Superman Goes on Trial!

[samurainoir]

Trial dates have been set as the Seigel estate tries to regain the rights to Superman and Superboy.

[The Toyroom]

Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel got paid more than once I believe...yeah granted they probably never realized what a goldmine the Man of Steel would turn out to be but DC settled with them on more than one occassion I thought. IMO even though they created the character, they got lucky. Neither one was able to capture lightning in a bottle ever again. And now the heirs are crying about it...waaaaah waaaah. I have no sympathy.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I have mixed feelings on this. Jerry and Joe apparently DID believe Superman would be a sensation. There are pics of Joe's drawing desk showing sketches he did of Superman being a spokesperson for all sorts of products and being huge. The fact that they sold the rights legally to DC for $130 is often thrown around. But THEY did it, apparently knowing he could be worth FAR more than that.. And I understand them wanting a bigger cut later on, but by all accounts, they were doing well in the late 40s, much better than most comic creators, and when they sued DC for the rights and lost, DC fired them. Can't really blame DC there. DC hired Seigel to script Superman in the Silver Age, but by the 70s both were pretty much destitute, and Shuster was blind. I think Warners did the right thing by setting them up with a yearly salary for being Superman's creators. But legally, Warners didn't have to do squat.

I think the Seigels are money-grabbing. Jerry himself gave up the lawsuit ghost years before he died. And the fact remains that Siegel and Shuster legally sold Superman to National (DC).

Chris

[kingdom warrior]

I feel the Same as Anthony...Sorry But they did sell the rights. Their Family members just see the money. I seriously doubt that they would win......Wasn't Superman an instant hit? Didn't they see it or were they squeezed into selling Superman?

[samurainoir]

Unless any of us here are copyright lawyers (and can explain all the jargon in the documentation), I don't think it is a cut and dried as things appear

My layman's understanding is that it comes down to the changes in the copyright laws (they have not remained static over the decades of Superman's existance).

This has allowed many of the Golden Age creators to launch lawsuits in recent years because of these changes (which allow them to "cancel" their contract of copyright transference after a certain period of time).

This is all dependent on the fact that they created Superman outside of Work For Hire and transfered the rights later.

I think they have a better shot at Superboy because there was actually a ruling that went somewhat in their favour early on for which they received a certain sum.


Looking through that monstrous PDF document, I'm struck by how the focus is so much centred around the TV/DVD/FILM incarnations and the various licensing around the character. Given the sums being tossed around for the Smallville, Superman Returns and various animated series revenue, it just goes to show how much more lucrative that ultimately is than the sales of the comics.

[samurainoir]

Found this, which probably explains it better than I ever could...

Recapping the legality of the Siegels� action, under the Amendment made to the Copyright Act in 1976, original creators, or their heirs, have a five year window, during which, they can file a notice of termination of the transfer of copyright, that is, they can effectively end the transfer of the copyright that they originally made with a publisher or other corporation which would have been able to exploit the property in a way unavailable to the creator. The window for filing the termination notice opened after the 56th year of copyright, for Superman, this was 1994 � 1999. The Siegels filed their paperwork in 1997, and after an automatic two year wait, the termination became effective in 1999.

Under current Copyright law the copyright to Superman lasted for 28 years from its creation, that is, 28 years from its (alleged) date of registration on April 18, 1938. Siegel and Superman co-creator Joe Shuster had transferred the copyright to National Periodical Publications (later, DC Comics) in 1938. Siegel and later Shuster had fully created the character and world of Superman prior to the transfer, therefore �Superman� was not a �work made for hire.�

The copyright for Superman was renewed for another 28 years by DC Comics in 1966. After that, the property would enter the public domain. While the 1976 amendment to the Copyright Act greatly extended the lives of copyrights (they now stand at life of the author plus 70 years), it added a final period of copyright extension of 19 years to properties created before 1978. Therefore, Superman�s copyright was up for renewal in: 1966 + 19 = 1994. Which is when Congress mandated that there should be a five year window open for creators to terminate the transfer of the copyright, and regain control of their property.

