Tweet
I'm actually very "pro" for the Seigel's and Shuster's to gain control of Superman as a step for creator rights and human individual rights over the rights of a corporation (which actually does become fightening when you take into account that these corporate entities function with the same rights as a human individual.)
My understanding (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) is that the ability of the Shuster's and Seigel's to reclaim copyright is a by-product of "the Sonny Bono Act", AKA the Copyright Term extension act, which was essentially put into motion so that Disney could retain control of Mickey Mouse and DC could theoretically retain control of Superman as it was only a matter of years before all these characters went into public domain under the terms of copyright prior to 1998.
HOWEVER, whether or not there was racism involved, it should be pointed out that many of these early folks that ran the Comics Companies were Jewish themselves (ie Max Gaines, Mort Weisinger, Harry Donnenfeld, Jack Leiboweitz), and there are examples of Jewish creators who were able to negotiate much more lucrative deals for themselves. Such as Will Eisner's ownership of The Spirit. The better comparative example would be Bob Kane. Kane apparently had a much better contract (and better negotiation skills and/or lawyer on hand), which included royalties that had him living more than comfortably even after he was eventually pushed out of the day to day. (Kane's ghost artists and writers are another story entirely)
Here is what the Seigel's and Shuster's do have on their side. The lack of early documentation around the original hand-shake deals or verbal agreements around things like royalties (which seemd to work to their detriment back then, unlike Kane who apparently had documentation and specific contracts), and there is absolutely no doubt that Superman was NOT created work for hire. He was essentially creator owned work BEFORE DC published him.
I'm sure this is oversimplification, but IF Disney gets to keep Mickey Mouse, and DC gets the right to keep Superman, who would otherwise go into Public Domain, the ORIGINAL owners are allowed to cancel that and lay claim.
This won't work for Spiderman when his time comes (95 years after publication under the new terms) for example because there is absolutely no doubt that he was created Work For Hire given the paper trail.
This is my layman's understanding of what is going on. But I would defer to any copyright lawyers out there or comics historians with better sources than my swiss cheese memory.
My understanding (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) is that the ability of the Shuster's and Seigel's to reclaim copyright is a by-product of "the Sonny Bono Act", AKA the Copyright Term extension act, which was essentially put into motion so that Disney could retain control of Mickey Mouse and DC could theoretically retain control of Superman as it was only a matter of years before all these characters went into public domain under the terms of copyright prior to 1998.
HOWEVER, whether or not there was racism involved, it should be pointed out that many of these early folks that ran the Comics Companies were Jewish themselves (ie Max Gaines, Mort Weisinger, Harry Donnenfeld, Jack Leiboweitz), and there are examples of Jewish creators who were able to negotiate much more lucrative deals for themselves. Such as Will Eisner's ownership of The Spirit. The better comparative example would be Bob Kane. Kane apparently had a much better contract (and better negotiation skills and/or lawyer on hand), which included royalties that had him living more than comfortably even after he was eventually pushed out of the day to day. (Kane's ghost artists and writers are another story entirely)
Here is what the Seigel's and Shuster's do have on their side. The lack of early documentation around the original hand-shake deals or verbal agreements around things like royalties (which seemd to work to their detriment back then, unlike Kane who apparently had documentation and specific contracts), and there is absolutely no doubt that Superman was NOT created work for hire. He was essentially creator owned work BEFORE DC published him.
I'm sure this is oversimplification, but IF Disney gets to keep Mickey Mouse, and DC gets the right to keep Superman, who would otherwise go into Public Domain, the ORIGINAL owners are allowed to cancel that and lay claim.
This won't work for Spiderman when his time comes (95 years after publication under the new terms) for example because there is absolutely no doubt that he was created Work For Hire given the paper trail.
This is my layman's understanding of what is going on. But I would defer to any copyright lawyers out there or comics historians with better sources than my swiss cheese memory.
Comment