• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

DC letting Superman go?

A better word than sale might be lease.

A writer doesn't necessarily SELL his book to a publishing company, rather they might be leasing the RIGHT TO PRINT IT. The copyright is still there.

So, a better analogy might be...I lend you my lawnmower for a fee...and I want it back eventually...or keep paying a fee.

Now, whether or not Superman was work for hirer...that might cloud the issue.

In the end, it will hurt both parties to not come to an agreement.

...or Lex Luthor will get his wish; no more superman.

What if DC just kills off Superman? Do they get to use Lex Luthor/Supergirl/Powergirl/Krypto/Fortess of Solitude without having to pay the estate?

Rob
 
Lex Luthor is the real hero anyway. Superman is just a villain with good publicity always keeping humanity down.
 
A better word than sale might be lease.

A writer doesn't necessarily SELL his book to a publishing company, rather they might be leasing the RIGHT TO PRINT IT. The copyright is still there.

So, a better analogy might be...I lend you my lawnmower for a fee...and I want it back eventually...or keep paying a fee.

Now, whether or not Superman was work for hirer...that might cloud the issue.

In the end, it will hurt both parties to not come to an agreement.

...or Lex Luthor will get his wish; no more superman.

What if DC just kills off Superman? Do they get to use Lex Luthor/Supergirl/Powergirl/Krypto/Fortess of Solitude without having to pay the estate?

Rob

As far as I can tell they wouldn’t have anything about Krypton, baby Kal-el and his parents. I think this means they would still be allowed Lex, this could mean supergirl and her origin depending who super girl is nowadays, I'm not familiar enough with power girl to comment though likewise I think they could get away with her.

It might make for an awesome comic this, just think 'The Death of Superman' you know again. Cept this time there aint no get out of jail free card, no resurrection, just one epic fight then bam, gone. Maybe even go all final crisis and have him sacrifice himself to save the cosmos and have him thus wiped from history gone, forgotten by all but the reader.
 
A better word than sale might be lease.

A writer doesn't necessarily SELL his book to a publishing company, rather they might be leasing the RIGHT TO PRINT IT. The copyright is still there.

So, a better analogy might be...I lend you my lawnmower for a fee...and I want it back eventually...or keep paying a fee.

Now, whether or not Superman was work for hirer...that might cloud the issue.

In the end, it will hurt both parties to not come to an agreement.

So did they lease or sale the character of Superman in '38? My understanding is they sold him, obviously if both parties understood in 1938 that it was a lease then that is an entirely different situation.
 
A better word than sale might be lease.

A writer doesn't necessarily SELL his book to a publishing company, rather they might be leasing the RIGHT TO PRINT IT. The copyright is still there.

So, a better analogy might be...I lend you my lawnmower for a fee...and I want it back eventually...or keep paying a fee.

Now, whether or not Superman was work for hirer...that might cloud the issue.

In the end, it will hurt both parties to not come to an agreement.

So did they lease or sale the character of Superman in '38? My understanding is they sold him, obviously if both parties understood in 1938 that it was a lease then that is an entirely different situation.

If it was that simple, I think the dispute would be over by now.

My example is more about how Intellectual Property works rather than "real" property, like a house.
 
A better word than sale might be lease.

A writer doesn't necessarily SELL his book to a publishing company, rather they might be leasing the RIGHT TO PRINT IT. The copyright is still there.

So, a better analogy might be...I lend you my lawnmower for a fee...and I want it back eventually...or keep paying a fee.

Now, whether or not Superman was work for hirer...that might cloud the issue.

In the end, it will hurt both parties to not come to an agreement.

So did they lease or sale the character of Superman in '38? My understanding is they sold him, obviously if both parties understood in 1938 that it was a lease then that is an entirely different situation.

If it was that simple, I think the dispute would be over by now.

My example is more about how Intellectual Property works rather than "real" property, like a house.

They sold Superman rights. But they sold the rights knowing that copyrights only lasted 56 years at the time. Copyrights now last 95 years. And more importantly, when Congress extended the copyright law they gave the original creators the right to reclaim their work. That's what the Shuster and Siegel estates have done. Whether you think it's fair or not doesn't matter. They have followed US copyright law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman#Copyright_issues
 
The best solution to this issue is for Congress to de-extend copyright so that Superman will be public domain as he should be. It's unlikely to happen, though.
 
The best solution to this issue is for Congress to de-extend copyright so that Superman will be public domain as he should be. It's unlikely to happen, though.

that ain't gonna happen... and you can thank the riaa for most of that...
 
Honestly, who gives a frak?