In 1998, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Amendment, or Copyright Extension Term of 1998, which added another 20 years to pre-1978 copyrights. The 1998 Amendment also allowed executors, rather than only direct descendants and/or widow(ers) to file paperwork to terminate the transfer of copyright. This last addition allowed for, as reported, Joe Shuster�s nephew, Mark Peary, to file notice for his uncle�s share of Superman. Peary filed his paperwork in November of 2003, and by law, the termination will go into effect in 2013 (the next point at which the copyright would be up for renewal, that is, 1994 + 19 = 2013). That is, in 2013, if upheld by the Court, neither Warner Brothers nor any of its companies will own the copyright to Superman.

As stated earlier, the complaint filed by the Siegels only covers their portion of the rights for which, they claim, they should have been in possession of since 1999. According to the complaint, the Siegels estimate that their share of the monies generated by the Superman rights since the effective date of the termination are in excess of $40 million.

Whatever their motivation for launching the lawsuit, it appears it is within their rights to do so legally. If any of us were given the same opportunity, how easy would that be to walk away from? The chance to OWN half of Superman because our Uncle, Husband or Dad happened to create him? The first thing I would do is launch an entire line of Mego-inspired Superman merchandise. 8)

[The Toyroom]

Besides getting DC to license the character(s) from the Siegel Estate IF the Siegel Estate should win, what do the Siegels plan on doing with the rights to Supes IF they win? I highly doubt they'd self-publish. And I assume they're only going after Superman/boy and not supporting characters like Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen et al ? So more than likely DC will end up paying them off one way or another...yet again.

[kingdom warrior]

I Think Superman Stopped Being about the Comics Years Ago......It's been always about putting Superman's image on anything and everything that's where the money is....More Folks know more about the image of Superman than they know about the comics.

[samurainoir]

Besides getting DC to license the character(s) from the Siegel Estate IF the Siegel Estate should win, what do the Siegels plan on doing with the rights to Supes IF they win? I highly doubt they'd self-publish. And I assume they're only going after Superman/boy and not supporting characters like Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen et al ? So more than likely DC will end up paying them off one way or another...yet again.

In theory they could start licensing their own line of competing Superman merchandise, TV/Movies/Animation if they wanted to? I'm sure there are many, many folks up there lining up for that opportunity. In fact, I believe the Siegel's lawyer is a well known Hollywood producer.

If that were the case, they would have to hand over 50% of the money they generate in that manner to DC, in the same way DC would owe them for all the money Superman has generated since 1999 (with interest!).

Until 2013 when Shuster's estate attempts to regain their half.


As for Lois and Jimmy, I would assume that Lois is theirs because she was created prior to the transfer (appearing in the original newspaper strip that was cannibilized for Action Comics #1). Jimmy might not (wasn't he created for the radio show?).

Who knows how that works though, given the fact that Siegel and Shuster kept on creating for DC after they transfered the rights... maybe the cancellation of transfer covers the things they created afterwards? It all depends on what was (and was not) spelled out in their contracts and the court rulings back in the day. The fact that they are going after Superboy might suggest this (or it might simply be that they have a right to all derivative characters and concepts like Krypto, Kryptonite, Supergirl, Superwoman, Superpup etc).



If they want to get a shot at creating and selling authentic licensed repro Mego-style Superman Action Figures to the mass market in the same vein as the recent Star Trek rereleases, perhaps Doc Mego and co should start cozying up to Seigel's widow and daughter!

[The Toyroom]

Jimmy 1st appeared in Action #6 I believe...prior to the radio show. Kryptonite was created for the radio show though.

[ctc]

>Whatever their motivation for launching the lawsuit, it appears it is within their rights to do so legally.

Yeah, sort of. The problem they're gonna run into is exactly what parts of the Superman continuity do they have access to the rights for. DC will probably argue that most of the current incarnation isn't the original one; and is therefore DC's and not the estate's.

