Warner Bros using stolen files in war with Superman heirs...

[Yminale]

Seems to me he was able to make a competing Bond film using the elements from his own work that was a direct competitor to UA's Bond franchise and that it took place in the 1980's.

That's easy to explain. UA which owned the rights to James Bond was going through financial difficulties (thanks to Heaven's Gate) at the time so they didn't have the resources to go after McClory. It would have been pointless anyway since "Never say never again" was a box office disappointment.

 

[Sindatur]

They can use metropolis as a description, not a proper name. This isn't anywhere near screwed up as you're trying to make it sound.

There are many places that have Metropolis or it's derivative Metropolitan as part of their proper names.

from Wikipedia.

• Metropolis (television), a fictional city in the fictional state of Evergreen in the show 21 Jump Street.
• Metropolis, Illinois, a city in Massac County, Illinois, United States
• Metropolis, Nevada, a ghost town in Elko County, Nevada, United States
• Metropolis (Anatolia), a classical city in western Turkey

Finally Fritz Lang or his heirs didn't sue SS.

None of those are connected to Superman

 

[Yminale]

Those exist for marketing purposes and you know it.

Doesn't matter, they are legally recognized. Finally if I have an agenda, it's that to show that copyright laws are BROKEN, contradictory and confusing. Literally you can have the same case and can get two different decisions from two different judges.

 

[BillJ]

Seems to me he was able to make a competing Bond film using the elements from his own work that was a direct competitor to UA's Bond franchise and that it took place in the 1980's.

That's easy to explain. UA which owned the rights to James Bond was going through financial difficulties (thanks to Heaven's Gate) at the time so they didn't have the resources to go after McClory. It would have been pointless anyway since "Never say never again" was a box office disappointment.

Sounds like it was at least a modest commercial and critical success:

The film opened at #1 on 9 October 1983 and marked the biggest opening for an autumn release at the time. The film went on to gross US$160 million at the box office. Roger Ebert gave the film 3½ out of 4 stars, and wrote that Never Say Never Again, while consisting of a basic "Bond plot", was different from other Bond films: "For one thing, there's more of a human element in the movie, and it comes from Klaus Maria Brandauer, as Largo. Brandauer is a wonderful actor, and he chooses not to play the villain as a cliché. Instead, he brings a certain poignancy and charm to Largo, and since Connery always has been a particularly human James Bond, the emotional stakes are more convincing this time."

It ranks tenth out of twenty-three Bond films.

 

[Yminale]

of those are connected to Superman

And that's my point. Metropolis is a general term so you can't copyright it. Actually Sindatur, you are actually more right by calling your fictional city, City Metropolis. That might by copyrightable.

 

[Yminale]

Sounds like it was at least a modest commercial and critical success:

You forget to mention the part where "Octopussy" one of the worst James Bond films ever out grossed it.

 

[BillJ]

Sounds like it was at least a modest commercial and critical success:

You forget to mention the part where "Octopussy" one of the worst James Bond films ever out grossed it.

Then Octopussy out-grossed thirteen other Bond films as well. What's your point? Dollars grossed is not an indication of quality.

It grossed one hundred-sixty million on a production budget of thirty-six million. Any studio is going to count that as a success.

Never Say Never Again

 

[Yminale]

It seems strange that DC owns the rights to Superman flying. It's not as if flying is unique to Superman. There have been plenty of fictional examples of flying people going back through time. Peter Pan, for instance...

That's an excellent point. People are to obsessing about details. Copyrights are more than details. It's also how it's DEPICTED (aka context).

If I show Superman saving Lois Lane, then I violate copyright.

If I show Superman getting raped by Lois Lane, then I don't violate copyright because parodies are covered under fair use.

 

[BillJ]

It seems strange that DC owns the rights to Superman flying. It's not as if flying is unique to Superman. There have been plenty of fictional examples of flying people going back through time. Peter Pan, for instance...

