WGSH possible Superman loophole

[Earth 2 Chris]

Its about time DC (TIME/WARNER-PP)owners got a taste of there own medicine.
for 70 yuears they run ran rough shot over everyone.

Not everyone. Bob Kane was actually instructed to come up with a new character, like Superman. That sounds like work-for-hire to me. Somehow he managed to strike a lucrative deal that had him sitting pretty from then on. Sure, DC made billions more on Batman than Kane ever saw, but by all acounts he never suffered at all. And new evidence points to Batman being very little of his idea at all. Even less than was thought before. Bill Finger got the shaft, but Kane didn't.

I think Siegel and Shuster would have been in a similar situation if they hadn't sued DC in the late 40s. Not saying they didn't deserve more of the pie, but that clearly was the point where Kane and S & S' stories diverged.

Chris

[AAAAA]

Its about time DC (TIME/WARNER-PP)owners got a taste of there own medicine.
for 70 yuears they run ran rough shot over everyone.

[drmego]

The comedy is that Superman makes soooo much money that DC/Warners could have
given S&S 1/2 of 1 percent of the annual revenue and they would have been set for
several lifetimes.

Instead they gave them the equivalant of a staffer's salary in 1977 for life - which
inflation and medical bills ate up over the next twenty years.

[Earth 2 Chris]

It's not that I don't sympathise with S & S, I do. But they sought publishers for their Superman work, and were in fact, already working for DC at the time doing Slam Bradley, Dr. Occult, etc. DC wasn't this unknown big company that suddenly noticed a hot property and took advantage of their creators. Superman was rejected by every other publisher for a reason. It was so fantastical, no one besides S&S thought it would fly. Vin Sullivan took a chance on it, and it took off.

As I said before, by all acounts S & S were well-paid employees of DC. I'm sure they regretted not being in control of Superman, but they shopped the property around to publishers and they went with the first one willing to print it. They apparently knew how special Superman could be as evidenced by Shuster drawing Supes hawking products on his drawing table even before Action #1 hit the stands. So if they knew this, why didn't they hold on to him until a better deal came along?

I'm not saying DC treated them as good as they should. They didn't. But I don't think the boys were railroaded either.

Chris

[johnmiic]

I don't know what to call this but it has been noted, by many sources, that S&S submitted the Superman concept repeadedly to newspaper syndicates and were turned down. There was even and instance where Will Eisner worked for a syndicate and rejected Superman on the basis that the art was not up to newspaper strip quality. So after many rejections they went to DC and were accepted but may not have been totally aware of the situation as far as rights. These guys were artists and writers but not legal experts and may have assumed working for a "comic book" was the same as working for a "comic strip" because comic books started as re-prints and collections of the daily strips. Could it be considered in their favor that they were rejected repeatedly, trying to get work in comic strips and then DC comes along and hires them but did not entirey divulge the differences in creators rights? I think ther has been some say on that misunderstanding in some Superman documentaries.

Many things Superman were actually changed or invented for the radio show but a documentary that came out at the time of Superman Returns also stated that S&S created an evil, super-genius, bald superman in their own Sci-Fi anthology magazine before they created the super-hero known as Superman. This villain could be considered the precursor to Lex Luthor tho he was not named such. I think it's a great ruling but it comes too late. Certainly their families will get some pay but the creators are long gone.

[jds1911a1]

I agree with E2 chris and tx teach. While it is a shame that many creative forces behind comics greatest characters didn't get the payday their characters drove, S & S did sell their rights. Were they snookered by a greedy publisher yes was it wrong, morally probably but basically back that's what big buisiness does. The publisher bought a story for a price. Happens all the time and usauly a writer gets hosed on that first piece becuase they are an unproven commodity. In later stories if they have a hit they margin a better deal

Siegel's hiers own the rights to the mythos of AC1 - blue suit, red cape Krypton, leaping tall buildings (NOT FLYING) Daily star (Not planet) the big S. They flex their legal muscles and Warner decides it's too expensive so they tweak out the things that are covered and reinvent the character - different suit (does anyone really want superman blue or the reign of the supermen characters) maybe a new name for the new era and a new identity (think spiderman when the clone took over). Would I like it NO but it could happen

This bodes ill for many extentions of Dc's characters. and the odds of big S in the JL film or tom welling in the suit drop to zero

[thunderbolt]

I doubt this will change anything except a few bank accounts. I really don't think Supes will be pulled from DC to show up at Dark Horse or Marvel.

