Warner Bros using stolen files in war with Superman heirs...
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Eh, I don't really see any good guys here. Do I feel sorry for a megacorporation losing some dough? No, but why should the descendants of Siegel and Shuster get anything? They didn't create Superman. And, thanks to their dads, no one can "create" Superman any more, because no one will ever forget the old one. And does anyone seriously think that these descendants wouldn't ask the Supreme Court to extend their precious trademarks indefinitely in a few years' time? Unless they promise to honor and defend the current public domain laws, they can bugger off for all I care.
So it's a megacorporation versus a smaller (but wanting-to-be-bigger) corporation. Screw 'em both. To the extent that Warners employs far more people than these gasbags ever will, let Warner take it all.
So it's a megacorporation versus a smaller (but wanting-to-be-bigger) corporation. Screw 'em both. To the extent that Warners employs far more people than these gasbags ever will, let Warner take it all.
Superman belongs to all of us now.
Siegel and Shuster's heirs are owed something, to be sure.
But the best solution would be to provide an artistic and financial incentive to continue creating and re-inventing Superman stories ad infinitum.
That's a legacy that few artists/creators could ever hope to achieve, and it's worth far more than money.
And the inspirational and ethical value that Superman engenders in generation after generation should be nurtured and promoted, not bogged down in legal red tape and licensing fees.
The true tragedy would be to see Superman "die", strangled by red tape and shackled by greed.
Siegel and Shuster's heirs are owed something, to be sure.
But the best solution would be to provide an artistic and financial incentive to continue creating and re-inventing Superman stories ad infinitum.
That's a legacy that few artists/creators could ever hope to achieve, and it's worth far more than money.
And the inspirational and ethical value that Superman engenders in generation after generation should be nurtured and promoted, not bogged down in legal red tape and licensing fees.
The true tragedy would be to see Superman "die", strangled by red tape and shackled by greed.
Yeah, that is partly why I can't get behind the Siegel's and Shuster's. They want to be compensated for works created by their fathers/grandfathers who made a bad business decision.
Then again, copyright law can be so needlessly confusing, who knows what loophole either side found to sue each other with.
However, in the end, all it amounts to is greed. I have a very hard time believing the heirs are doing this purely to see Supes's creators get their due.
\$/uperman!
I don't see Siegel and Shuster heirs being very smart about this. DC could retaliate and KILL Superman permanently which maybe a good thing because since they could promote some lesser known heroes. As for Warner, I don't see why they waste their time. They have BATMAN. They don't need Superman. If Green Lantern does well and maybe they get off their butts and reintroduce Wonder Woman, JLA can work without Superman.
So in the end DC and Warner bros. have all the power so why screw with them.
So in the end DC and Warner bros. have all the power so why screw with them.
Superman was published in 1938 and the copyright last 95 YEARS, so Superman doesn't become public domain until 2033.
The sentiment is a good one, but sentimental rather than practical. Warners is still not going to let me publish a Superman comic - someone actually does own Supes and that has to be decided.
Although they're strangely okay with Alanah Rae playing Supergirl.
Agreed again, and if Warners would just cut out all this shit and give it to them everything would be fine. They're being penny wise and pound foolish here. I've never seen an article or report on this that plays well as PR for the corporation, and the amounts of money they're being asked to cough up are not much for them.
Okay, I'm not an expert on this particular case, but I've always been bothered by the argument that an author's heirs aren't entitled to anything because they didn't actually create anything. Er, maybe the original author worked as hard as he or she did because they wanted to provide for their family and ensure that his children and grandchildren would be better off? Isn't that the American dream?
I mean, nobody complains when a plumber or grocer or restaurant owner passes on the family business to their kids, so why shouldn't that apply to writers and artists as well?
If I created a highly successful character or series, I would want my heirs to benefit from my labor after I was gone. That's why a big part of why people work--to leave behind a legacy for their families.
I mean, nobody complains when a plumber or grocer or restaurant owner passes on the family business to their kids, so why shouldn't that apply to writers and artists as well?
If I created a highly successful character or series, I would want my heirs to benefit from my labor after I was gone. That's why a big part of why people work--to leave behind a legacy for their families.
That's exactly right. They call these "intellectual property" rights because...well, this is property. It can be passed on as an inheritance in pretty much the same way that any other property is (with some exceptions) and that principle ought to be protected.
No, as things stand now there isn't. It looks like WB might minimize what they have to license by eliminating or ignoring some elements of Supes - parts of the backstory, losing Lois Lane, etc - but Superman himself is Superman.
Exactly, if somebody built a house, nobody would argue that his children didn't deserve to inherit it because they hadn't actually done any hammering themselves.
Same thing with a book or play or character. It's something somebody made--and they deserve to pass it on to their kids.
There's an addict's mentality that sometimes pops up in these arguments - not when folks are actually debating matters of fairness, but when they go off the rails into larcenous "creators/heirs shouldn't have rights" or "why should rich musicians get richer" kinds of statements - and broadly speaking it translates as "nothing matters except protecting my access to the drug."
When we give in entirely to kleptocracy.
The law does define a point at which copyright expires. That shouldn't be a problem.
But it's okay - when Superman and stuff like it becomes "part of the shared culture that everybody has a right to" then I start publishing Superman comics. Honestly, though, I imagine that Marvel's Superman will have better resources and distribution than mine...and Warners better hope that 20th Century Fox's Superman movie doesn't outperform theirs.
Point being that nowhere in this legal circus is any question of Superman being part of our "shared culture" being resolved or even discussed. It's all about which private entity owns what part of it and who has the rights to charge the rest of us for it.
You mean if they're forced to respect the rights of the property owners?
Not really, but there's always considerable danger in any precedent that's set in favor of folks with a lot of money being able to take peoples' property as they please.
Interest choice of example, and I don't think you can compare the two.
Superman was definitely created by specific people, whereas the Robin Hood legend has no specific identifiable creator.
^ Do we even have anything comparable in our day and age though? Especially when everything's carefully recorded in a way it wasn't before? Maybe "urban legend monsters" would count...
ETA: I should have waited a minute before responding to Dennis, obviously.
I guess the question of "when copyright expires since certain groups keep extending it" doesn't belong in this discussion, since it's about specific ownership and thus unrelated. Thanks for a sensible answer though.
ETA: I should have waited a minute before responding to Dennis, obviously.
I guess the question of "when copyright expires since certain groups keep extending it" doesn't belong in this discussion, since it's about specific ownership and thus unrelated. Thanks for a sensible answer though.