|
Post by All Star Batman on Mar 29, 2008 21:27:39 GMT -5
By MICHAEL CIEPLY Published: March 29, 2008 LOS ANGELES -- Time Warner is no longer the sole proprietor of Superman.
A federal judge here on Thursday ruled that the heirs of Jerome Siegel -- who 70 years ago sold the rights to the action hero he created with Joseph Shuster to Detective Comics for $130 -- were entitled to reclaim their share of the U. S. copyright to the character. The ruling left intact Time Warner’s international rights to the character, which it has long owned through its DC Comics unit.
And it reserved for trial questions about how much the company may owe the Siegel heirs for use of the character since 1999, when their ownership is deemed to have been restored. Also to be resolved is whether the heirs are entitled to payments directly from Time Warner’s film unit, Warner Brothers, which took in $200 million at the domestic box office with its “Superman Returns” in 2006, or only from the DC unit’s Superman profits.
Still, the ruling threatened to complicate Warner’s plans to make more films featuring Superman, including another sequel and a planned movie based on the DC Comics’ “Justice League of America,” in which he joins Batman, Wonder Woman and other superheroes to battle evildoers.
If the decision survives a Time Warner legal challenge, it may also open the door to a similar reversion of rights to the estate of Mr. Shuster in 2013. That would give heirs of the two creators control over use of their lucrative character until at least 2033 -- and perhaps longer, if Congress once again extends copyright terms -- according to Marc Toberoff, a lawyer who represents both the Siegels and the Shuster estate.
“It would be very powerful,” said Mr. Toberoff, speaking by telephone on Friday. “After 2013, Time Warner couldn’t exploit any new Superman-derived works without a licence from the Siegels and Shusters.”
Time Warner lawyers declined through a spokesman to discuss the decision. A similar ruling in 2006 allowed the Siegels to recapture their rights in the Superboy character, without determining whether Superboy was, in fact, the basis for Warner Brothers’s “Smallville” television series. The decision was later challenged in a case that has yet to be resolved, said Mr. Toberoff, who represented the family in that action.
This week’s decision by Stephen G. Larson, a judge in the U. S. district court for the Central District of California, provided long-sought vindication to the wife and daughter of Mr. Siegel, who bemoaned until his death in 1996 having parted so cheaply with rights to the lucrative hero.
“We were just stubborn,” Joanne Siegel, Mr. Siegel’s widow, said in a joint interview with her daughter, Laura Siegel Larson. “It was a dream of Jerry’s, and we just took up the task.”
The ruling specifically upheld the Seigels’ copyright in the Superman material published in Detective Comics’ Action Comics Vol. 1. The extent to which later iterations of the character are derived from that original was not determined by the judge.
In an unusually detailed narrative, the judge’s 72-page order described how Mr. Siegel and Mr. Shuster, as teenagers at Glenville High School in Cleveland became friends and collaborators on their school newspaper in 1932. They worked together on a short story, “The Reign of the Superman,” in which their famous character first appeared not as hero, but villain.
By 1937, the were shopping comic strips in which the classic Superman elements -- cape, logo, and Clark Kent alter-ego -- were already set. When Detective Comics bought 13 pages of work for its new Action Comics series the next year, the company sent Mr. Siegel a check for $130, and received in return a release from both creators granting the company rights to Superman “to have and hold forever,” the order noted.
In the late 1940s, a referee in a New York court upheld Detective Comics’ copyright, prompting Siegel and Shuster to drop their claim in exchange $94,000. More than 30 years later, DC Comics (the successor to Detective Comics) gave the creators each a $20,000-per-year annuity that was later boosted to $30,000. In 1997, however, Mrs. Siegel and her daughter served copyright termination notices under provisions of a 1976 law that permits heirs, under certain circumstances, to recover rights to creations.
Mr. Toberoff, their lawyer, has been something of a gadfly to Warner in the past. In the late 1990s, for example, he represented Gilbert Ralston, a television writer, in legal battle over his rights in the CBS telvision series “Wild, Wild West,” which was the basis for a 1999 Warner Brothers film that starred Will Smith. The case, said Mr. Toberoff, was settled.
Compensation to the Siegels would be limited to any work created after their 1999 termination date. Income from its 1978 “Superman” film, or the three sequels that followed in the 1980s, are not at issue. But a “Superman Returns” sequel being planned with the filmmaker Bryan Singer (“Usual Suspects,” “X-Men’) might require payments to the Siegels, should they prevail in a demand that the studio’s income, not just that of the comics unit, be subject to a court-ordered accounting.
Mrs. Siegel and Ms. Larson said it was too soon to make future plans for the Superman character. But they were inclined to relish this moment.
“I have lived in the shadow of this my whole life,” Ms. Larson said. “I am so happy now, I just can’t explain it.”
|
|
jokermatt
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Posts: 145
|
Post by jokermatt on Mar 29, 2008 21:40:35 GMT -5
the way they use him DC should just let them have him. but really Warner will pay them some money and say sell him back to us or you can't use anything else that goes with him.
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Mar 30, 2008 1:44:58 GMT -5
the way they use him DC should just let them have him. but really Warner will pay them some money and say sell him back to us or you can't use anything else that goes with him. if they let them have Superman, the DCU no longer has Superman. they already lost the rights to the name Superboy, hence why he'll never be brought back from the dead and why you'll never see the S symbol on any statues of him or any flashbacks of him. they easily could lose the rights, but it will only be for the name. he'll just stop being known as Superman and only as Kal-El. DC owns the name Kal-El whether they lose the suit or not, as the original Superman was Kal-L. the only change will be his name, if that.
|
|
|
Post by electri on Mar 30, 2008 11:47:32 GMT -5
Or they could calll him super-kal! if these epople cared for the name superman they will drop it!
|
|
|
Post by Jack the Skull on Apr 2, 2008 12:24:01 GMT -5
[shadow=red,left,300]DC can't loose there most famous Super-hero. Superman first appeared in a DC comic and he should stay in a DC comic! [/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Apr 2, 2008 15:44:56 GMT -5
[shadow=red,left,300]DC can't loose there most famous Super-hero. Superman first appeared in a DC comic and he should stay in a DC comic! [/shadow] Exactly. He is part of the trinity and without him, DC would possibly fall apart because, well let's face it, as great as Batman is, he can't carry the whole DC Universe.
