aspects of GJ's work, what was so 'corporate America' about Superman saving the suicidal girl in JSA?

What was 'corporate America' about Superman being a global force for good - for everyone?

There's two ways to look at it: first, the cynical way that you do; second, the cynicism of Batman that the pledging to be better after Superman's death has not made the world a better place

Right...because Batman's attempts were so well-judged (Brother Eye). Note, in comic book time barely 5 years had passed since Supeman's death. In that time, there were steps forward and steps back but to lay that on Superman's doorstep is nonsensical. He's not a dictator; they weren't his plans, etc.

— in fact, with Final Crisis, etc., it had only gotten worse. A lot of the final pre-52 years were dark and dreadful for the heroes of the DCU — which is not the environment that Superman inhabits.

A situation which was, frankly, forced. Yes, there was distrust by governments and so forth (that's understandable, it's an effect of fear of powerlessness) but having, for example, various heroes dismiss Ted Kord, retconning in the rape of Sue Dibney, the mindwipes, etc, was forced.

Personally, I don't think Johns truly understands Superman — not on the level he needs to be. And for all the GOOD that New 52 has done for the DCU, that's still a fundamental problem: heroes and their perceptions need to be contained. How the world treats the heroes and how they interact with it is inconsistent and difficult to navigate as a result.

Agreed.

[Lorendiac]

If the Siegels win, it'll be harder to get Superman public domain, not easier. I can't think of any reason why that would happen either way, so I'm gonna go with my gut and take DC's side.

I don't follow that part. Why do you think it would become harder for Superman to pass into the public domain if the Siegels ended up owning at least a piece of the original Superman copyright?

As I understand it: As U.S. copyright law now stands, the copyright on the Superman material published in "Action Comics #1" is scheduled to go into the public domain in 2033 -- 95 years after the copyright began -- unless Congress changes the laws again.

That 2033 date is automatically programmed in, and the copyright on the first published appearance of "Clark Kent, Superman, the last survivor of Krypton" will expire in that year -- regardless of who owns that copyright at the time. So how would a Siegel victory in court have any effect on the current schedule for Superman's transition to the public domain?

[adkal]

The heirs have the right to reclaim the copyright.

Sure...the problem with that, though, is the trademark. They can claim copyright over material S&S produced but what happens with the work all the other creators produced? Swan, Maggin, Byrne, Jurgens, etc? It's not as if they licenced the character over to DC, but that's the way things are being played out.

The ethical thing for DC to do is acknowledge that decision.

They did, and offered a good deal for it. The deal was accepted and then someone else swooped in with other intentions and messed with their heads.

It doesn't matter whether they propose a mutually beneficial agreement.

It doesn't? Why not?

Anyway, it makes sense for the heirs to reclaim the copyright first and negotiate after if that's what they even want.

Negotiate with what, though? They don't own any of the trademarks, which means they would, literally, have to start from scratch. The additions in powers would be removed, the extended family would be removed.


And what about the international copyrights? A decision in the US doesn't mean it will have the same effect in France, for example...

Because DC and Warner made sure they had an arrangement that benefitted to them and not to the heirs in the matter of Smallville.

The Smallville situation (as with the rest of this mess) isn't that straight-forward.

[adkal]

I don't follow that part. Why do you think it would become harder for Superman to pass into the public domain if the Siegels ended up owning at least a piece of the original Superman copyright?

As I understand it: As U.S. copyright law now stands, the copyright on the Superman material published in "Action Comics #1" is scheduled to go into the public domain in 2033 -- 95 years after the copyright began -- unless Congress changes the laws again.

That 2033 date is automatically programmed in, and the copyright on the first published appearance of "Clark Kent, Superman, the last survivor of Krypton" will expire in that year -- regardless of who owns that copyright at the time. So how would a Siegel victory in court have any effect on the current schedule for Superman's transition to the public domain?

Trademarks.

DC owns them.

[Lorendiac]

If the Siegels win, it'll be harder to get Superman public domain, not easier. I can't think of any reason why that would happen either way, so I'm gonna go with my gut and take DC's side.

I don't follow that part. Why do you think it would become harder for Superman to pass into the public domain if the Siegels ended up owning at least a piece of the original Superman copyright?

As I understand it: As U.S. copyright law now stands, the copyright on the Superman material published in "Action Comics #1" is scheduled to go into the public domain in 2033 -- 95 years after the copyright began -- unless Congress changes the laws again.

That 2033 date is automatically programmed in, and the copyright on the first published appearance of "Clark Kent, Superman, the last survivor of Krypton" will expire in that year -- regardless of who owns that copyright at the time. So how would a Siegel victory in court have any effect on the current schedule for Superman's transition to the public domain?

Trademarks.

DC owns them.

I don't understand why you're bringing up trademarks in this context.

Adekis seemed to be saying that if the Siegels get some of the copyright, that will somehow delay Superman's trip into the public domain. I asked why he was saying that, and I explained my own understanding of when Supes can be expected to start stepping over the line into public domain -- but what we were both talking about seemed to be an issue of copyright law. How do DC's Superman-related trademarks make any difference to when the original Superman copyright will expire in the USA?

After all, Tarzan of the Apes and his first several published adventures have been in the public domain for a long time from the copyright point of view -- despite the fact that his creator's heirs still own a rock-solid Tarzan trademark. Those are two different things!

[adkal]

I don't understand why you're bringing up trademarks in this context.