Superman, Lois Lane, and the Superboy from Earth Prime all went into an eternal paradise to live happily ever after. THE END. And that happened about 24 years ago. And DC spit on the last of his legacy when they killed off the guy running around in his costume while they considered making it permanent and shifting their universe toward less-heroic and darker characters like the uberpopular (at the time) Spawn, and when they turned Hal Jordan into a genocidal maniac. None of the rest of this matters.

And yes, I AM aware of the Lucky Charms-like spectrum of Lantern rings and the way the current comics have dug the Golden Age Superman, GA Lois, and Superboy Prime up and skull?&*#ed their corpses - but I want no truck with it. Never happened. Not worth the paper it is printed on.

(Not that I'm bitter, or anything. ;))
 
speaking of paper.... NBC had a article tonight (mon 02/22) about the first superman comic being sold for a million dollars today.... in addition to it being some sort of anniversary (which I wasn't listening to at the moment)...
 
Honestly, who gives a frak?

Superman, Lois Lane, and the Superboy from Earth Prime all went into an eternal paradise to live happily ever after. THE END. And that happened about 24 years ago. And DC spit on the last of his legacy when they killed off the guy running around in his costume while they considered making it permanent and shifting their universe toward less-heroic and darker characters like the uberpopular (at the time) Spawn, and when they turned Hal Jordan into a genocidal maniac. None of the rest of this matters.

And yes, I AM aware of the Lucky Charms-like spectrum of Lantern rings and the way the current comics have dug the Golden Age Superman, GA Lois, and Superboy Prime up and skull?&*#ed their corpses - but I want no truck with it. Never happened. Not worth the paper it is printed on.

(Not that I'm bitter, or anything. ;))
They dug up the Earth-2 Superman. The Golden Age Superman is something differrent.
 
Most likely DC will simply pay the families bajillions for the right to use the character - as well they should have to...

You buy a small convenience store from a "Mom'n'Pop", and as time goes by you make a better go of it than they did. The store expands in size, in what items you sell, and eventually it's a full fledged grocery store.

The one store, after a few more years, becomes a successful chain.

"Mom'n'Pop" show up and say "We like what you've done with our business. Now give it back."

Yeah.

Sure.

Time Warner "should have to" pay the creators' heirs for the character that S&S flat out SOLD to National Comics DECADES ago.

Makes perfect sense.

I buy an old house, and fix it up. The original owners show up and demand "their" property back.

Yep.

I should just hand it right over to them. After all, it's "theirs".

Tell me another one.

Maybe you should try understanding the case better. Then perhaps your analogies would make more sense.

But hey, maybe I just don't understand it. Educate me. Can you explain why DC started paying Siegel and Shuster pensions and health insurance in the 70's even though they were doing no work for them at that time?

Why did they do that in your opinion? Where, exactly, does that fit into your "sold a convenience store" analogy?

Please try to fit it in there somehow, I'm curious to see how that fits.
 
Last edited:
It'd be like the founding family which invented "Coca-Cola" which became the company we know today....
wanting the product/company back... ain't happening...
 
It'd be like the founding family which invented "Coca-Cola" which became the company we know today....
wanting the product/company back... ain't happening...

I'm curious. How can you say it "ain't happening" when stuff like this has already happened?

Yes, that's not final...yes, DC can appeal. I'm not saying that's the end of this.

But a case like that for Coke would NEVER get that far. Isn't that proof that, no, this is NOT anything like Coca-Cola?

That's why I'm confused by all these "Coke" and "convenience store" analogies. Aren't all the legal cases already enough to prove how little these analogies mean? This is something totally different. It's not "like" any of that stuff at all.
 
It'd be like the founding family which invented "Coca-Cola" which became the company we know today....
wanting the product/company back... ain't happening...

I'm curious. How can you say it "ain't happening" when stuff like this has already happened?

Yes, that's not final...yes, DC can appeal. I'm not saying that's the end of this.

But a case like that for Coke would NEVER get that far. Isn't that proof that, no, this is NOT anything like Coca-Cola?

That's why I'm confused by all these "Coke" and "convenience store" analogies. Aren't all the legal cases already enough to prove how little these analogies mean? This is something totally different. It's not "like" any of that stuff at all.

Im with you smallwhitecar..it confuses me too..

Rob
 
They dug up the Earth-2 Superman. The Golden Age Superman is something differrent.
I know why you're saying that, but the history of the Earth-2 Superman is effectively the history of the Golden Age Superman. It's a difference that makes almost no difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_(Earth-Two)#Fictional_character_history
The Golden Age Superman has more in common with the "Standard" Superman than the E2 version. For most of the Golden Age, Superman fought a bald Luthor and worked at the Daily Planet. Most of his powers were developed in the Golden Age as well. Superboy and the change from L to El happend then as well. THe E-2 version is based on a year or two of material from the earliest comics.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top