|
|
|
Post by DrGreenEvil on Apr 2, 2008 16:16:23 GMT -5
I don't think it would be as disastrous as y'all are making it out to be. They would probably just elevate Supergirl and (possibly) finally give Aquaman the respect he deserves. Go from a trinity to a group of 4.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Apr 2, 2008 16:46:26 GMT -5
Copyright, trademark and SupermanTuesday April 1, 2008, 8:58 pm The Siegel ruling is a model of clear legal reasoning, but because it’s written primarily for lawyers it leaves a number of basic concepts undefined. Among these: copyright and trademark. Which one applies can make a huge difference in the protection your work receives. For example, the length of time for trademark protection is only ten years, but the trademark owner can keep renewing it indefinitely so long as the mark is being used in commerce. By contrast, copyright protection lasts for the life of the creator plus seventy years (in the case of works for hire, 95 to 120 years), but then that’s it–after the term expires, the material enters the public domain. The various rules for copyright and trademark protection can get a bit confusing, but here’s a relatively simple way to distinguish between the two. Copyright protects original creative works, such as music, art, and writing. Trademark serves to identify and distinguish products in the marketplace. Often the line between the two seems pretty obvious. For instance, this post is an original work of authorship protected by copyright; it isn’t a word, name or symbol being used to market goods or services. If you look on your computer, however, you’ll see a logo–an apple, “Vaio,” “Dell”–whose primary function is to tell you the brand. But this is also where it gets a bit more complicated. Creative works don’t always fall neatly into one or the other category. Consider this original work of graphic design that DC registered as a trademark back in 1941: Superman 1941 Besides being a trademark, the graphic nonetheless also enjoys copyright protection as an original creative work. While trademark protection may seem like overkill, DC would have been foolish not to get it–not only were they using the image on covers at the time, but even after the copyright expires, the image will continue to have trademark protection so long as DC keeps the registration alive. Here’s where the Siegel case gets particularly tricky. DC has an array of trademarks related to Superman, many of which include designs arguably derived from the copyrighted Superman material in Action Comics #1. The “S” symbol, the Superman character, his home planet and Lois Lane–these are but a few of the elements that the Siegels’ attorneys claim have been incorporated into trademarks used to identify or distinguish branded products. Over the next few days we’ll have a lot more to say about copyright, trademark and what this means for the future of Superman. Until then, if you’re interested in finding registered trademarks for comic characters or companies, here’s the trademark search page for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Apr 2, 2008 17:21:09 GMT -5
they can still use the character and just call him something else. also, there are currently 2 Supermans in the DCU right now. so they can conceivably kill off the regular New Earth Superman and just use the Earth-22 Superman that they do 100% own, as he was created by Alex Ross and Mark Waid. the Earth-22 Superman is alot more powerful anyway.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Knight on Apr 2, 2008 17:26:55 GMT -5
Huh, I really thought this'd be an early April Fool's prank, but it seems wrong (not unethical) to give Superman away after his many eras of being established in DC.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Apr 3, 2008 23:06:50 GMT -5
The miraculous return of Jerry SiegelWednesday April 2, 2008, 4:11 pm
On March 1, 1938, Detective Comics paid Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster one hundred and thirty dollars, reflecting their standard page rate, for the Superman story in Action Comics #1. Enclosed with the check: a contract assigning the company “exclusive right” to Superman “to have and hold forever.” Not only did Siegel and Shuster sign the contract, but in September of that same year they signed an employment agreement acknowledging that the company owned Superman.
That we are now talking about Siegel’s family gaining co-ownership of Superman is something of a miracle. Time and again, Siegel’s fight for the rights to the character ended in bitter disappointment. In a 1948 settlement, Siegel and Shuster once again acknowledged that Detective Comics “owned all rights to Superman.” In 1974, a federal appeals court affirmed a lower court ruling that when Siegel and Shuster transferred “all their rights” to Superman “forever,” they signed away the possibility of getting him back.
How could a court today possibly bring Siegel’s claim back from the dead?
To understand what happened, it will help if we first identify exactly what rights the court says Siegel’s heirs now possess. Since other experts have provided useful summaries of the entire court opinion, here I want to boil it down even further to just the core rulings:
The Siegels’ copyright interest: The Siegel family has regained the copyright to the Superman material in Action Comics #1, effective April 16, 1999.
House ads: The house ads published prior to Action Comics #1 merely give DC Comics a copyright interest in “the image of a person of extraordinary strength who wears a black and white leotard and cape.”
Work-for-hire: No part of the Superman material in Action Comics #1 can be carved out as work for hire.
International rights: The Siegel’s regained copyright interest only extends to domestic U.S. rights. It does not include any rights gained under foreign laws, including rights to international profits.
Accounting for profits: DC must account to the Siegels, as co-owners, for the profits from Superman material derived from Actions Comics #1–with the exception of derivative works prepared before April 16, 1999. The court does not resolve the question of what, if anything, the Siegels should be paid for pre-termination derivative works that have in some way been altered since April 16, 1999.
Trademark: The Siegels cannot share in profits purely attributable to Superman trademark rights. However, the court does not determine whether they are entitled to profits from mixed trademark uses that include elements of the Siegels’ copyrighted material.
Superman movies and TV shows: The court does not resolve the issue of Superman profits generated by Warner Brothers Entertainment and Time Warner, Inc. The court ruling calls for “a trial on whether to include the profits generated by DC Comics’ corporate sibling’s [sic] exploitation of the Superman copyright.”
As we can see from the above, what happened with the judge’s ruling may have been miraculous, but it wasn’t simply a case of restoring all the rights that Siegel signed away. Why that’s the case–and what this means for creators today–will be the subject of my next post.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Apr 5, 2008 14:06:58 GMT -5
New ruling in the Siegel case (with trial dates) Friday April 4, 2008, 6:01 pm The judge in the Siegel case has issued a new order pertaining to both the Superboy and Superman lawsuits. Click the link for a copy. I’ll have more to say when I finalize my Superboy post, which I began drafting last night.
The order in a nutshell:
–The parties are to spend the next 60 days negotiating a settlement. –After the 60 days is up, the parties are to file a joint report on what happened. –If they don’t settle, the trial in the Superman case is scheduled to begin on November 4, 2008. –The court is setting aside ruling on the remaining issues in the Superboy case, along with setting the Superboy trial dates, until after the Superman trial is over.
This emphasis on settlement is consistent with contemporary court practice, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, which was an innovator in the field. On a personal note, the Circuit judge for whom I clerked, the Hon. D.W. Nelson, pioneered this judicial movement–click here for a guest blog post in which she talks about her experience as a leader in ADR–Alternative Dispute Resolution–as well as her work in spearheading women’s equality in the legal profession.
If you read the order (go ahead–it’s short), you’ll see that it highlights the two issues we’ve focused on as being unresolved: “1) Post-termination alterations to pre-termination derivative works and 2) Mixed use of trademarks and copyright.”
As I was re-reading the judge’s earlier rulings this past week, it became clear that the Superman ruling had changed the landscape considerably for the Superboy case, so much so that I’d decided to make that the subject of its own post. Again, it’s a fascinating issue not only for comics, but anyone whose work involves developing copyrighted and trademarked material.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright’s time bomb Friday April 4, 2008, 11:56 am
In my last post I described the right of present-day creators to terminate transfers and licenses of their original non-work-for-hire material. The decision to start with the present was deliberate. The Siegel case is not merely relevant for Golden Age transactions; it’s a powerful reminder for lawyers and creators on both sides of copyright agreements that the story doesn’t end with a signed contract.