>I'm struck by how the focus is so much centred around the TV/DVD/FILM incarnations and the various licensing around the character.

That's the problem right there. I believe that under the laws by which transfer of the characterw as made these would all count as separate incarnations of the character; and would require different licensing. People get trademarks to avoid this sort of cross-media headache; and DC definitely owns the trademark on Supes.

>In theory they could start licensing their own line of competing Superman merchandise, TV/Movies/Animation if they wanted to?

Well.... even if they regained the copyright for Superman, it'd probably be limited to the original "leaps tall buildings and occasionally wears ballet slippers" Supes. As for printing their own comics, like I said; DC has the trademark on Supes, so they could probably prevent someone copying him, even if they had the publishing rights for the original character.

Copyright and trademarks are two different things. Sort of. You own the copyright to anything you create as soon as you create it. (Although it's usually a good idea to REGISTER the copyright.) But I don't INHERENTLY own the trademark on whatever I create. BUT I CAN use the copyright to prevent someone from trademarking something that's mine. The problem here is: if I sell or lease that copyright, then the current holders can do what they want with the product while they hold the rights, including trademarking the works. (Or more specificly: parts of the work, such as designs, names, etc.) If the copyright is transferred to someone else, the trademarks don't automaticly go with it. (Hence the problems with certain old cartoons coming out on DVD: the old production company holds copyright on the episodes although someone else owns the trademark on the characters. So without a deal, the producers can't release the show 'cos they don't have rights to the characters, but the character rights holders don't have ownership on the actual episodes produced.)

It gets uglier when corporations are the rights holders, since things work a little differently for them. My copyrights last for 50 years after I die. Period. Since corporations don't generally die, there are limits on the time they can hold on to the rights. Then it becomes a question of who gets them; the creators, the estate of the creators, a holding company, a former publisher who was absorbed into the parent company, etc etc etc....

Don C.

[samurainoir]

>Whatever their motivation for launching the lawsuit, it appears it is within their rights to do so legally.

Yeah, sort of. The problem they're gonna run into is exactly what parts of the Superman continuity do they have access to the rights for. DC will probably argue that most of the current incarnation isn't the original one; and is therefore DC's and not the estate's.

>I'm struck by how the focus is so much centred around the TV/DVD/FILM incarnations and the various licensing around the character.

That's the problem right there. I believe that under the laws by which transfer of the characterw as made these would all count as separate incarnations of the character; and would require different licensing. People get trademarks to avoid this sort of cross-media headache; and DC definitely owns the trademark on Supes.

>In theory they could start licensing their own line of competing Superman merchandise, TV/Movies/Animation if they wanted to?

Well.... even if they regained the copyright for Superman, it'd probably be limited to the original "leaps tall buildings and occasionally wears ballet slippers" Supes. As for printing their own comics, like I said; DC has the trademark on Supes, so they could probably prevent someone copying him, even if they had the publishing rights for the original character.

Copyright and trademarks are two different things. Sort of. You own the copyright to anything you create as soon as you create it. (Although it's usually a good idea to REGISTER the copyright.) But I don't INHERENTLY own the trademark on whatever I create. BUT I CAN use the copyright to prevent someone from trademarking something that's mine. The problem here is: if I sell or lease that copyright, then the current holders can do what they want with the product while they hold the rights, including trademarking the works. (Or more specificly: parts of the work, such as designs, names, etc.) If the copyright is transferred to someone else, the trademarks don't automaticly go with it. (Hence the problems with certain old cartoons coming out on DVD: the old production company holds copyright on the episodes although someone else owns the trademark on the characters. So without a deal, the producers can't release the show 'cos they don't have rights to the characters, but the character rights holders don't have ownership on the actual episodes produced.)

I'm going to acknowledge that I am a mere layperson in the realm of copyright and trademark law. I will bow to the wisdom of Don C if he holds a law degree, but I have a different understanding in the way Copyright and Trademark is applied (which I'm having trouble differentiating in the way he describes).


