Exactly. Trying to narrow the discussion to real estate is a red herring.
Warner Bros using stolen files in war with Superman heirs...
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Exactly. Trying to narrow the discussion to real estate is a red herring.
As a note to some who don't understand copyrights.
Lets say I own a comic company. Lets call it Distorted Pages. I pay the original holders the right to make a superman comic.
I can put superman in the 21st century, just NOT IN THE DC Universe! I can put him in the DH universe (which is a wacky place BTW) and as long as superman keeps his power levels as what S&S own, I can have superman fight my own creations, (for example, fluoride-man) as a copyright holder can make there own derived works. It just that they can't use anything that DC uses unless it is generic (and putting superman in the modern day, or the future is generic almost by definition.)
What will happen in WB will rent use of superman from S&S. unless things go real bad. Then I hope to convice that fluoride-man is a awesome villian.
Lets say I own a comic company. Lets call it Distorted Pages. I pay the original holders the right to make a superman comic.
I can put superman in the 21st century, just NOT IN THE DC Universe! I can put him in the DH universe (which is a wacky place BTW) and as long as superman keeps his power levels as what S&S own, I can have superman fight my own creations, (for example, fluoride-man) as a copyright holder can make there own derived works. It just that they can't use anything that DC uses unless it is generic (and putting superman in the modern day, or the future is generic almost by definition.)
What will happen in WB will rent use of superman from S&S. unless things go real bad. Then I hope to convice that fluoride-man is a awesome villian.
I'm not sure the inheriting a house analogy works very well because someone correct me if I'm wrong... but didn't Siegel and Shuster both come to terms with DC/Warner's on the copyright issues? Once when they sold the character to DC in the late 40s? and then again in the 70s when they realized how much money DC was making and they (with no real legal standing if I recall) launched a PR blitz in order to get Warner's to cave in. Warner's ultimately agreed to pay them a yearly salary the rest of their lives and to credit every Superman show or movie as the character being created by them in the credits.
All of these other lawsuits have come after both men have died and by their estates...
From my perspective to use the house analogy it would be like if my Father sold his house and land to a company... Company finds some valuable resource on said land... Company later reimburses my Father with some kind of agreement... Dad passes away and then I sue them for more of the profit they made off the land.
People make bad business deals all the time. I don't think the courts necessarily have the responsibility to protect people from their own stupidity.
All of these other lawsuits have come after both men have died and by their estates...
From my perspective to use the house analogy it would be like if my Father sold his house and land to a company... Company finds some valuable resource on said land... Company later reimburses my Father with some kind of agreement... Dad passes away and then I sue them for more of the profit they made off the land.
People make bad business deals all the time. I don't think the courts necessarily have the responsibility to protect people from their own stupidity.
Don't be absurd. They'll never kill a character so perennially popular and profitable.
If your going to compare it to real estate, Think of it as a mineral LEASE.
Superman was not made "for hire", it was a concept "sold" to the comic company. however the original concept was only a exclusive lease, the creators still owned the rights. Later on, WB gave basicly a fully paid retirement to buy off the creators for a while.
Later,the owners (the estate) decided to give a notice that they where nullifying the lease, and there was a lawsuit to define what exactly was owned by who. However the estate still owns the rights to some of the superman, as it was only leased long term to DC comics, and they are within their rights to release it back or least it to more then one company.
Superman was not made "for hire", it was a concept "sold" to the comic company. however the original concept was only a exclusive lease, the creators still owned the rights. Later on, WB gave basicly a fully paid retirement to buy off the creators for a while.
Later,the owners (the estate) decided to give a notice that they where nullifying the lease, and there was a lawsuit to define what exactly was owned by who. However the estate still owns the rights to some of the superman, as it was only leased long term to DC comics, and they are within their rights to release it back or least it to more then one company.
Best to stop comparing intellectual property to any other kind of property.
As property rights go, intellectual property is a fairly recent, and still very controversial convention.
As property rights go, intellectual property is a fairly recent, and still very controversial convention.
Ummm
Intellectual property has been around since at least 1623 (patents), copyrites have been in existence since 1709. The International recognition of copyright has been around since 1886. Every country by treaty minus a few outlying countries like Afghanistan Recognize copyrights under treaties, and that includes that those rights last AT LEAST 50 years after the creators death.
The "anti-copyright" movement didn't exist till music companies stopped kids from downloading music they didn't pay form.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I don't think you are the best person for me to debate with. You seem to be enjoying yourself. Don't let me get in your way.
I can back up each of my statements with facts....just saying. Hard to say its controversial when the vast majority of nations have signed on to the idea, and this was back in the 1800s.
Yes, carry on with comparing intellectual property to real property. You are making huge strides.
I am the first one to say that its not the best to compare it to Real estate. What is your issue with Copyrights? or do you think they are swell and I am reading your posts wrong.
As Distorted Humor has already observed it's actually fairly old, but more importantly, the existence of intellectual property is not controversial. Put baldly it's pretty much the logic behind artists not starving to death in a capitalist economy.
Mr. Cogley probably isn't the person you want to debate law with. IIRC, he is a lawyer in real life.
Does anyone outside the lawyers in this case know what the original contract says? Seems we're all debating in the dark here.
I know that the creators where not working for a company, and created a chunk of the original superman prior to going to the company who is now DC comics. I have not seen the contract, but most of the rights where sold for $130.
Defendants being DC comics and WB.
The heirs have given notice that they plan to cancel the licence to these rights noted above. Most likely to re-licence this at a better rate.
Doesn't really answer the question. Does the contract signed by Siegel and Shuster specify whether they were selling the rights to Superman to DC or is the contract merely considered a 'lease' of sorts?
Without the contract we're merely trusting other people's interpretation of what it says.
Doesn't really answer the question. Does the contract signed by Siegel and Shuster specify whether they were selling the rights to Superman to DC or is the contract merely considered a 'lease' of sorts?
Without the contract we're merely trusting other people's interpretation of what it says.
Also, the 1976 Copyright Act does allow authors who sold work prior to 1978 to take back non-work for hire works.
Which could provide a sticking point. Also, have there been any changes to copyright law since then that would conflict with this?
I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV... but I do find this fascinating.
I did some more digging, apparently the heirs DID use the 304(c) and much of the legal arguments are on the official notification process and what was work for hire, and what was created prior to them joining what latter became DC comics.
Notwithstanding means that the authors have that right, despite any agreement to the contrary. So on works that where not works for hire prior to 1978, at select points in its renewal process, authors have the right to take back some of their rights.
http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2008/03/posted-by-ma-22.html
Thanks for the link.
I do find this nugget particularly interesting...
So if the estates decided to make their own Superman comics and movies, they could only be distributed in the United States? And if they are unable to come to a deal, DC could continue to publish Superman for consumption in international markets?
That is correct. Each nation has its own copyright rules, and this lawsuit only deals with US rights.