Update to Supes Rights case.. origin goes to heirs

[samurainoir]

There was a proposal during the early Jim Shooter years where Warner Brothers were considering shutting down their comics operations and licensing the DC characters out to Marvel.

Interesting when you consider Jim Shooter's humble beginnings as Superman editor Mort Weisinger's teen protege.

[The Toyroom]

Anybody recall the special miniseries from several years back (at DC), where Stan Lee was allowed to re-imagine several DC comics (including Supes?)

Stan Lee has been past his prime for quite a while now....

[The Bat]

Superman at Marvel would be a disaster. LOL

Anybody recall the special miniseries from several years back (at DC), where Stan Lee was allowed to re-imagine several DC comics (including Supes?)

Yup! Case in point.

[60'schild]

Yeah, the House of RECYCLED Ideas ...

Superman at Marvel would be a disaster. LOL

Anybody recall the special miniseries from several years back (at DC), where Stan Lee was allowed to re-imagine several DC comics (including Supes?)

[The Bat]

Plus they want him to cut a deal with Mephisto so they can undo his marriage to Lois.

[jwyblejr]

I heard the Marvel is already Eying Superman...and that they want to make him a more "dark & tormented Character". Also...they don't feel there is enough Blood & Gore in Superman Comics nowadays.

Plus they want him to cut a deal with Mephisto so they can undo his marriage to Lois.

[kingdom warrior]

Zombie Superman awwwwwww Yeah!!!!!!!

[The Bat]

I heard that Marvel is already Eying Superman...and that they want to make him a more "dark & tormented Character". Also...they don't feel there is enough Blood & Gore in Superman Comics nowadays.

[kingdom warrior]

Thanks guys for all the Good info...I wasn't sure about how it all worked out. Much appreciated!

[Earth 2 Chris]

Ok Correct me if I'm wrong......but in those days didn't National rule with an Iron hand where deals were basically take it or leave it? So did they really have a choice? and the Fact that they were Jewish and racially discriminated. Jews were looked down upon during the time....and were they not fired soon after turning over the rights to Superman?

I believe at least one of the owners of DC, Jack Liebowitz, was Jewish. In fact most of the famous Golden Age creators were Jewish. Siegel and Shuster, Jack Kirby and Joe Simon, Bob Kane, Will Eisner, etc.

I don't think racism has ever come up in any version of the Siegel/Shuster vs. DC stories I have read over the years. Siegel got mad because DC came up with their own version of Superboy while he was in the service (he was drafted and worked for Stars N' Stripes in the later days of WWII). He had pitched an earlier version of Superboy to DC before leaving for the service. He eventually filed suit for the rights to Superman because he felt he was losing control, since more and more of the ever-increasing Superman work was going outside of him and Shuster. DC promptly fired him and Shuster.

Chris

Chris

[samurainoir]

Ok Correct me if I'm wrong......but in those days didn't National rule with an Iron hand where deals were basically take it or leave it? So did they really have a choice? and the Fact that they were Jewish and racially discriminated. Jews were looked down upon during the time....and were they not fired soon after turning over the rights to Superman?

So maybe that was the Best Deal that National was ever going to give them at the time........

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.

[The Toyroom]

and were they not fired soon after turning over the rights to Superman?

So maybe that was the Best Deal that National was ever going to give them at the time........

They sold Superman to National in 1938 and had a 10-year contract to produce Superman, so they definitely weren't fired "soon after".

In 1946, they sued National for the rights to Superman. They lost. Siegel returned to National in 1959 and wrote Superman stories, but wasn't credited (credits weren't common place back then). He sued National AGAIN in 1967 at which time he was let go.

In 1975, they yet AGAIN sued National/DC. Warner Communications gave them $20,000 a year for life and the credits "Superman created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster" were restored to everything associated with Supes (Comics, TV, Movies).

Siegel's wife and daughter filed a copyright termination notice against DC/Time-Warner in 1999. There were discussions between both parties but by 2004 the Siegel Estate broke off negoiations and sued Time-Warner for copyright infringement. T-W counter-sued. And that's sort of where we are now.

I see it as sour-grapes by guys that were a one-horse pony trick....they couldn't capture lightning in a bottle twice. In fact, I think the lightning persay had more to do with the National/DC/Time-Warner marketing arm over the years than anything Siegel and Shuster could have done on their own or would have done on their own.

Besides Superman, Siegel's only other claims to fame are the Spectre for DC and Funnyman for Magazine Enterprises. Now granted, yes, Superman is SUPERMAN but the Spectre and Funnyman haven't been necessarily burning up the comics racks in sales these last 70 years or so. Joe Shuster did practically nothing noteworthy after Superman. Obviously these guys weren't as prolific as a Stan Lee or a Jack Kirby or any of the other big guns in the comic industry.

Which one again makes me believe the success of Superman has always been more DC than S&S. They had their chance to make the character work, couldn't, and ultimately sold it to someone who COULD and DID make it work.

So the purchaser should be held accountable for making the character a success when the creators couldn't? If it wasn't for DC over the years and their handling of the character, there would be no interest or money for the Siegel and Shuster Estates to even sue over.

What sucks is by these new addendums to the copyright law, they get the seminal Action Comic #1 back-story, upon which DC built a legend. The original story itself is pretty worthless...it's what DC DID with it that has made it great...not what S&S originally put down on paper.

My 2-cents as ususal on this heated subject....

[Bizarro Amy]

So are they saying that they could create Superman comic books at another company, as long as they don't use the elements that are still owned by DC? Would that mean that DC Comics can no longer publish Superman comics or have him as a member of the JLA if the heirs decided not to allow it, or to sell him to Marvel for instance?

[kryptosmaster]

The thing that kills me every time I read a story like this is that if Superman had been a flop or just another of the hundreds of Golden Age heroes that came and went and are long-forgotten; these grubbers wouldn't give a flying fig about getting the rights to "Grampa's beloved creation". They'd be telling stories at the family gatherings about how Grampa got "all that money" from DC Comics way back in the 30's for drawing "funny books". It's all about the Benjamins!

Rich

[kingdom warrior]

Yeah, I'm with you. It seems it undervaules the ownership of the purchaser to me. If you create something you want to own for yourself...don't sell it. It is, in a sense, rewarding folks who made bad business decisions. It's not like someone put a gun to Siegel and Shuster's head. History shows they just KNEW Superman would take off like he did. Shuster even drew rough sketches of Superman hocking all sorts of products, clearly indicating he was going to become a huge marketing machine in his creators eyes. So why not ink a better deal, or wait for one?

Chris

Ok Correct me if I'm wrong......but in those days didn't National rule with an Iron hand where deals were basically take it or leave it? So did they really have a choice? and the Fact that they were Jewish and racially discriminated. Jews were looked down upon during the time....and were they not fired soon after turning over the rights to Superman?

So maybe that was the Best Deal that National was ever going to give them at the time........