Let us seperate out the issues so we don't get too convoluted in the process of discussing Copyright and Trademark.


A) The Siegel estate's legal entitlement to half of Time/Warner/AOL/DC Comics profits of the overall Superman property.


Even if the "current" Superman isn't the original "Leaps Tall Buildings" Superman, he's a derivative of the original copyright creation in all the ways that matter, and there is no doubt that the estate gets a piece of the Action (pun intended) if they are successful in regaining half the rights. At the end of the day, anything sold based around the title and trappings of "Superman" and it's derivatives, no matter what the content, would entitle them to a piece of that starting from 1999 if they get a ruling in their favour.

Just to clarify:
Trademark doesn't prevent the Siegel estate from getting financial compensation of Smallville, JLU, Krypto, Superman TAS, Superman Returns etc.

Given the fact that Electric Blue Superman is still sold on the basis that it is Superman (Clark Kent), so they get their slice of the comics and action figures. God knows where they would stand when it comes to Stan Lee's Superman or the Mark Millar/Jackson Guice created Tangent Superman, but I would imagine that unless these became movies, TV shows or licensed properties, the Siegel's have bigger fish to fry.

Of course this can't stop the accountants at Time/Warner/AOL/DC from getting more "creative" with their accounting practices, but in the documents it appears that they are having a look at Bryan Singer's profit participation on Superman Returns to estanblish some kind of basis. At the end of the day, because the Producers themselves want to get paid on the back end, it is probably easier (and more lucrative) for the Siegels to go digging in that realm.


B) The potential for the Siegel's to generate their own Superman merchandise.


Trademark can cover things like the Logo and the "S" Shield and other associated visuals, but I would imagine it depends on what DC has been registering as the Trademarks in recent years. I'm sure you are right that they Trademark the associated logos and visuals identifiers of Smallville, Superman Returns and Superman TAS. I would imagine that this simply would prevent the Siegels from producing an animated series based around the Bruce Timm designs, or their own live action episodes of Smallville that was too similar to that particular program.

Nothing to stop the Siegel estate from selling something branded as "The REAL Superman" or "The ORIGINAL Superman" with their own logo, the original S-shield, and ballerina slippers. Also nothing to stop them from creating "THE WACKY HIGH OCTANE SPEED LINES SUPERDEFORMED ANIME ANTICS OF THE SUPERMAN" and trademarking those particular visuals and logos. Of course they would have to hand over half their profits to DC on these ventures in merchandising and media.

Note: isn't the Fleischer animated Superman series theoretically in public domain? You often see cheap DVDs and VHS copies out there not utilizing the Trademarked elements on the packaging.




In terms of which portions of the affiliated characters, mythos and trappings they would be allowed to used if they were to create their own Siegel driven Superman media...

Here's the question... given the creation of the character prior to the transfer of copyright, how would they view the decade (or more?) worth of material that was generated by Siegel and Shuster? Was that WFH or part of the deal that transfers the copyright of whatever they created in regards to Superman? I would imagine only folks with access to the original contracts and court rulings could answer that one (and it might be convoluted enough that it's up to the courts to decide).

Which is not to say that the courts couldn't also eventually rule that the trademarks should be shared by the Siegel's as well?

It gets uglier when corporations are the rights holders, since things work a little differently for them. My copyrights last for 50 years after I die. Period. Since corporations don't generally die, there are limits on the time they can hold on to the rights. Then it becomes a question of who gets them; the creators, the estate of the creators, a holding company, a former publisher who was absorbed into the parent company, etc etc etc....

To clarify: there is actually no question about who gets the copyrights after a corporations' expire after the time limit (depending on the country)... they go into public domain.

Although as you mentioned previously, they can still hang onto the Trademarks, which makes things trickier for others to market and the reason why companies like Disney are so fierce at "Branding" in terms of their logos, symbols, and the associated visuals.