That's an excellent point. People are to obsessing about details. Copyrights are more than details. It's also how it's DEPICTED (aka context).

If I show Superman saving Lois Lane, then I violate copyright.

If I show Superman getting raped by Lois Lane, then I don't violate copyright because parodies are covered under fair use.

I still don't understand what has you so up in arms? One is telling the type of story that the copyright holder would normally tell. Hence, story A has the potential to take revenue away from the copyright holder. The copyright holder would never dream of doing story B because it exists so far outside the bounds of the depictions of the characters that no revenue is lost when someone else does it (and the publisher could damage its credibility in the process).

 

[Broccoli]

Sounds like it was at least a modest commercial and critical success:

You forget to mention the part where "Octopussy" one of the worst James Bond films ever out grossed it.

Hey! I liked Octopussy!

 

[Yminale]

Then Octopussy out-grossed thirteen other Bond films as well. What's your point? Dollars grossed is not an indication of quality.

First "Never say Never again" doesn't add anything to the argument since UA for whatever reason failed to pursue legal action against it. MGM/UA did pursue McClory other Thunderball derivative.

Second McClory himself boasted that his film would sink the modern Bond franchise. He had to eat major humble pie when the ticket receipts were counted and a medicore Bond film beat his. (I just added that because I can't stand the guy)

 

[Guartho]

We treat these two types of property very differently. Either we should quit treating them differently or we should quit acting like they're the same thing.

There are huge differences. One is a physical construct (property) that exist in reality. The other is well intellectual that only exist on paper. The fact that they needed to be treated differently has been part of English Common Law since the time of Shakespeare.

The other difference is that property has "inherent" value while IP's may or may not be available. If I copyright, Avacado man the Hate Sponge, I don't necessarily have something of value.

That's kind of what I was getting at. I guess I could have saved some time and confusion and just said IP ≠ a house and then left the thread.

One thing I didn't mention b/c I was not up to date on the current state of affairs was estate tax. Now, admittedly the threshold on estate tax is so high that it would really only come into play on IP cases like this one. (Hey look, I brought it back to the original topic)

 

[BillJ]

Then Octopussy out-grossed thirteen other Bond films as well. What's your point? Dollars grossed is not an indication of quality.

First "Never say Never again" doesn't add anything to the argument since UA for whatever reason failed to pursue legal action against it. MGM/UA did pursue McClory other Thunderball derivative.

Second McClory himself boasted that his film would sink the modern Bond franchise. He had to eat major humble pie when the ticket receipts were counted and a medicore Bond film beat his. (I just added that because I can't stand the guy)

All I can say is here.

The Fleming trustee case against Never say Never Again lasted until 1983, when the British High Court ruled for Kevin McClory, stating that the Deed of Assignment dated December 31, 1963, gave McClory full rights to both the novel and original scripts to Thunderball. Thanks to the help of Warner Brothers' lawyers, McClory was finally free to begin production on his remake.

 

[Kegg]

Metropolis was used as a proper name in the famous 1927 film (well before Superman). I'm not sure who holds the rights to that movie, though.

Currently the F.W. Murnau Foundation. The film's had periods of public domain and I think still does in some countries, but F.W. Munrau has also produced the currently definitive restoration of the film.

If he's doing this flying around in his red and blue costume than you have a problem.

He's not, obviously. I was disputing the idea he couldn't be used in the 21st century, not that he couldn't fly.

If there's no legal problem with Superman punching out a thinly veiled Bin Laden called Underman - or playing that completely unnecessary tennis match with the current U.S. President - then he can do stuff in the 21st century.

 

[Yminale]

I still don't understand what has you so up in arms?

It's the same details different context.

And that's my point all along. A modern adaptation of SS Superman will have the same context as a WB/DC Superman and therefore it's a copyright violation even if they change some details. It would still be Superman saving Metropolis from Lex Luthor in 201X.

