DC wins another battle in the neverending Superman lawsuit
By
Coin,
Posted on: 2012-10-18 06:57 in Comic and Hero-Villain Culture
One word...
Good.
Quote:
Another word: BAD
|
Originally Posted by Dark One
One word...
Good. |
Yet another word: fulsome
MA Arcs: Yarmouth 1509 and 58812
Quote:
Sorry, but I disagree.|
Originally Posted by Nericus
Another word: BAD
|
This isn't Shuster, this isn't his children. It's his sister and her kid (iirc) who already got a deal that she agreed to as being the last deal. So long as DC upheld whatever terms were in that deal, then that should be the last of it.
Got to admit, I don't completely understand the legal ins and outs of this stuff, but it makes no sense to me that the sister and brother of the original Superman creators have any claim to it!?!
If my father had created something like this, I wouldn't make any claims to it, I never made it. If my father had made a contract that stated that I got money off it for a certain amount of time, after his death, then fair enough, but it still would seem crazy.
The people who made Superman died years ago. DC Comics have been making Superman comics for 74 years now. From what I understand, the character was sold to DC Comics back in 1937, so how do his brother and sister get to claim money on it??
We built this city on Rock and Roll!
My take on this: it sucks how Siegel and Shuster were treated by the industry during their lifetimes. A lot of creators got shafted even worse back in the day (Bill Finger still doesn't get any credit for co-creating Batman, after all). But at the same time, I like Superman belonging in the DC Universe, and the constant legal battles just leave a bad taste in my mouth. It feels too much like family moneygrubbing and entitlement long after the fact.
Superman really was an amazing lightning in a bottle creation that hit at just the right time. Do I wish his creators had been given a chance to share in the bounty of what they spawned, at least a little? Sure. But that was the reality of the industry at the time. There was no precedent for this sort of thing before Superman came on the scene.
There is an art, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. --The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Oh I couldn't agree more that that Siegel and Shuster were treated badly at the time, but that's as much an indictment of the times they lived in as anything else, things have progressed now so these sort of things don't happen as much (I'll ignore what's happening with Apple 
)
But I still think the sister and nephew have no claims to any of it, especially after nearly 80 years!
We built this city on Rock and Roll!
Quote:
My take is that Superman's creators started the whole legal attack process while they were still alive and the family is continuing the fight. Also aren't the trademark laws indicating that Superman's ownership by DC is due to expire and revert soon, which I think is at the core of the this fight. Does DC truly own Superman or do the estates still have a claim? |
Originally Posted by Hazmatter
My take on this: it sucks how Siegel and Shuster were treated by the industry during their lifetimes. A lot of creators got shafted even worse back in the day (Bill Finger still doesn't get any credit for co-creating Batman, after all). But at the same time, I like Superman belonging in the DC Universe, and the constant legal battles just leave a bad taste in my mouth. It feels too much like family moneygrubbing and entitlement long after the fact.
. |
Still you are correct, many creators then and now have gotten the shaft to put it nicely.
Bill Finger
Jack Kirby: I was bummed when I read that Marvel won the case as I tend to root for the underdog and would like to see legends such as Jack and their estates get their rightful credit and coin. Also every Marvel movie that has characters that Jack helped create should have either a portrait of Jack on a wall or a statue of Jack in the movie, IMO.
Jim Starlin: he was listed in the Avengers movie credits which was good, but THANOS showing up in the movie seems to have irritated him and he is filing claims with Marvel that he made THANOS before he started with Marvel and thus is entitled to a slice of the money pie. I am not sure of the status of his claims against Marvel about this.
The creator of the GHOST RIDER (Johnny Blaze version, not the old cowboy one from 50's and 60's) is currently appealing a losing verdict as I recall.
As to Superman staying at DC, I think he would even if the rights reverted back to the creator's estates. Sure there may be some sour grapes and bad feelings between the two parties as one would expect, but I suspect that DC would be very eager to keep Superman given that he is one of their big 3 characters and that losing him would mean a rather monumental shakeup to the DC Universe. They would need another Crisis/Zero Hour type event to erase Superman and all things connected to him from their universe:
1. Superman
2. Kal-el
3. Krypton/Kryptonite
4. Jor-el, Lara, Zod and any other Krytponians
5. Supergirl and Superboy
6. Krypto
7. Daily Planet and all its characters
8. LUTHOR
9. The "S" shield
10. Fortress of Solitude
11. The monster DOOMSDAY
and who knows what else I'm forgetting. Picture all that going away if the creator estates win and decide to not strike a bargain with DC, that would really shake up DC and probably the industry as a whole. Then would come the question: who would get Superman? IDW, Dynamite, Marvel, Dark Horse?