To see why this matters, consider Steven Grant’s most recent CBR column, in which he observes that he has “never met anyone who has ever signed away their rights in or control over what turned out to be a popular party who wasn’t bitter about it in their 40s.” One apparent reason for this sense of hopelessness: the perception that termination rights apply only to older creators. “For those of us who came into the business after 1977,” Grant states, “the [Siegel] case really means nothing but satisfaction, since we operate under a different set of rules. . . . Youthful indiscretion — or any other kind — is no longer redeemable.” A powerful sentiment to be sure, but as we saw here the law today is actually more forgiving of forty-something creators than they might think.
With that in mind, let’s turn now to the Siegel case itself.
The relevant statute: As we noted yesterday, the pertinent section of the copyright law for the Siegel case is not Section 203, but 304. Both sections describe termination rights; the difference lies in when the transfer took place. For copyrighted property transferred before 1978, the law contains some provisions designed to accommodate the fact that the terms were negotiated under an earlier set of rules.
If the 1976 Copyright Act gave the Siegels a right to terminate the transfer, why didn’t they take advantage of it back then? Contrary to what some have inferred, there was no secret agreement to waive termination rights in the 1970s or ’80s ; pages 50-53 of the opinion implicitly dismiss that assertion. Rather, the reason for the delay lies in the termination procedure set forth in Section 304(c).
In a nutshell, this procedure was designed to accommodate the fact that under the 1909 Copyright Act, the outer limit of the length of copyright was fifty-six years. However, the 1976 Copyright Act extended the term of pre-1978 copyrighted material–the term is now set at a total of 95 years (Sec. 304(b)). Congress decided that it wouldn’t be fair to give the copyright holder an extra period of time to profit from the rights without allowing the original creator or his heirs a chance to take it back first. Accordingly, Section 304(c) gives the original creator and his heirs the right to terminate the transfer within a five year period from the end of fifty-six years, provide a termination notice is filed no less than two years before the specified effective date.
Given the publication of the Action Comics #1 in 1938, this meant that the end of the fifty-six year period was 1994. The Siegels filed the requisite termination notices on April 3 1997, each of which had an effective date of April 16, 1999. (20) The court ruling declared this termination to be valid, thereby awarding them 50% of the copyright interest (Siegel’s share) in the Superman material in Action Comics #1.
What about Joe Shuster? As the judge explains on p. 19, the 1976 Copyright Act originally provided that if a creator died without leaving any heirs, the termination right expired. However, the statute was recently amended (to give the creator’s estate a termination right after “75 years from the date copyright was originally secured.” (Sec. 304(d))
This is why the Shuster estate stands to regain the other fifty percent domestic U.S. interest in Superman in 2013. As you can see from this legal news report on DC’s General Counsel, Shuster’s nephew filed a termination notice in November 2003, within the 10 year filing window.
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Apr 5, 2008 17:18:35 GMT -5
thanks for the updates All-Star.
|
|
SuperPa
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Posts: 198
|
Post by SuperPa on Apr 5, 2008 19:29:46 GMT -5
Very nicly put together, thanks for going to the trouble.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Apr 5, 2008 22:38:49 GMT -5
thanks for the updates All-Star. I'll keep you all posted as more info on this case comes up.
|
|
|
Post by electri on Apr 6, 2008 10:06:02 GMT -5
well I am routine for time warners all the way!
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Apr 7, 2008 17:22:21 GMT -5
What next for Superman? Monday April 7, 2008, 2:42 pm
The latest court order in the Siegel case could be the beginning of the end. For years the prevailing assumption has been that this case would end in a settlement, not a trial. By imposing a sixty-day mediation period, the judge is pressing both sides to bring this dispute to its natural close.
The thing about settlement negotiations, though, is that they’re highly unpredictable. If you haven’t ever seen one in action, you might want to read this description of the events leading to the Siegel and Shuster payment arrangement in 1975, excerpted from Gerard Jones’ must-read history, Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters and the Birth of the Comic Book.
You might notice that in Jones’ account the law was not the only concern shaping the outcome. This is not at all unusual. In a settlement negotiation, the law is merely one of several things that can influence what each party decides they can accept. The following are a few of the factors that are likely to play a role in determining whether negotiations succeed or break down.
The mediator: The company to conduct the settlement negotiations is JAMS, one of the nation’s leaders in the field. The parties’ agreed-upon mediator is a former California judge, the Hon. Daniel Weinstein. While mediation follows a standard set of guidelines, mediators have their own individual personality. Just as the members of a jury can affect a verdict, the choice of mediator can make a big difference in what happens throughout the course of a negotiation.
The lawyers: The Siegels have a lawyer known for his relentless efforts to reclaim intellectual property rights. Lawyers for DC, Warner Bros. and Time Warner (from here on, “DC”), have a responsibility to defend corporate interests — and, despite this feel-good profile, the company’s lawyers have a reputation for being tough. That said, each side knows that a long, drawn-out trial often ends without a winner. Expense, stress and exposure to public attack can prove draining even to the side that receives the more favorable verdict.
The level of trust: A mediation typically proceeds by reaching an agreement to terms that are fleshed out in a detailed final settlement agreement. The Siegel copyright opinion (22) indicates that the Siegels believe that opposing counsel engaged in a strategic bait and switch in previous negotiations, reneging on initially agreed-upon terms in the apparent hope that the Siegels would cave in to last-minute changes. If the Siegels do not believe they can trust the other side to adhere to its word, they may be wary of signing a settlement agreement.
The Siegel copyright opinion: The Siegels’ success in regaining the copyright to Action Comics #1 may be the symbolic moment that leads each side to see that the time for ending this case once and for all has come. Or it could lead the Siegels to feel they have no need to settle. That ruling may equally push DC to fight to minimize its effects or even to get it reversed. How each side views its potential for prevailing in the remaining claims will be a key factor in what happens next.
The Shuster termination filing: So long as the Shuster estate remains a wild card, DC will be concerned about the implications of the Siegel settlement for the Shuster case. On a broader level, DC will have a similar concern regarding the settlement’s implications for other copyrighted properties with a viable termination claim.
The Siegel and Shuster legacy: We must never underestimate the power of history in shaping a party’s willingness to settle. The Siegels may decide they want a court to declare once and for all that Superman — at least in the U.S. — belongs to his creators. At the very least, they might insist that any settlement include an acknowledgment of Siegel’s (and perhaps Shuster’s) rights in Superman, even if in the same agreement those rights are assigned back to DC. Much like DC initially resisted Siegel & Shuster’s creator credit back in 1975, its lawyers might not want to concede the legitimacy of creators’ claims to its copyrighted properties — or it may decide that this anniversary year would be an opportune time not just to resolve this matter, but to emphasize its uniqueness.