To get past that hurdle they would have to radically change it. And that's why SS is still suing WB/DC instead of them just selling their copyright to Marvel for a gazillion dollars. Their copyright is only worth money if they combine with WB/DC (which WB/DC don't really have an incentive to do).

 

[BillJ]

And that's my point all along. A modern adaptation of SS Superman will have the same context as a WB/DC Superman and therefore it's a copyright violation even if they change some details. It would still be Superman saving Metropolis from Lex Luthor in 201X.

No it wouldn't be the same context. Because once a new Superman is made by a differing company they'll take all those little trinkets along with them and DC/WB will no longer be able to use them. So the two differing Superman titles will become, very quickly, very different entities.

 

[Yminale]

Currently the F.W. Murnau Foundation. The film's had periods of public domain and I think still does in some countries, but F.W. Munrau has also produced the currently definitive restoration of the film.

I think Snaploud's question is why didn't the foundation sue SS in the 40's when it wasn't public domain. Probably something called WW2 was an issue.

If there's no legal problem with Superman punching out a thinly veiled Bin Laden called Underman - or playing that completely unnecessary tennis match with the current U.S. President - then he can do stuff in the 21st century.

I never said he couldn't do things in the 21st century. The problem is as you've shown you would have to radically change him and then he doesn't become the Superman the public is expecting. Like I said. it's all about CONTEXT.

SS can't make a remake of "Superman: The Movie" even if they own all the elements except the flying because it would look too much like all the previous Superman films.

No it wouldn't be the same context. Because once a new Superman is made by a differing company they'll take all those little trinkets along with them and DC/WB will no longer be able to use them. So the two differing Superman titles will become, very quickly, very different entities.

EXACTLY !!! Except for the fact that I don't think DC/WB would even try. An SS Superman would be so different the public wouldn't recognize it. It certainly would not look like the modern interpretation we are use to. Which was my point all along.

 

[BillJ]

I never said he couldn't do things in the 21st century. The problem is as you've shown you would have to radically change him and then he doesn't become the Superman the public is expecting. Like I said. it's all about CONTEXT.

But since the Siegel and Shuster estates own elements of Superman. Isn't it up to them on whether or not they want to take that risk?

A third-party, core concepts Superman could be great or it could be terrible. Copyright law is there to decide who owns what, not to make creative decisions.

EXACTLY !!! Except for the fact that I don't think DC/WB would even try. An SS Superman would be so different the public wouldn't recognize it. It certainly would not look like the modern interpretation we are use to. Which was my point all along.

I thought your argument was that the Siegel and Shuster estates couldn't make a 21st century Superman?

DC/WB will stay in the game as long as its economically feasible, regardless of what the Seigel and Shuster estates decide to do.

 

[Yminale]

But since the Siegel and Shuster estates own elements of Superman. Isn't it up to them on whether or not they want to take that risk?

Absolutely but I'm just stating the potential pitfalls. Going their own way may have the maximum gains but it also entails the maximum risk.

Personally I would love to see an SS re-imagining but I'm not John Q Public who wants safe and familiar entertainment.

I thought your argument was that the Siegel and Shuster estates couldn't make a 21st century Superman?

I did state that but then I realized my mistake. I have tried to clarify my point of view (unsuccessfully). They can make a modern Superman but just it can't look like what DC/WB is making.

DC/WB will stay in the game as long as its economically feasible, regardless of what the Seigel and Shuster estates decide to do.

True but I don't think the stakes are as high as fans think. They have BATMAN. Having Superman around is just a nice bonus.

 

[BillJ]

But since the Siegel and Shuster estates own elements of Superman. Isn't it up to them on whether or not they want to take that risk?

Absolutely but I'm just stating the potential pitfalls. Going their own way may have the maximum gains but it also entails the maximum risk.

Personally I would love to see an SS re-imagining but I'm not John Q Public who wants safe and familiar entertainment.

I think a modern take on the original concepts might prove interesting. His strength, ability to leap and resistance to bullets could all simply be traits from being from a race that grew up on a high gravity world.