Comments on: Siegels awarded Superman rights

by: Brian Spence

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:11:15 +0000

Now Lee, Kirby, Ditko, etc should get their due…hopefully while some can still enjoy it.

by: DC Loses Half the Rights To Action Comics #1 at POWET.TV

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:46:58 +0000

[…] - Need more updates? The Beat’s got some links and quotes for you, and Newsarama’s Blog@ seems to be updating this post regularly (though I though they’d be updating with new updates… It’s a blog, right guys?). Also, read through the first hundred or so comments - look at people being oh-so-angry at the Siegels for being so gosh durn greedy as to wish compensation greater than the original $130 Jerry Siegel was paid. I mean, split with Joe Shuster. Digg it […]

by: DC Loses Half the Rights To Action Comics #1 at POWET.TV

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:46:31 +0000

by: Rakarich

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:56:43 +0000

I don’t understand why some people are so snide over another individual’s love for something. Why mock someone’s concern over what makes them happy? Please, show some respect to others.

Solid debate and observations I expect here. Ridiculing others, I do not.

My 2¢

by: SKFK

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:31:27 +0000

Disregard what I wrote above about the copyright terms. Brian Cronin at Comics Should Be Good reminded me that any copyright prior to the changes made to the law only gets 20 year extension, so Superman would enter the public domain in 2033 regardless of who owns the copyright.

by: Jamie Coville

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 03:44:09 +0000

:rollseyes:

Don’t worry you “me-first, I’m entitled to entertainment above all else” fans. Your precious, precious Superman comic books aren’t going to change. They will still be there next month, same as always.

by: Josh

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:07:59 +0000

Is bad of me to worry about the future of one of my favorite characters? I mean the DCU without Superman is not cool with me. His heirs get a big payday and we who have created that payday for them with our support and love of the book are left with Superman comics till 2013, Then the heirs sell him to Marvel and he joins the avengers?

I know this is a great thing for his family, but I can see many scenarios where we loose out.

by: Rakarich

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:37:17 +0000

Something just occurred to me if there is a big payout to the Seigles don’t be surprised to see DC comics hit a $3.25 cover price. You know Time Warner isn’t going to take the hit alone.

by: Alan Coil

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:31:09 +0000

f lee

Hey, how’s it going? Glad to meet you.

by: SKFK

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:28:24 +0000

“I believe the licensing and merchandising arm of DC/Time Warner will take the biggest hit by losing millions of dollars of revenue from Superman products made by hundreds of manufacturers.”

No, things like a single iconic image of Superman, the name “Superman” itself, and the “S” shield logo are covered by the trademark law, not copyright. Even if DC loses the copyright, the trademark is likely to stay with DC.

“What exactly happens in 2013? Does each character go into public domain as its deadline passes?”

No, Shuster’s nephew will get to reclaim the other half of the copyright, so DC will have no ownership stake in the copyright.

What’s ironic is that, in the long term, it may be better for DC to let the Siegels and the Shusters have the Superman copyright. According to the current copyright law, if DC remains the copyright owner, Superman will enter public domain in 2033 (1938 plus 95 years). But if the Siegels and the Shusters reclaim the copyright and they enter into a licensing deal with DC, then DC can continue to use Superman until 2066 (Siegel passed away in 1996, plus 70 years). True, they will have to pay licensing fees to the estates, but that will be a fraction of what they can make during the 30 plus years of extra usage.

by: f lee

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:02:16 +0000

why do folks like alan coil get to write whatever inflammatory shit they want to? oh, that’s right, it’s the internet—where any jackass with a keyboard can type something.

i know about as much as alan does about DC’s corporate financing, but this is not going to be the end of anything—no matter how much haters like alan wish it so..

by: Mark Kardwell

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:59:23 +0000

I’d have so much more respect for DC and their corporate overlords if, instead of dragging this through every appeal court they can, they sent Paul Levitz and a couple of lawyers to hash out a deal where DC gave ownership back to the Siegel and Shuster estates but leased the character in perpetuity, with the two families receiving fair royalties.

by: The Beat

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:56:12 +0000

Sorry that my coverage of the biggest story of the year has been so sloppy and sporadic, but personal affairs mean I cannot spend much time online.

I doubt that WB will stop using Superman. Some sort of licensing deal would be much more likely. Only my opinion, of course.

by: Alan Coil

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:45:45 +0000

Torsten said:

“DC would be smart to create a co-ownership relationship with the Siegel estate, and gain some goodwill.”
_____

That would be the smart thing, but I don’t think it can be done. The Siegel’s have the rights to Superboy, so DC stopped using Superboy. I would expect that Warners will tell DC to now stop using Superman. Without the money that the Superman licensing brings in, there is no way for DC to survive, as their profits will be too small to be bothered with.

by: David Bird

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:31:11 +0000

Great news!

What exactly happens in 2013? Does each character go into public domain as its deadline passes?

by: Rakarich

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:13:24 +0000

Greed vs Justice. Check out the debate…

http://www.thecomicforums.com/forum2//index.php?showtopic=129426

by: Max Gottfried

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:33:57 +0000

Can DC Comics survive without publishing Superman comics? I think so, but it will take a big chunk out of their pocketbook. I believe the licensing and merchandising arm of DC/Time Warner will take the biggest hit by losing millions of dollars of revenue from Superman products made by hundreds of manufacturers. That’s where the big money is being made, not from publishing comic books. (Did the Spider-Man comics create a windfall of revenue or the countless products with Spidey’s face plastered on them?) I still think litigation will continue with appeals by DC. Probably taking this all the way to the supreme court. This battle isn’t over yet by a long shot!

by: jimmy palmiotti

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:10:45 +0000

Maybe dc will push for more new characters in the future. wouldn’t that be nice.

by: James Kochalka

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:31:18 +0000

I very firmly believe that Superman should be in the public domain. It’s very important for all of us that iconic works like this that resonate so strongly with our society enter the public domain, so that artists can examine them in their work and utilize their strong symbolic power to comment on our society and push it to grow.

However, barring that, having the copyright under the control of the family of the creators is the next best thing.

by: Torsten Adair

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:21:15 +0000

The Court’s ruling is required reading, and very well written.
two big questions remain: trademark and licensing fees. licensees do not have to report to the coowner, but because DC licensed media rights to Warner Brothers Entertainment, there may have been a sweetheart deal. everything after april 1999 is accountable.
the spectre is also subject to this same contract, although the work-for-hire argument is stronger.
DC would be smart to create a co-ownership relationship with the Siegel estate, and gain some goodwill. Although a little bit different, they have some experience, in regards to Bob Kane and William Marston.
ironically, it was the Bono Act which helped the Siegel’s case.