Captain Craig wrote:
I'm so sick of this bullshit.
Those damn heirs have been paid 2-3 times now for different things. I mean my god how many different ways can a judge look at this before even the courts say ENOUGH.
I get it, the creators got what we see as pennies now but at the time it was very fair and standard practice. Warners paid them in the what, 60s and then 70's, with some very real money(again for the time).
I see no reason these heirs deserve any more money. PERIOD.
Whether they were sufficiently paid in the 1930s is completely irrelevant to this case. Even if they'd been given millions, they would still have a right to the copyright under legislation passed in the 1990s.
When Superman was created, the copyright was good for 56 years. Congress has extended that twice, in the 1970s and the 1990s, and in both cases they provided that in instances where the copyright was sold, it would revert back to its original owners, since the people who bought it had only paid for the right to own it for 56 years. Thus allowing the originators to be paid for the extended span of whatever it was they created.
DC/Warners got their 56 years, and since 1994 they've continued to hold the copyright under the extension. If it hadn't been extended, it would be public domain, so DC/Warners doesn't have a leg to stand on. The copyright, by act of Congress, reverts to the Siegels (and, after 2013, to the Schuesters as well).
Hound of UIster wrote:
What National did was peanuts compared to the fraud that Stan Lee pulled on Kirby and Ditko, conning them out of possibly millions or billions worth of art and intellectual property and actual creators credit.
Jack Kirby is current dead, Ditko is so poor that has been reduced to using the original pages of his comics to line his windows and Stan Lee is living the high life. But since Stan is "the Man", nobody is going to speak out for Kirby and Ditko.
Lee wasn't Marvel's publisher, that was Martin Goodman. And Lee doesn't own any of those characters anymore than Kirby or Ditko do; he just has a better contract.
Moreover, Ditko, Objectivist that he is, doesn't believe he is due ownership of anything.