Next up: a closer look at the key issues, including trademarks, Superboy, film and the Shuster estate.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Apr 9, 2008 18:44:47 GMT -5
Superman of Two WorldsTuesday April 8, 2008, 4:16 pm
As a number of commenters have observed, the court decision recognizing the Siegels as co-owners of Superman raises serious questions about the future of the franchise. Do the Siegels own anything more than the exact panels in Action Comics #1? Can the Siegels exercise creative control over DC’s Superman comics? Can the Siegels sell Superman to Marvel? And if the Shuster estate regains its copyright interest in 2013, will DC lose Superman forever?
As we’ve noted elsewhere, the answer to these questions is a bit complex, since copyright is not the only aspect of intellectual property at issue in this case. Trademark makes the situation that even more complicated. What if DC uses trademark to keep the Siegels from doing anything with their copyright? Does trademark make the public domain meaningless? Is it true, as some claim, that the Siegel and Shuster heirs can get the Superman trademarks back in 2018 simply by holding on to their copyright?
To answer these and other related questions, let’s begin with what we know the Siegels’ won: half of the U.S. copyright interest in the Superman material in Action Comics #1, effective as of April 16, 1999. For legal references, unless otherwise noted see the relevant pages from the judge’s opinion cited in this post.
What DC still owns: Whatever else the Siegels may now have, their interest in Superman has a couple of immediately apparent limits. One is the geographic boundaries of the United States — because the law enabled the Siegels to reclaim only domestic copyright, DC can keep publishing new Superman material outside the U.S. without having to pay the Siegels any profits and without any concern that the Siegel and Shuster heirs will take it away.
Another limit: Superman material prepared from Action Comics #2 through April 16, 1999. So long as it was not modified after that date, DC can re-publish any of that material without owing the Siegels a dime. The same is true for movies, TV shows, etc.
Creative control: As the judge explains in the Siegel opinion, being a co-owner does not give the Siegels creative control over the Superman material published by DC. Each co-owner has the right to “exploit” (use, sell, etc.) the Superman material in which they share a copyright interest, although neither party can give an exclusive license without the other’s permission.
Profit sharing: DC has to account for and to share profits derived from any Superman material the Siegels co-own. The same is true for any profit the Siegels might make themselves — they would have to give an accounting to DC.
Action Comics #1: At the very least, the Siegels own half of the exact Superman material in Action Comics #1. DC would owe the Siegels profits from reprints of the story in whole or in part. In principle, the Siegels could also republish it themselves or sell it to another publisher, such as, yes, Marvel Comics, so long as they shared the profits with DC.
New stories: Beyond the exact material in Action Comics #1, the Siegels’ copyright interest also extends to new material derived from what they own. If the judge’s ruling stands and there is no settlement, DC would owe the Siegels half of the profits from any material derived from the Siegels’ co-owned work, whether in comics, TV, or movies. Likewise, in principle, the Siegels could create their own new stories derived from their copyrighted material or sell the right to new stories to another publisher or, say, film studio.
What this means, however, is far from clear. Superman today is far different from what you see in Action Comics #1, and DC Comics arguably has the entire copyright interest in distinct original material. For a couple of relatively easy examples, we can turn to All-Star Superman #10, which includes a panel picturing a Superman substantially similar to the Superman in Action Comics #1, and Adventures of Superman #612, which depicts a Superman expressly based on the Action Comics #1 version. How much of less literal extensions of the Superman character and mythos are the Siegels’ and how much are DC’s has yet to be resolved.
The Shuster estate: The Shuster estate stands to regain its 50% copyright interest in 2013. The Siegels’ lawyer claims that this means DC will be unable to publish any Superman material without licensing it from the creators’ families, but whether that will be the case (at least in the U.S.) depends on how the court resolves the limits of what constitutes a derivative work. DC is likely to argue that it has added so much original material to Superman beyond Action Comics #1 that it is a co-owner of any then-current derivative work. If a court agrees, that would enable DC to continue to publish new Superman material without having to obtain permission.
The public domain: The Superman material from 1938 enters the public domain in 2033, 95 years after publication. In principle, this would give the right to anyone to reprint or develop that material. Nonetheless, we cannot forget about …
Trademark: If you were looking for one word to explain why the Siegels didn’t sell Superman to Marvel last week, “trademark” is your best candidate. More on that in my next post.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Apr 10, 2008 17:43:59 GMT -5
Can the Siegels sell Superman to Marvel? Wednesday April 9, 2008, 1:33 pm
Marvel owning Superman–before the Siegel copyright decision, you would have assumed this could only be a dream, a hoax, or an imaginary story. Now it might actually happen. As we saw in my last post, under the law of jointly owned copyrights it is at least theoretically possible for the Siegels to sell their Superman rights to another publisher, since the law allows each co-owner to assign or license copyrighted property.
Yet the Siegels’ copyright interest in Action #1 does not give them an unfettered right to do whatever they want with the whole franchise. For example, in the previous post we noted that the judge left unresolved the question of how much of the current Superman universe derives from the material that the Siegels share. New characters are one problem–Lex Luthor, Zod and Bizarro are just a few of DC’s copyrighted story elements not found in the Siegel material.
However, this is not the greatest obstacle to what would be the sale of the century. As DC’s own lawyers have argued, trademark law arguably protects the distinguishing elements of the Superman properties in ways that can effectively prevent the distribution of competing Superman material. The Siegels, of course, disagree.
This is a cutting-edge intellectual property dispute. How the court will–or should–rule is uncertain. So instead of simply answering questions, let’s take a look at each side’s arguments and decide for ourselves what we think the Siegels should be allowed to do.
DC: Over the past few years, a series of law journal articles have appeared explaining how trademark law can keep creators or heirs from exploiting any copyright interest they might regain in a case like the Siegels’. This isn’t a coincidence. The essays that sparked the trend were written–surprise!–by lawyers for DC and Time Warner.
These articles address a legal strategy that has been used by a variety of trademark owners–such as Disney and the Edgars Rice Burroughs estate–to prevent others from selling material that is subject to termination rights or has entered the public domain. The key to this strategy lies in the difference between copyright and trademark. While copyright serves to protect an original work of authorship, trademark serves to identify and distinguish a brand. Trademark rights provide legal protection separate from any copyright interest–indeed, they can continue even after a copyrighted work enters the public domain.
This arguably places strict limits on what the Siegels can do with their copyright interest. The Siegels could try, for example, to publish their own copy of Action Comics #1, but marketing any material protected as a registered trademark puts them at risk of a lawsuit from DC. Since DC has trademarked the core elements of the Superman universe in every medium you can imagine, there is not much in the Siegel material to which DC could not raise plausible claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Similarly, the Siegels could try to sell their copyright to Marvel, but once again, DC would claim that any attempt to sell new or even reprinted Superman material infringes on its trademarks. From DC’s perspective, Superman, Clark Kent and Lois Lane do not merely tell a story; they also provide information about the product itself.