Even if you have the "right" to publish public domain material, they can also crush you through their deep deep legal pockets.
Here's the case with Uncensored Mouse.


If the corporation holding certain copyrights goes out of business and their assets are not transfered, bought or reacquired/acquired, then it historically has become a bit of a free for all.

Sidebar:
We all know what a mess the Marvelman/Miracleman rights are. Further complicated because there are both British and American incarnations (and different laws) with seperate names and expired trademarks at various times. There are so many questions with that one. Did creator(s?) Mick Anglo and co. create under work for hire? Was it actually an abandoned property when Dez Skinn started publishing it in Warrior Magazine? No one contested it at the time. Then we have the "percentages" divisions and transfers between Skinn, Alan Moore, Gary Leach, Alan Davis, Neil Gaiman, Mark Buckingham etc. Did Eclipse actually hold the rights to the material, or did it revert back to Skinn, Moore, et al. at the bankrupcy stage (which means that all MacFarlane would have acquired was expired Trademarks on Miracleman logos)? Then it gets REALLY messy with MacFarlane trying to register new trademarks and putting out his own statue and action figure, with Gaiman and co following suit with their "official" statue.

[ctc]

>I will bow to the wisdom of Don C if he holds a law degree, but I have a different understanding in the way Copyright and Trademark is applied

No degree; but I do hold a number of registered copyrights. Since mine are registered in Canada they'd work a bit differently than the Supes one (which is doubtless a US registry) but a lot of the principles are the same. I had to deal with the "copyright/trademark" thing a few years back, so it's still stuck in my craw.

>Even if the "current" Superman isn't the original "Leaps Tall Buildings" Superman, he's a derivative of the original copyright creation in all the ways that matter, and there is no doubt that the estate gets a piece of the Action (pun intended) if they are successful in regaining half the rights.

The frustrating thing when dealing with the legal effects of copyright is how the COURT interprets the work. Common sense would dictate that yeah; the current Supes is DEFINITELY based on the original, but with a high falutin' lawer it's often possible to convince the court that the two versions are different "enough" to be considered separate entities.

>Trademark doesn't prevent the Siegel estate from getting financial compensation of Smallville, JLU, Krypto, Superman TAS, Superman Returns etc.

It shouldn't; but it can put a definite crimp in any plans to produce their own material. (Which someone mentioned a few posts back.) Although I doubt they'd WANT to.

>Of course this can't stop the accountants at Time/Warner/AOL/DC from getting more "creative" with their accounting practices,

HAW! Very diplomatic of you to phrase it this way!

>At the end of the day, because the Producers themselves want to get paid on the back end, it is probably easier (and more lucrative) for the Siegels to go digging in that realm.

Probably; but movie studios are notoriously good at hiding money. Still, the numbers MIGHT be bigger than any from just DC. Depending on how far back the case ends up going.

>Trademark can cover things like the Logo and the "S" Shield and other associated visuals, but I would imagine it depends on what DC has been registering as the Trademarks in recent years.

You can trademark names, characters, places.... I ran into a problem 'cos someone started up an actual company using the name of one from my comic. In the end it was easier for ME to change the name, even though I've been using it for twenty years.

>I'm sure you are right that they Trademark the associated logos and visuals identifiers of Smallville, Superman Returns and Superman TAS.

DC trademarks the hell out of EVERYTHING! The indicia for the typical "DC Heroes" RPG supplement was a page of tiny type.

>Nothing to stop the Siegel estate from selling something branded as "The REAL Superman" or "The ORIGINAL Superman" with their own logo, the original S-shield, and ballerina slippers.

You'd think; but if DC settles, and wanted to be jerks about it they could PROBABLY put the kaibosh on this as well. It'll ultimately depend on what the court decides "Superman" is. Although they'll probably end up with the rights to the old, produced works free and clear. (Unless DC settles the rights to THESE too.)

