Comments on: Ruling Against Warner's On Superman: How Legally Greedy Can Big Media Get?

By: Miscellaneous

Miscellaneous — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:31:19 +0000

I’m still not sure what to think of this. Superman has enough hurdles to get made in the first place, not the least of which is budgetary concerns. His powers pretty much demand a big budget. Now, this will represent another budgetary factor to be taken into consideration before any further movies or television shows are created. And it’s just money that goes right out the door to the families with absolutely no return to the product itself. It’s this wierd arbitrary cost inflater.

It’s not that I don’t think they should be compensated, I get that. I do. But I obviously have concerns about what this means for the future of the character in MANY mediums.

By: arvind

arvind — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:46:19 +0000

i’m so glad to see the creators families get compensated.

By: Marco Milone

Marco Milone — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 07:27:00 +0000

Great news!

By: c.s.tower

c.s.tower — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:02:33 +0000

This is only the begining.There are dozens of other cartoonists who were screwed both financially and artistically by the big comics companies… and once the big time lawyers see that it IS possible to win one of these cases, it’ll start a stampede. If there are enough successful cases, you may even see some of the “settled” cases- those that the corporations THOUGHT they had covered their asses on- get challenged.(Warners had an “air-tight” deal with Bob Kane over BATMAN… too bad for them there’s a ton of evidence pointing to Bill Finger as the character’s “real” creator…)

By: Realist

Realist — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:46:12 +0000

Contrary to an earlier post, a Superman Returns sequel had NOT been “greenlit”, it was merely “in development” — and in fact the studio had *already* been considering not doing one at all (or perhaps rebooting with another creative team and cast). Most critics gave glowing reviews to Superman Returns on its release because of their generational attachment to Donner’s original film(s). Yes, audiences went, to a point, but didn’t come back in any great numbers, and the film has (had) a lot or problems which impeded its attempted start at a “franchise.” Where do you go with a story that gives Superman no one to love, a son he can’t legally or publicly acknowledge, and an obscenely magnified “messiah” status which the mass public either worships or reviles in equal measure? Singer will not be directing a sequel — bet on it. Time to give the film franchise to the Smallville producers, who deserved their chance at it in the first place. That show has survived ups and downs for seven (going on eight) years — the longest any Superman show has run — *somebody* must like it…

By: BigCheese

BigCheese — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:44:36 +0000

Anything that prevents Bryan Singer from making another Superman movie is good news to me. Bring back Donner!

By: Great Ceaser's Ghost

Great Ceaser's Ghost — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:18:29 +0000

I loved Superman Returns, too, so there’s a least a couple of people out there. (Bear in mind, too, that it made the studios a profit and a majority of critics gave it a favorable - often a highly favorable - review. On top of that, a sequel “had” been greenlit before all this news came down. In other words, the “conventional wisdom” I tend to see on blogs that SR “stunk” means about as much as the grumps out there who hated Titanic … like me. I hated, hated, hated Titanic. In my circle, I’m in the majority. By any other standard, though, not so much.)

By: Tony's Tips

Tony's Tips — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:14:45 +0000

Mike, in a just world, contracts between consenting parties would be honored, and the government’s only role would be to enforce them.

By the way, Nelson hated having to strip the Siegel/Shuster credit balloon from the ’40s Superman reprints, but Donenfeld decreed that their names were never to be so much as mentioned in any NPP mag, so that was that until Kinney bought DC.

Nelson was as thoughtful and considerate as Weisinger wasn’t.

By: George Glass

George Glass — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:30:49 +0000

Warners puts up the money and takes the financial risks for these movies, cartoons, etc. They should make most of the profit. But certainly those that created the work should make a tiny slice of the pie. Glad to see it happen.

(Now if the poor guys who wrote Lion King can get their small share I’d be even more happy.)

By: Alex R

Alex R — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:57:05 +0000

IF not DC, then the only two people that deserved to own SUperman were Shuster and Siegal. Period. ANd not now, because they’ve passed away, but decades ago.

By: Mike Cane

Mike Cane — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:53:32 +0000

Oh, and one more thing.

There I was one day visiting the offices of D.C. (then NPP), sitting in front of the estimable Nelson Bridwell. In came some Superman pages that were to be reprinted. He took a blue marker and placed a large X over the “Created by Jerry Siegel and Joel Shuster” credit, to indicate that should be deleted.

How cavalier they were!

Pay now, bitches.

By: Mike Cane

Mike Cane — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:50:29 +0000

It’s interesting… when a judge throws out a search warrant in the case, everything the State assembled on the basis of that warrant is voided and inadmissable in court. Back to Step One.

In a Just world, the original contract that S&S were made to sign would be thrown out and all derivations that originated in the first Superman would be voided. In other words, Time Warner/D.C. would have *nothing*.

Be glad I don’t run this world, Suits.

Not yet, anyway.

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 04:35:36 +0000

Gavin wrote: how does one still have the rights to something, if they sold it?

What they sold was the copyright, which at the time lasted for 28 years with the option for another 28 years renewal. Thus, DC Comics planned to own the copyright for 56 years, from 1938 to 1994, at which point it would lapse into the public domain. However, in 1976, Congress amended the copyright laws, on one hand extending the 28+28 (largely because of Disney’s lobbying to protect Mickey Mouse), but on the other hand recognized that those who had sold their copyright under the old laws might not have gotten the best deal that they could.

A provision in the new law said that those who sold their copyrights had a window in which they could notify the current holders that the copyright ownership would be terminated and reverted to the original owners after the 56 years was up, even if there were other agreements to the contrary (such as the other lawsuits in which the courts upheld the old contracts). The widow and daughter of Jerry Siegel exercised this right and submitted notice that they were terminating DC’s rights.

It’s not like they can shop him to another company. DC/TimeWarner still owns the trademarks (the name, the logo, the blue suit, the S-shield, etc.). DC/TW/WB can do whatever they want with the character, but as co-owners of the copyright, they must provide a portion of the profits (to be determined) to the other co-owners, the Siegels.

FYI, for those who didn’t know, Disney got Sonny Bono to champion yet another extension to the copyright laws in 1998. This closed a loophole in the 1976 law that said only the heirs could terminate copyright; Superman’s co-creator Joe Shuster died with no heirs, so his estate wasn’t eligible to file for termination until recently. That one comes due in 2013, and given this precedent, it’s likely that unless DC/TW/WB does something before then (like cut a check to be the sole licensor of the copyrights until they expire for good), they’ll lose all copyright.

By: CHrs L.

CHrs L. — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:18:04 +0000

It’s so very hard to hold these guys to our sophisticated business practices. Back then who would dream of a comic book becoming this international phenom? Warner nickel and dimed these guys. THey should have had them sign a contract giving them the copyright while providing fair compensation. Not cool to do otherwise. Creative works all start with a germ of an idea. Sure it morphed and changed over the years but it all started with THEIR idea.

By: Gavin

Gavin — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:09:38 +0000

I don’t understand…how does one still have the rights to something, if they sold it? If Siegel was such a poor businessman, that he sold the rights for $130, it’s nobody’s fault, but his own!