The Siegels: To see how the Siegels hope to flip DC’s trademark argument to their own advantage, let’s go back to the web page in the last link above. In the case at issue DC’s lawyers demonstrated the strength of their trademark by describing how the distinguishing elements of its current marks can be traced all the way back to when the character first appeared in 1938.
That is, back to the very Superman material in which the Siegels own half the copyright.
This is what I was referring to earlier when I noted that the court did not resolve the issue of mixed trademark and copyright. According to the Siegels, the inclusion of their copyrighted material into DC’s Superman trademarks gives them a partial interest in the trademarks themselves. This would mean they have a right to 50% of all post-termination profits from exploiting trademarks that incorporate the Siegels’ Superman material or material derived from it. Likewise, if the judge recognizes their interest in the Superman marks, that raises the possibility that they could be allowed to exploit their Superman properties however they choose–such as selling their interest to another publisher.
Will the Siegels sell Superman to Marvel? The possibility that Marvel could publish its own Superman book is rather intriguing. Even DC couldn’t resist the temptation to let Stan Lee re-imagine the character. Still, it’s not likely that Marvel or any other publisher will end up with its own version of the character, and there are a few reasons why.
One is the derivative rights issue mentioned at the start of this post. The copyright problem goes further than previously unmentioned characters. Is the Superman of Earth-1 the same character as the Superman of Action Comics #1? What about the Superman of Earth-2? After all, the Siegel Superman could not fly, and there is nothing in Action Comics #1 to suggest that he lives in an alternate universe, let alone has the power to fly. We can expect DC to argue that, much like Medieval Spawn or the Supremes in the Supremacy, each Superman since the first is sufficiently original as to be its own separate copyrighted character or least to contain distinct new copyrighted features. Even if the Siegels were to sell Superman to Marvel, the resulting character is not likely to mirror the Superman we see in DC’s current continuity.
Trademark law makes purchasing the Siegels’ Superman interest even more of a risky investment. As the articles written by its lawyers indicates, we can expect DC to take an aggressive position in regard to any attempt to leverage Superman material in the marketplace. The resulting legal action would be expensive and time-consuming, lasting conceivably upwards of a decade until all the appeals were exhausted. There is also a substantial likelihood that Marvel would either lose or end up making some kind of concession in a settlement. Any number of lawyers and corporate executives would argue that this risk makes the Siegel material a bad bargain at any price.
A third and not insignificant factor is self-interest. Marvel has termination rights issues of its own, as this case involving Joe Simon and Captain America illustrates. Were Marvel to try to tweak DC buy purchasing the Siegel rights–even just to sell a reprint–it could prompt DC to go after Marvel’s own vulnerable signature characters. Just as baseball owners resisted free agency back in the 1970s, we can imagine that no one at either DC or Marvel is eager to create an open market for their most profitable company properties.
For these and other reasons the chief value of the Siegels’ victory would seem to be as leverage in a settlement negotiation.
Can’t the Siegels and Shusters reclaim the Superman trademark? That argument has been made, and we’ll be addressing it (and a few other things) in my next post.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Apr 11, 2008 22:35:13 GMT -5
Will DC lose Superman? Thursday April 10, 2008, 12:05 pm
A number of fans are concerned about the impact of the Siegel decision on the future of Superman, and understandably so. Since the lawsuit became news a few years ago, properties implicated in the Siegel claims–Superboy and the Earth-2 Superman–have been killed. Moveover, the Siegels’ lead attorney asserts that the Siegel and Shuster heirs will take over the franchise in 2013, with some fans adding that this means the end of DC’s trademark rights in 2018.
How can Superman survive?
As I’ve hinted throughout this series, there are actually a number of reasons why DC is not likely to lose Superman, even after the Action #1 material enters the public domain in 2033. So some of us can sleep better at night, here’s an overview of why the death of Superman has been greatly exaggerated.
Original material: DC has added so many new features to the initial Superman material that it is arguably at least a co-owner of the character as written today. Even assuming that the Siegel and Shuster heirs gain 100% of the U.S. copyright in Action #1 in 2013, they won’t own or control the entire franchise.
DC’s established trademarks: Even if we concede (which DC won’t) that the Siegels’ copyrighted material gives them a financial interest in DC’s trademarks, the Superman marks are so well established as a source indicator for DC that the likelihood of a judge awarding them wholesale to the Siegels is nil. Trademark rights are also the primary reason why the public domain does not mean doomsday from DC’s perspective–its lawyers will most likely argue that any attempt to exploit the public domain Superman material infringes or dilutes its trademarks. As noted earlier, it’s a strategy that has worked quite well for others–e.g., the owners of the Peter Rabbit, Edgar Rice Burroughs and Disney marks–as a means to squelching attempts to exploit material otherwise in the public domain.
The 2018 myth: DC will not be losing its trademark rights in 2018. From what I can see, that particular comics urban legend arose from a misreading of the requirement that a trademark holder must certify that the mark remains in active use. During the mark’s initial term–a period long over for most if not all Superman marks–that filing must be made after the first five years. From this, it appears, some have concluded that if the Siegel and Shuster heirs refuse to license any Superman material for five years from 2013, the trademarks will lapse to the heirs.
This is incorrect. As noted above, the amount of new material makes it likely that DC has an ownership interest in the present Superman, which means they could continue to publish new Superman material without a license. Moreover, even if a court were to declare that DC isn’t at least a co-owner of the character, DC has a clear legal right–which the Siegels themselves concede–to sell any derivative material prepared before April 16, 1999 without paying the Siegels a dime. DC will likewise have a right to sell material created from April 16, 1999 to 2013, albeit owing the Siegels a percentage of the profits. This means, in the absolute worst case scenario, that DC can keep the trademarks alive simply by marketing inventory until the Siegel and Shuster interests expire in 2033.
Success on appeal: Because the legal technicalities are so arcane, I’ve held off on discussing what I believe to be the Achilles’ heel of the Siegel Superman opinion: the discussion of the technicalities of the termination filings. A commenter yesterday pointed to some key issues that DC is likely to raise on appeal; because this isn’t a law journal I’ll hold off on saying more about the procedural problems here, except to call attention to the celebrated passage concerning the house ads. It is, as I’ve said myself, a clever example of how legal thinking can slice and dice to get to an equitable result, but it’s also a line of reasoning that a higher court could easily dismantle. To get an idea how, compare the court’s narrow and literal interpretations in that section to the broader approach to derivative works implicit elsewhere–such as Superboy, which we’ll examine next.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Apr 17, 2008 20:20:58 GMT -5
Superman and Superboy Wednesday April 16, 2008, 10:07 am
The Superman case is not the only legal action the Siegels have undertaken against DC. They are also suing for the rights to Superboy, relying on the same termination rights statute that led to their regaining the Superman material in Action Comics #1.