SHAZAM/Captain Marvel would have to replace Superman if DC lost him.
An evil corporation fighting with leeching money grubbing jackals for a piece of the Superman pie while litigating vampires circle overhead sucking profit from both parties.
I hope they all go bankrupt.
Quote:
If DC should lose they would keep most of the above. They would lose only what it was in Action comics n.1 and even the S shield was modified from what it was in AC 1 .The Superman of today is a totally different character from what he was in the golden age and Siegel and Shuster have nothing to do with it. Basically what DC should have to change would be the first name of Supie girl friend : she could not be called Lois but she could have the last name Lane.|
Originally Posted by Nericus
As to Superman staying at DC, I think he would even if the rights reverted back to the creator's estates. Sure there may be some sour grapes and bad feelings between the two parties as one would expect, but I suspect that DC would be very eager to keep Superman given that he is one of their big 3 characters and that losing him would mean a rather monumental shakeup to the DC Universe. They would need another Crisis/Zero Hour type event to erase Superman and all things connected to him from their universe: 1. Superman 2. Kal-el 3. Krypton/Kryptonite 4. Jor-el, Lara, Zod and any other Krytponians 5. Supergirl and Superboy 6. Krypto 7. Daily Planet and all its characters 8. LUTHOR 9. The "S" shield 10. Fortress of Solitude 11. The monster DOOMSDAY and who knows what else I'm forgetting. Picture all that going away if the creator estates win and decide to not strike a bargain with DC, that would really shake up DC and probably the industry as a whole. Then would come the question: who would get Superman? IDW, Dynamite, Marvel, Dark Horse? SHAZAM/Captain Marvel would have to replace Superman if DC lost him. |
By the way the original name of the member of the Superman and his father were Jor-l and Kal-l (the e was added later)
Quote:
So... you think that DC should be allowed to continue to profit from screwing over Siegel and Shuster?|
Originally Posted by Coin
Oh I couldn't agree more that that Siegel and Shuster were treated badly at the time, but that's as much an indictment of the times they lived in as anything else, things have progressed now so these sort of things don't happen as much (I'll ignore what's happening with Apple
)But I still think the sister and nephew have no claims to any of it, especially after nearly 80 years! |
I don't have a legal answer for this, short of a Solomonic "Superman is now public domain" decision, but it's certainly not just to have a company steal intellectual property from its creators and continue to profit from it 80 years later, and leave the creator's estate with nothing.
Comrade Smersh, KGB Special Section 8 50 Inv/Fire, Fire/Rad, BS/WP, SD/SS, AR/EM
Other 50s: Plant/Thorn, Bots/Traps, DB/SR, MA/Regen, Rad/Dark - All on Virtue.
-Don't just rebel, build a better world, comrade!
Quote:
The creator's estate has had two separate deals providing essentially free money every year since 1975. That's not exactly "nothing". Plus, these people are trying to go back on a deal that very specifically said was the end of it.|
Originally Posted by Smersh
So... you think that DC should be allowed to continue to profit from screwing over Siegel and Shuster?
I don't have a legal answer for this, short of a Solomonic "Superman is now public domain" decision, but it's certainly not just to have a company steal intellectual property from its creators and continue to profit from it 80 years later, and leave the creator's estate with nothing. |
Siegel and Shuster had a good idea. They got screwed over true. But DC has been promoting, making, and adding on to that character for so long that it isn't even really the same character. Why should people who have done nothing for the character get to take away an American icon, against an agreement that they were done seeking to do same?
For the actual creators, I have some sympathy. Some. For these people? Not one ******* iota.
Quote:
So... it's okay to steal something, as long as you market it and make good on it.
|
Originally Posted by Dark One
The creator's estate has had two separate deals providing essentially free money every year since 1975. That's not exactly "nothing". Plus, these people are trying to go back on a deal that very specifically said was the end of it.