>Also nothing to stop them from creating "THE WACKY HIGH OCTANE SPEED LINES SUPERDEFORMED ANIME ANTICS OF THE SUPERMAN" and trademarking those particular visuals and logos. Of course they would have to hand over half their profits to DC on these ventures in merchandising and media.

Hee heee! Wasn't it called "Locke the Superman" back in the late 70's?

Anyhoo... yeah, very true; depending on how close to the legally defined idea of "Superman" you come.

>Note: isn't the Fleischer animated Superman series theoretically in public domain? You often see cheap DVDs and VHS copies out there not utilizing the Trademarked elements on the packaging.

I've wondered about these myself. I suspect most of them aren't technically legal but come in far enough under the radar that nobody notics, or they pack up before any real legal action is taken against them. You see that sort of thing a lot with old Japanese cartoons too.

>Here's the question... given the creation of the character prior to the transfer of copyright, how would they view the decade (or more?) worth of material that was generated by Siegel and Shuster? I would imagine only folks with access to the original contracts and court rulings could answer that one (and it might be convoluted enough that it's up to the courts to decide).

Which may be a big factor of the current case. As I recall, the actual publishing contracts back in the day were pretty draconican. We'd have to see the actual wording of the actual contracts to really guess. But I'd expect that it'd be easier for the estate to secure the rights to THIS stuff than gain any part of what came later.

>Which is not to say that the courts couldn't also eventually rule that the trademarks should be shared by the Siegel's as well?

True too. They'd have to define exactly what "sharing" meant though. But yeah; there are a lot of ways this could turn out. Ultimately the courts are the ones who'll decide what "Superman" is, and who owns what; and it's possible they could go either way there.

>To clarify: there is actually no question about who gets the copyrights after a corporations' expire after the time limit (depending on the country)... they go into public domain.

...but you CAN resecure them. There's a clause about usage of the works that applies, but I'm not sure how that worked.

>Even if you have the "right" to publish public domain material, they can also crush you through their deep deep legal pockets.

And they WILL; too! Depending on how much it's worth to them.

Don C.

[jds1911a1]

Note: isn't the Fleischer animated Superman series theoretically in public domain? You often see cheap DVDs and VHS copies out there not utilizing the Trademarked elements on the packaging.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61G7BK6VT8L._SS500_.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51VXWJ1T7TL._SS500_.jpg

http://www.monstersinmotion.com/catalog/images/dvd/supermanultimatecartoondvd.jpg

.

Yes the fleisher famous studios shorts are public domain property which is why there are so many verisons. and i doubt If these manufcaturers are giving WB a piece of the pie (there are ones in the 1.00 dvd's at walmart) and the proliferation of them is probably why WB hasnn't bothered to release their own versions exept as bonus material on S1 and S2 special ed dvd.

Joederoen may have more intimate knowledge about the law here based on the dvds he sells on his website

[davidb]

In theory they could start licensing their own line of competing Superman merchandise, TV/Movies/Animation if they wanted to? I'm sure there are many, many folks up there lining up for that opportunity. In fact, I believe the Siegel's lawyer is a well known Hollywood producer.

This may seem farfetched, but something like it has been attempted before. Back in the 80's, there was a copyright fight over the James Bond franchise. Two guys filed a lawsuit, saying that Ian Fleming had stolen a lot of his concepts (including SPECTRE) from a proposed Bond film project that never got off the ground. Another one of his collaborators also sued over the film, and both suits were later settled out of court. The collaborator, Kevin McClory, gained the rights to make one Bond film and could only use Thunderball as his source material.

In 1983, the collaborator headed to Orion Pictures and remade Thunderball (with Connery as Bond) under the title Never Say Never Again. That film was released the same summer United Artists released Octopussy.

In 1997, as UA ramped up the Bond franchise again with Pierce Brosnan, McClory headed to Sony to start their own franchise. It wound up in court again, and UA/MGM gained all rights to produce Bond films.

Just saying, it could be interesting. And you can't tell me that Marvel wouldn't jump at the chance to produce their own Superman book if the Siegels offered it to them.