The Superboy case provides a potent illustration of how fragile a court victory can be. Two years ago, a court held that Superboy belonged to the Siegels. However, the case was subsequently reassigned to Judge Stephen G. Larson, the same judge who issued the recent Superman decision. In a controversial ruling last July, Judge Larson granted DC’s motion to reconsider the earlier decision, which meant that the previous decision to grant Superboy to the Siegels was no longer valid.
If the Siegels and DC do not settle, the Superboy trial is scheduled to take place after the Superman trial concludes. In this post, we’ll examine several key issues raised by the Superboy case — and how the Siegels’ regained rights in Superman could turn it upside down.
Work made for hire: In 1937 and again in September, 1938, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster signed employment agreements that also gave DC the right of first refusal in any new material developed outside the scope of their employment. In November 1938, Siegel proposed a Superboy series to Detective Comics. The company declined. Siegel tried again in 1940, this time submitting a “lengthy script,” but once his offer was refused. (4)
In his Superboy opinion, Judge Larson ruled that because Siegel created this material in conjunction with the right of first refusal provision in his previous contract, Siegel’s Superboy material was not work made for hire. This means, at least theoretically, that the Siegels might be able to exercise termination rights. (53)
The idea/expression dichotomy: After Siegel entered the Army in 1943, Detective Comics paid Shuster for drawing a Superboy story in More Fun Comics #101. The fact that Siegel proposed a Superboy character earlier, however, does not automatically mean that he has a copyright interest in this material. As Judge Larson observed, copyright does not apply to the idea of a work; it applies only to a concrete expression. Based on the information he had at hand, Judge Larson was unable to determine “[w]hether any of the copyrightable material in Siegel’s Superboy submissions was in fact later published.” (65)
Joint work: The Siegels argued that Superboy was entirely the creation of Jerry Siegel. However, the judge raised serious questions as to whether this was the case. (53-65) Even if we assume that the DC’s Superboy contained Siegel’s copyrighted material, there was substantial evidence that Superboy was a joint work created with Shuster, with Shuster drawing the Superboy pages either as Siegel’s co-creator or as an employee of Detective Comics. Either way, the most the Siegels could get would be a 50% co-ownership interest in the character.
Derivative work: All of the above could be irrelevant, however, if the judge ultimately concludes that Superboy is completely derivative of Superman, with no original copyrightable elements attributable to Siegel. According to DC, Superboy is wholly based on pre-existing elements; there is nothing distinct except the trivial difference in age. The Siegels counter that Superboy, while partially derivative of Superman, nonetheless has distinctly original elements sufficient for copyright protection. (66-72)
Back when Judge Larson issued his opinion, finding Superboy to be a trivial variation on Superman would have killed the Siegels’ claim. Because Superman was wholly owned by DC at the time, the company would have owned all of Superboy as well.
What next: The Superman ruling changes the game. If Superboy is wholly derivative of Superman, he is arguably co-owned by the Siegels, since they regained half the copyright interest in the Superman material in Action Comics #1. Thus DC’s previous arguments in the Superboy case may actually work against the company’s own interest. Whereas before the Superman ruling it benefited DC to claim that Superboy is completely derived from Superman, now DC’s own arguments provide a basis for finding that the Siegels by extension own half of Superboy.
Nonetheless, the Superman opinion also flips the Siegels’ arguments in the Superboy case. If the judge were to agree that Superboy is substantially distinct from Superman, applying the Siegels’ own arguments to recent Superman material could significantly lower their percentage of the profits. DC could argue that just as the Siegels contend Superboy is distinct from Superman, most if not all of the current Superman is new — after all, the character in Action #1 did not fly in space, live in alternate universes or turn electric blue.
Likewise recent Superboys: Action Comics #1 does not contain a youthful clone, nor does it envision a non-costumed teen who hangs around with Luthor and the nascent Justice League. Even if such characters are partially derived from Siegel’s work, the Siegels’ own arguments would seem to bolster the claim that a substantial portion of recent Superboy material is original to — and owned by — DC.
|
|
|
Post by Batlaw on Apr 17, 2008 20:40:05 GMT -5
I thought the new Judge decided the Superboy and Superman cases were going to be "merged" and tried concurrently?
Ive found this entire case wildly fascinating... and much of it incredibly confusing.
|
|
robinzuko
Legions Of Gothamite
ZUKO
Posts: 49
|
Post by robinzuko on Apr 22, 2008 17:00:03 GMT -5
DC COMICS should keep him.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Apr 24, 2008 12:27:49 GMT -5
How Siegel and Shuster created our world Thursday April 24, 2008, 8:26 am
In what Heidi MacDonald aptly described as “shaman’s magic,” several weeks ago Grant Morrison portrayed the young Siegel and Shuster changing the world in a comic released on the very same day that a federal judge issued his historic ruling in the Superman case.
As longtime DC comics readers may recall, this was not the first time that Siegel and Shuster had the power to remake reality with their words. For example, in Action Comics #447, a storyteller named Joseph Jerome can fashion reality, including Superman, with the power of his imagination. Likewise, Action #554 relates how two boys save the world by creating Superman through the force of their belief. Yet as we have already seen in this series, not all depictions of their imaginative power are so sanguine. The Siegel-and-Shuster Superman in Adventures of Superman #612 is depicted as a relic of a long-forgotten past; while the power of imagination may bring him to life, the realities of life today might also make him obsolete.
This tension between past and present is equally evident in the Siegel case. On the one hand, for many within the comics community the ruling was a symbolic victory in the struggle for creators’ rights, vindicating not just Siegel and Shuster, but legions of comic book artists and writers whose genius was exploited by corporate greed.
Yet much to the surprise of longtime industry watchers, the judgment also provoked a strong negative response. Some critics focused on the fact that the winner was not Siegel himself but his heirs, who were said to have gained an unearned windfall. Other observers went a step further, questioning the wisdom of a law that voids otherwise valid contracts, and accusing the Siegels themselves of exploiting Superman for their own financial gain.
As you may have noticed if you’ve been reading comment threads, the debate can get rather intense. In this, our last post of the series, we’ll examine how the creative vision of Siegel and Shuster helped give rise to both sides.
The past, they say, is a different country, and when Siegel and Shuster sold Superman, they were living in a far different time. Pop-culture creatives weren’t widely known for closing multimillion-dollar deals on media properties. Unless you were lucky enough to know a bit about law or publishing, your best bet to make a decent living was to do whatever it took to get your foot in the door. The following are just a few of the most telling examples of how the world of the 1930s was unlike our own:
Costs of production: To understand the media environment, I recommend watching Citizen Kane, a film in which the pinnacle of wealth and power was owning a newspaper. Today it seems a bit ridiculous — newspapers aren’t exactly known for being profit points, let alone the authoritative arbiters of public opinion. Yet back in the 1930s, access to the printing press and other means of mass communication was, for most people, prohibitively expensive. If you wanted to distribute a comic, make a movie or produce an audio broadcast, you had to be rich or well-connected, a situation highly favorable to corporate enterprise.