Siegel and Shuster had a good idea. They got screwed over true. But DC has been promoting, making, and adding on to that character for so long that it isn't even really the same character. Why should people who have done nothing for the character get to take away an American icon, against an agreement that they were done seeking to do same? For the actual creators, I have some sympathy. Some. For these people? Not one ******* iota. |
Comrade Smersh, KGB Special Section 8 50 Inv/Fire, Fire/Rad, BS/WP, SD/SS, AR/EM
Other 50s: Plant/Thorn, Bots/Traps, DB/SR, MA/Regen, Rad/Dark - All on Virtue.
-Don't just rebel, build a better world, comrade!
Quote:
If they "make good" on it then it's not exactly stealing, now is it?|
Originally Posted by Smersh
So... it's okay to steal something, as long as you market it and make good on it.
|
DC has been paying out to the Shuster family for half the time that Superman has been in existence. Good money too for essentially doing nothing.
I'm sorry, but no matter how it was done, Siegel and Shuster sold Superman to DC Comics. They made that decision years ago. It might have been a bad one, they might have been screwed over for it, but how does that give the sister and nephew, who had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH MAKING SUPERMAN have any rights to it at all?
Especially when they willingly signed it all away for a yearly payout for doing sod all.
As said, DC have been writing and making Superman for all these years. I think they are more deserving of owning Superman that the sister and nephew are.
We built this city on Rock and Roll!
Especially since "Superman" as we picture him today is nothing like the character Siegel and Shuster created. Back then, he was no Boy Scout, no paragon of virtue for the whole world to look up to. He was a two-fisted take-no-crap vigilante, as much of an urban legend as Batman. He didn't care about legal procedures and would even take down the cops if they interfered with what he considered justice.
(And, yes, I was aware of that long before the recent Cracked article showcasing some of Superman's earliest adventures, but that article is a beautiful illustration of all the lines Superman was willing to cross for "justice")
Quote:
Perfect examples of early-ish Superman. Link possibly NSFW.
|
Originally Posted by Thunder Knight
(And, yes, I was aware of that long before the recent Cracked article showcasing some of Superman's earliest adventures, but that article is a beautiful illustration of all the lines Superman was willing to cross for "justice")
|
Quote:
No, that's entirely different. Superdickery is Silver Age (and sometimes Bronze Age) Superman, decades after Siegel and Shuster sold the character to DC.|
Originally Posted by Dark One
Perfect examples of early-ish Superman. Link possibly NSFW.
|
About 90% of what's on Superdickery is just covers taken out of context. Silver Age comics frequently involved Superman seeming to be a jerk on the cover, only for the actual story to show that it was actually Superman pulling a trick on someone (or, in some cases, the cover flat-out lies and the scene in question never happens in the story at all). While he did do things that were somewhat illogical or insensitive, it was never to the extremes shown on the cover. By the time the Silver Age arrived, Superman being evil (or even just mean) was supposed to be a surprise to the reader, so they used those "Evil Superman" covers to sell the comics.
The Golden Age Superman was completely different. For him, being a jerk who flaunted his power and ignored the law was right there in the stories themselves, not on a fake-out cover, and it was not only genuine, the reader was meant to root for Superman because he was acting this way. Superman destroying (and not rebuilding) entire neighborhoods full of innocent people, or blowing up cars because their owners got speeding tickets, or ruining people's lives by impersonating them and then getting them fired isn't supposed to be a surprise, it's par for the course for Golden Age Superman.
And it's that Superman, the two-fisted vigilante who acted as if he was above the law (and was loved for it), that Siegel and Shuster created.
Quote:
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources...copyright-faq/ here is the details of why there are problems. When the creators sold.They did because their copyrights were ending. The laws happened to change and give 19 more years to them ... read for yourself from goodcomics site
|
Originally Posted by Coin
I'm sorry, but no matter how it was done, Siegel and Shuster sold Superman to DC Comics. They made that decision years ago. It might have been a bad one, they might have been screwed over for it, but how does that give the sister and nephew, who had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH MAKING SUPERMAN have any rights to it at all?
Especially when they willingly signed it all away for a yearly payout for doing sod all. As said, DC have been writing and making Superman for all these years. I think they are more deserving of owning Superman that the sister and nephew are. |
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com...-legal-battle/
The fight continues, but the odds just tilted considerably back into DC's favor with this verdict.
Appeal pending of course.
Truly this lawsuit can be described as "The never ending battle....."
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.