[Red Catchup]

Actually, it's not all that great an analogy.

Using that analogy, teach would have sold his house and missed out on the oil profits, true. But given the property laws at the time of sale, the new owners would only profit from the house for 56 years, at which point the house would belong to everybody (public domain). If the property laws extended the new tenants' ownership of said house after the fact, the original seller (or his heirs) would be within his/her/their rights to terminate his/her/their part of the original contract and renegotiate the terms of sale with the current owners (if either party is still interested in the property). This renegotiation could occur each time the property laws are amended to automatically extend the current owners' period of ownership.

Intellectual property isn't the same as real estate. You can buy another person's house. You can only rent someone else's idea. And given the type of "rent control" DC/Time-Warner has enjoyed on this particular property over the past 70 years, it's hard to shed too many tears for them over this case.

By the way, long-time lurker, first-time poster. I usually love what I read on these boards (it's tough to find a fan BBS where everyone is generally so positive and enthusiastic about their shared hobby) but I find the resentment over this decision befuddling. If Jerry and Joe were paid millions for Superman back in '38 (a small fraction of what their character would be worth from then until 1994) would Joe's heirs catch as much heat from than fan community for being included in his will? I just don't get it.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Once I sell my house I can't get it back if oil is struck on the property at a later date.

That's a great analogy teach. I've never heard it put better.

My money-grubber alarms have went off all along with this case, every since Siegel passed away.

Chris

[jwyblejr]

Hasn't this been going on since the 70s? I doubt it'll be resolved anytime soon.

[The Toyroom]

Sounds like a couple of families that want to get paid. I agree that no one forced them to sell their Idea. Now all of a sudden the group with foresight (Timewarner) is the bad guy? How? For buying something they thought would work? Sounds to me like the heirs of these two gifted men are the greedy ones. And why should timewarner share the money they made on the name? Once I sell my house I can't get it back if oil is struck on the property at a later date.

Exactly! Let's look at it this way...obviously the success of Superman owes more to what National/DC/Time Warner did with the property than the original concept created by Siegel and Shuster. If not, then how come S&S weren't able to capture lightning in a bottle a 2nd time? Yes, Siegel co-created The Spectre (with Bernard Bailey I believe) and the derivative Superboy but they weren't cranking out the concepts successfully like a Lee & Kirby. Or even a Bob Kane who had a "hand" in his creation (how much of which is still the subject of debate) a lot longer than S&S. I think National saw the potential the Superman character could have began to market him accordingly and flesh out his backstory and create a vast universe for him to play in, beyond the initial concept that was SOLD to them. It could've went the other way and they woulda been out $150 (or whatever the rights were sold for) and had a dead property. But because of their foresight they should be penalized? Smells crappy to me!

[Captain]

Wasnt Joe Simon having similar issues with Marvel over Captain America? Too bad he didnt get a deal like this before the caps dead fiasco of late!

[txteach]

Sounds like a couple of families that want to get paid. I agree that no one forced them to sell their Idea. Now all of a sudden the group with foresight (Timewarner) is the bad guy? How? For buying something they thought would work? Sounds to me like the heirs of these two gifted men are the greedy ones. And why should timewarner share the money they made on the name? Once I sell my house I can't get it back if oil is struck on the property at a later date.

[toys2cool]

I wish,but I doubt it

[UnderdogDJLSW]

There are tons of stories on both sides, including S & S working as ghost writers/artists for Superman in later years for no credit, etc. But I think the constant re-telling/re-design of superboy has a lot to do with the legal issues that DC has gone through with that version of the character recently. So without sounding too "glass half-empty" this could also see a reduction of Supes merchandise, too.