The Depression: Until recently, we have been living in a time of sustained economic growth, one of the longest such periods in our nation’s history. Seventy years ago, however, money was tight and jobs were scarce to a degree that seems unfathomable today.
Marketable lifespan: Comics, like other serial publications, were generally seen as ephemeral. If you were lucky you might create a franchise character, but your money would most likely come from generating new stories, not in reselling old material.
The meaning of literacy: The early 20th century was a time of sharp cultural divisions between text and image as well as high and low art. In popular communication, text was valued far more than pictures, which were considered to be subliterate — while pulps were just bad writing, movies and comics were, by their very nature, trash.
Division of labor: The creator did not merely work for himself. I use the masculine pronoun deliberately, because back then the general assumption was that men made money while women managed the home. Accordingly, a creator had a responsibility to earn enough to support his wife and children both while he was alive and after he had passed away.
Given these cultural factors, Siegel and Shuster’s decision to sell all rights to Superman in exchange for their page rate made a certain degree of sense. Joe and Jerry understood that they weren’t just getting paid for 13 pages; they were getting the opportunity to create a shop inside Detective Comics that would produce Superman material for as long as it continued to sell.
However, just as Superman defied the laws of nature, their character also broke all the rules of comics publishing. He didn’t just star in a single comic book — he became a multimedia franchise. He leapt from Action to toys to radio to film and TV; he spawned spinoff comics and reprints; he was knocked off by other companies. Indeed, we would not be exaggerating to say that Superman sparked the rise of an entire industry.
Siegel and Shuster shared relatively little of the profit, and they were far from alone. Music, movies, books — new technologies of mass production were generating profits from copyrighted material far beyond what anyone expected, with properties capable of staying on the market even longer than the lives of their creators — and in the case of Siegel and Shuster, their jobs.
In the 1950s, Congress began a series of inquiries that lasted literally for decades, and in 1976, lawmakers ultimately agreed to extend the term of copyright. However, that raised the question of who should benefit from the extension. The easiest choice would have been to leave it in the hands of the current copyright owner, but in many instances that would benefit wealthy commercial publishers. To give rich corporations this windfall seemed unfair, if not undemocratic; depriving creators’ families of support made it seem downright immoral.
Termination rights offered a solution to this dilemma. From the perspective of the time, enabling creators and their heirs to regain copyright was a way to affirm the American dream. Just as the early Superman fought for the weak against the strong, the new copyright law — at least in theory — privileged the creative individual and his family over-entrenched corporate wealth.
But something else was happening, unrecognized by Congress and many so-called experts of the day. Siegel and Shuster did not merely create a successful character with a long commercial lifespan; their work expressed a radically new environment for mass communication.
The redefinition of literacy: As Scott McCloud has observed, comics are not a genre — they’re a medium whose fusion of word and picture has become the new normal. By making the archetype of iconic communication an individual unbound by physical laws, Siegel and Shuster unlocked the infinite potential within graphic media.
The democratization of creativity: The industry spawned by two teens from Cleveland sent an unmistakable message to any kid who read comic books: This was their own language, and they could speak it, too. Jules Feiffer poignantly portrayed this in his 1965 classic, The Great Comic Book Heroes, where he described how the first superheroes inspired him to create and to sell his own hand-drawn comic books. And boys weren’t the only ones affected in this way — check out the pen-pal pages and reader-submitted designs and you’ll find literally hundreds of girls joining in the mix. Even if publishers dominated the commercial landscape, generations of kids grew up with the sense that they were creators too.
The balance of power: As creators became more aware of their value, market conditions subtly began to shift. Part of this was a reflection of comic fans entering the industry themselves, not just as artists and writers but as corporate executives. More generally, the comics community became far more sophisticated in its understanding of how the industry worked, from the impact of consumer response on their favorite books to the importance of intellectual property and contract law, especially in regard to royalties and the retention of key rights.
The cost of creating: Perhaps the most significant change since the 1930s has been the dramatic reduction in the cost of producing and distributing iconic mass media. This is in itself a natural outgrowth of the industry’s growth, as the success of any medium tends to spur increases in efficiency.
In regard to iconic communication, the past twenty years have seen a revolution that places the reach of Depression-era Detective Comics in the hands of anyone with access to a web page and basic design software. As a result, teens who create The Next Big Thing feel that they do not have to sell out for a measly hundred thirty bucks. Instead they can self-publish until they can extract fair market value from a business with the resources to take their creation to scale.
Once again, Siegel and Shuster were far ahead of the rest of society in grasping the nature of the changes underway. Their persistent legal challenges may have relied on then-current law, but the deeper driving impetus was their conviction that the creative landscape had changed — writers and artists were as much a force in the success of a commercial property as the corporations that could afford to bring the product to market. The subsequent struggle for creators’ rights may have lasted several decades and claimed any number of unsung casualties, but it ultimately led to the standardization of contract provisions previously unobtainable by most comics writers and artists.
At the same time, the revolution that Siegel and Shuster helped inspire has also given rise to conditions hostile to the very actions designed to correct the imbalances of a previous age. For example, when creators had little to no leverage in dealing with publishers, allowing a creator or his heirs to regain copyright seemed like a fair response. Now, to some in the rising generation, termination rights seem like an arbitrary nullification of the legal framework that otherwise enables them to profit from their work. When the baseline contractual terms are seen as good enough, stability becomes the prime value — if the Siegels negotiated a pension in the 1970s, going back to the well would seem to undermine the potential for other creators to gain a favorable contract. After all, if a corporation senses that the creator may renege in 35 years, it may not be willing to concede as much up-front.
Thinking about the cultural changes makes it possible to see the logic behind other negative reactions, even if one doesn’t necessarily embrace them. At a time when creators are regularly negotiating for royalty payments and creator-owned work, the notion of an unconscionable imbalance of power can seem incoherent — it simply doesn’t mesh with what some people see. Similarly, providing for one’s heirs can seem less of an imperative to a generation where every member of the family has the potential, if not the responsibility to become financially self-sustaining.
We can extend this same line of reasoning to fans whose work has never appeared within the pages of a comic book. In a world where everyone is aware of the consumer’s role in shaping corporate action, the very act of buying a comic or posting on a message board can seem like a form of co-creation. Yes, the response that this engenders can seem self-centered, but that sense of co-ownership is a luxury that we enjoy to a significant degree because of what Siegel and Shuster imagined seventy years ago. Before them the comics were something other people made for us to read. Now we are all superheroes, as their creations inspire our dreams.
What happens next in the Siegel litigation is anybody’s guess. Throughout this series I’ve tried to explain the factors that militate in favor of settlement as well as reasons why settlement talks may collapse. I’ve also sought to outline the potential strengths and weaknesses of each side should the Superman and Superboy cases go to trial, along with what might happen if the Siegel and Shuster estates prevail on all their claims.