Adekis seemed to be saying that if the Siegels get some of the copyright, that will somehow delay Superman's trip into the public domain. I asked why he was saying that, and I explained my own understanding of when Supes can be expected to start stepping over the line into public domain -- but what we were both talking about seemed to be an issue of copyright law. How do DC's Superman-related trademarks make any difference to when the original Superman copyright will expire in the USA?

After all, Tarzan of the Apes and his first several published adventures have been in the public domain for a long time from the copyright point of view -- despite the fact that his creator's heirs still own a rock-solid Tarzan trademark. Those are two different things!

(Okay, seriously, what's with this ridiculous 'time out' these boards have? It's getting annoying).

They can't put the name on the cover of the book (they can, perhaps, incorporate it into an anthology (like the ones in Japan, for example) but they can't call the book 'Superman'. They can't merchandise it and can't use the shield the way DC can and does.

As for the Tarzan situation, let's wait and see how that case turns out.

(Third attempt at posting this and it doesn't sound the way I initially wrote it. grr)

[WhiteEyedWonder]

Except that the media has reported that Superman comics are being published, to this day. Last September it was the acknowledgement of a new costume and a reboot. Last winter it was that Superman renounced his citizenship in Action Comics #900. In 2009, it was that Superman was going to be taking a walk through various states and would visit a number of cities. In 2008, the "Wednesday Comics" feature starring Superman was published in the pages of USA Today. All of this was well documented by ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX News, CNN, MSNBC and by various internet news websites. You'd have to be dead, in a coma or in a third world country that is seriously lagging behind to not know this.

...

Daaaaaaaaaang.

You know you Superman stuff to the S.

[KRAKABOOM!]

Anyway, I agree with Mr. Holmes, as often seems to be the case. Superman is not a dark and gritty character. He grew out of the noir in the early 40's. But that does not mean that Superman has to be all rainbows and good advice either.

The Boy Scout image has never sat right with me. Yeah, Clark is a good man, and he does good things. He knows right from wrong. He is the personification of the "good guy" but when did it become a thing where the good guy could not have a little swagger to him? There is nothing wrong with seeing Superman get angry and put a hurt on someone who deserves it (not killing, dont take my words out of context). There is nothing wrong with Superman not taking any crap from anybody.

As the song says, you dont tug on his cape. For the last several years, it seemed to me that if you did indeed tug on his cape, Superman would then apologize to you for being in your way, give you twenty bucks, and offer to fly you where you needed to go. If he got any softer, he would have started apologizing to villains for having to put them in jail.

Screw that.

In my mind, Superman has a swagger. He's the cowboy who shows up in town and takes down the local bandit gang, regardless of what laws might or might not protect them. He doesnt answer to cops, lawyers, or the government. If he has to break ten laws to do what needs to be done he does it. He should be a little cocky (just a little) and have absolutely no patience for those who decide to go down the wrong path. Sure, he understands that tough times can make for bad choices, he gets that. He's not going to throw a first time mugger trying to get cash for baby food off a building. He's sympathetic to the average guy forced upon hard times. But he does not take any crap. From anyone. Batman tells him the last time he inspired people was when he died? Then Batman gets punched in the face for being a douche. Or at least a look that says Batman needs to shut the hell up right now. Under no circumstances does Superman pout because Batman was right.

Superman is not Mr. Rogers. He's John Wayne and Jesus and Johnny Cash and Mr. T and Ghandi all rolled into one super powered ball of awesome.

agree. with all this. emphatically.

[photonex68]

The heirs have the right to reclaim the copyright. The ethical thing for DC to do is acknowledge that decision.

I don't find it "ethical" to keep giving money to two guys who legitimately sold the rights to their character, particularly after the company that bought the rights then hired those same two guys--two guys who, less than ten years later, suddenly decided they'd made a bad business decision and sued to get a bigger piece of the pie than that to which they were contractually entitled. I find it to be a bad business decision but great PR.

I'm also mystified at this perception of Siegel and Shuster as a couple of golden boys in all this. They sold the rights to Superman. It was a bad business decision, but things were different in the 1930s. Comic books were still pretty new, and nobody knew how popular (and lucrative) the character and resulting franchise would become. In 1946, the duo sued DC (their employer at the time, one who was apparently paying them both rather handsomely) to get a bigger share of the profits on a character they'd not only sold away but had also been helping to further develop in a work-for-hire environment. Yet somehow, a corporation--entity whose overarching reason for existence is to make money for its investors--has somehow become perceived "ethically" obligated to pay Siegel and Shuster's estates a whole bunch of money and/or hand over the copyright of a character they've invested in heavily. While Siegel and Shuster may have created Superman, it's DC Comics that invested in the character. I don't see the Siegel estate trying to claim rights to the Spectre, even though Siegel created that character--it's only the big moneymaker.

I won't even get into just how questionable I think Toberoff's motives are in this case. I'll just point out that he's got a deal in place with the Siegel estate that would give him controlling interest in the Superman franchise.

Nobody's completely innocent here. I think it would've been a move towards fairness on DC's part to have included profit-sharing with Siegel and Shuster. I think it would've been smarter of Siegel and Shuster to license Superman instead of outright selling the rights (but was that done much back then?). I think Siegel and Shuster should've taken their lumps after losing the court case in 1948, especially since it cost them their jobs at DC (and seriously, why would any company want to keep on its payroll two people who just sued them?). I think the Siegel estate made a mistake in listening to Toberoff, since apparently the estate had already signed a deal with DC.

But regardless of which way you look at it, this case isn't really about "ethics." It's about trying to get a bigger piece of the monetary pie that is the Superman franchise.

(More thoughts, from earlier in the case, at my blog for anyone interested.)