Nonetheless, while the outcome of the lawsuits is up to the respective parties and the courts, one thing is certain: We are all beneficiaries of the abundant legacy left by Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster and other comics pioneers. They gave us the gift of their boundless imagination, and we have all gained from their work. Whatever tribute we may pay them, it will never reflect all that they deserve.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Aug 10, 2008 21:25:04 GMT -5
www.newsarama.com/comics/080808-EarlySupermangay.htmlHidden History: Lois' 'Abortion' and Superman too Gay? By Jeff Trexler posted: 2008-08-08 10:55:00 Documents released during the ongoing case between the families of Superman's creators and DC Comics reveal a little-seen history where Lois was too sexy and the Man of Steel maybe a little too gay. The documents in question: correspondence between Detective Comics (now DC Comics) and Jerry Siegel from 1939 through 1947, entered into evidence as part of DC’s attempt to establish that all the work done by Siegel & Shuster during that time was work for hire. The case still has a while to percolate — the judge has postponed the hearing on unresolved trademark/copyright issues until September 15 — but the material itself is a gold mine for folks interested in comics history. As the papers reveal, early in the history of Superman, co-creator and artist Joe Shuster was warned to tone down his depiction of Lois Lane by his editor Whitney Ellsworth, and make her less sexy. It was a warning that the artist chose to ignore for months, apparently, causing Ellsworth made an argument that seems shocking even almost seventy years later. Shuster’s Lois was so “unpleasantly sexy” that her pulchritude made her seem a bit too heavy–a problem for which Ellsworth and Murray Boltinoff had an easy solution: [W]hy it is necessary to shade Lois’ breasts and the underside of her tummy with vertical pen-lines we can’t understand. She looks pregnant. Murray suggests that you arrange for her to have an abortion or the baby and get it over with so that her figure can return to something a little more like the tasty dish she is supposed to be. And the criticism didn’t stop there; editorial also had problems with her hair style and her clothing, ...which looked like you have apparently dressed her out of a Montgomery Ward catalogue. [Jack Liebowitz] suggests Vogue, Vanity Fair and Harper’s Bazaar as likelier spots for dress-research. The depiction of women in comics has received its fair share of criticism in recent years, most notably in Gail Simone’s Women in Refrigerators and Valerie D’Orazio’s Occasional Superheroine. Comics have likewise sparked some controversy in regard to images of heroic homosexuality. But as the documents illustrate, these issues have a long history. Even apart from the gender issues there’s a lot of amazing stuff in the papers — the recurring savage criticism of Joe Shuster’s art; an early critique of Wayne Boring as an artist unsuitable for Superman (who later went on to become “the” Superman artist of the era); the hiring of Winsor McCay, Jr., as Superman ghost-artist-in-training; the insinuation that Superman was not significantly more popular than Zatara, Pep Morgan and Tex Thomson (now all D-list heroes at best); and the prohibition on depictions of a flying Superman are just a few of the historical moments in the mix. Of course, it’s the sex stuff that really stands out, providing a rare insiders’ perspective on the comics writing culture of the past. One of the true highlights of the newly released correspondence is the black-and-white sketch of Lois Lane included above. The artist was Siegel’s and Shuster’s editor, Ellsworth, who was attempting to get the duo to make Lois Lane less curvaceous. Although comics censorship tends to be associated with Dr. Frederick Wertham’s Seduction of the Innocent in the 1950s, in actuality the complaints arose almost as soon as superheroes made comics a ubiquitous pop phenomenon. In a letter dated February 19, 1941, Ellsworth makes clear that this was foremost on his mind when he says to Siegel, “You know as well as I do what sort of censure we are always up against, and how careful we must be.” Which made a curvy Lois a bit of a problem. When drawn in an especially tantalizing way she posed a risk of drawing the attention of the moral watchdogs, a risk that Ellsworth tried to forestall in 1940 by ordering the duo to “de-sex” her. A look at the DC Archives Superman editions shows that these admonitions had their intended effect. The first two color images above are from Superman #7, complete with breast shading and vertical lines in her, um, lower tummy. In contrast, a few months later, she appeared with a much slimmer waist and bust-reducing lapels (see above). The criticism did not stop with Lois, however. Another alleged problem with Shuster’s artwork is that it made Superman look gay — or in the period slang of Ellsworth’s January 22, 1940, letter, “lah-de-dah” with a “nice fat bottom.” What’s worse, the pose in the second panel also reminded Ellsworth of “certain FLIT ads done by a cartoonist who signs himself ‘Dr. Seuss.’” For a cultural historian, documents like these are a treasure trove, providing insight into attitudes toward women, standards of beauty, images of masculinity, censorship and the interplay between comics and other illustrated media. For Siegel and Shuster, such critiques were serious business. If you want to understand why they took the risk of suing DC in 1947 to regain the rights to Superman, read these letters — time and again the company warns them that their work borders on the “unacceptable” — “the situation is serious enough to warrant your doing some real worrying,” as DC might “make other arrangements to have [the work] done.” Since DC seemed to be building a case to get rid of them, a lawsuit — no matter how risky — seemed to have better odds than the prospect of winning over the publisher.
|
|
|
Post by BruceBatman on Aug 21, 2008 21:07:50 GMT -5
I don't really care for Superman all too much! The only reason I somewhat am worried about this is because of Superman/Batman, Trinity, JLA, and other Superman things that have Batman in them!
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jul 9, 2009 12:46:13 GMT -5
Court: Siegels Get no Superman Movie/TV Money www.newsarama.com/comics/070909-Siegel-Superman.htmlThese parts are interesting though: "This trial was only an interim step in the multifaceted accounting case which remains, in that it only concerned the secondary issue of whether DC Comics, or DC Comics and Warner Bros., would have to account to the Siegels. To put this in further perspective, the entire accounting action pales in comparison to the fact that in 2013, the Siegels, along with the estate of Joe Shuster, will own the entire original copyright to Superman, and neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros. will be able to exploit any new Superman works without a license from the Siegels and Shusters."
"The Court pointedly ruled that if Warner Bros. does not start production on another Superman film by 2011, the Siegels will be able to sue to recover their damages," Toberoff added. "The Siegels look forward to the remainder of the case, which will determine how much defendants owe them for their exploitations of Superman."
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Jul 9, 2009 14:26:21 GMT -5
i guess this is why DC brought back Superboy. why not use all of the characters it can as they only a few more years left with them. this is crazy.
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Jul 9, 2009 15:49:04 GMT -5
DC and WB will pay out to use Supes. They'll just have to license him now
|
|
|
Post by Jack the Skull on Jul 9, 2009 16:07:04 GMT -5
[shadow=red,left,300]Quick question. This is a huge push for a new movie, how do you guys think this will affect Superman's future in films?[/shadow]
|
|