Superman Legal Battles - An interesting turn of events

[God Magnus]

This piece just went up on Variety: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007269.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

The part that is fascinating to me:

"This means the Siegels -- repped by Marc Toberoff of Toberoff & Associates -- now control depictions of Superman's origins from the planet Krypton, his parents Jor-El and Lora, Superman as the infant Kal-El, the launching of the infant Superman into space by his parents as Krypton explodes and his landing on Earth in a fiery crash."

"DC owns other elements like Superman's ability to fly, the term kryptonite, the Lex Luthor and Jimmy Olsen characters, Superman's powers and expanded origins."

I wonder if those elements are important enough for WB and DC to pay proper royalties or will they just try to "reimagine" his origin somehow. DC seems to love rewriting history so I wouldn't put it past them, but the whole Krypton thing is rather iconic and ties into several other characters.

From a legal standpoint, I find it fascinating how elements of a characters' mythos are being divided up in such a fashion. It will be interesting to see how this is going to play out.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

Superman has made them untold trillions of dollars and up until, what was it, the late 70s or 80s, they even ignored the Siegels. They should just pay the proper royalties and keep those elements.

 

[ElScoob]

An interesting side note to this--I seem to recall having read a little while back that the forthcoming Superman: Secret Origin comic by Geoff Johns was not going to be dwelling on Krypton's destruction or Kal-El's arrival on Earth... instead, it was going to be focusing more on Clark's upbringing with the Kents. I may be misremembering, but if this is so it's an interesting coincidence. One wonders if DC editorial had already been aware of potential issues with their ownership of those story elements...

--g

 

[Captain Craig]

Everytime this comes up, and it seems to every 6/7yrs, I'm amazed that the 'rights' to Superman are this messed up STILL!!

So DC/Warners basically can't tell an origin story but they have everything else.
All those wanting the next reboot movie to NOT have an origin tale, or one in the traditional sense, just got their wish.

 

[Bad Bishop]

As a graduate of the ACME Online College of Law and Basketweaving, I interpret this to mean that Warner Bros. has incentive to avoid any use of or reference to Superman's traditional origins in any new film.

 

[Ward Fowler]

Yeah, I'm guessing that DC will relying more on his "expanded origins" in the future.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Warners statement: "Warner and DC Comics are pleased that the court has affirmed that the vast majority of key elements associated with the Superman character that were developed after Action Comics No. 1 are not part of the copyrights that the plaintiffs have recaptured and therefore remain solely owned by DC Comics."

Either that's bluster or they're idiots. If they think that they can work with the "majority of elements" despite the fact that this "majority" doesn't include Superman's Krypton origin, his costume, Lois Lane or Clark Kent they are headed for a fuck-up of Biblical proportions.

It's bluster. They'll pay the creators, with smiles on their faces, or their franchise is screwed.

 

[Garth Rockett]

So DC/Warners basically can't tell an origin story but they have everything else.

No, they still can. Until there's a valid termination of copyright from the Shuster estate (and my understanding is it's still questionable whether that will happen), DC still hold's his 50% interest in everything the Siegel and Shuster created that subject to copyright termination - namely Action Comics #1, and as of this week Action #4, pages 3-6 of Superman #1, and the first two weeks of the Superman daily newspaper strip. As 50% copyright holder, DC can continue to exploit these elements without the permission of the Siegel heirs - they are only required to divide any profits generated from these elements. DC may choose to avoid using those elements where possible in order to avoid making the payments, but that would be the only thing preventing them from using those parts of Superman's origin.

Similarly, the Siegels could theoretically exploit their interest in the above material without DC's permission as long as they paid DC their share of the profits. It would be much more difficult for them, however, since DC is sole owner of all the Superman trademarks, which would prevent the Siegels from publishing a work with the Superman logo, or even with Superman's name prominently displayed (much like DC has to promote Captain Marvel using "Shazam", since the Captain Marvel name is a trademark of Marvel Comics).

DC retains sole ownership of elements such as Lex Luthor and Jimmy Olsen because they originally appeared in works the court has deemed to be works for hire.

 

[Garth Rockett]

Warners statement: "Warner and DC Comics are pleased that the court has affirmed that the vast majority of key elements associated with the Superman character that were developed after Action Comics No. 1 are not part of the copyrights that the plaintiffs have recaptured and therefore remain solely owned by DC Comics."

Either that's bluster or they're idiots.

No, DC did win a significant victory in the most recent decision, in that the courts ruled that Action 2, 3, 5-61, Superman 1 (except pages 3-6 and the reprint of Action 1), 2-23, and all newspaper strips except for the first 12 were solely DC's property. Many key elements of the Superman mythos were established in those issues, and the Siegel heirs had attempted to make a claim on that material as well. Fortunately for DC, this was denied.

They'll pay the Siegel family, no doubt. They're requried to under law. It's just a matter of both sides agreeing on structuring the deal really.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Many key elements of the Superman mythos were established in those issues...

But not - according to the 2008 judgment - Clark Kent, Lois Lane, the Superman costume or, now, Krypton.

I'd rather be in the position of trying to do Superman without Lex Luthor and kryptonite than without Clark Kent and the blue union suit and Lois Lane. There's key and then there's key...Jimmy Olsen is definitely "minor key."

EDIT: Not being able to use the name "Superman" as a prominent display element or title would be a hindrance, but given that over the decades he's appeared in major venues that weren't named after him - Action and Adventure Comics among others - it probably wouldn't rise to Shazam levels of annoyance.

Does anyone even refer to Lois And Clark by its subtitle "The New Adventures of Superman?"

It's to everyone's great advantage to just pay the money and work together here, obviously. But if one side or the other wanted to go their own way, I'd rather be in the position of the Heirs than the Bros.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I personally don't want to see another origin story in the next movie, whatever form it takes. But I think WB would be well advised to sort this issue out for once and for all with the Siegel/ Shuster heirs, so they can make whatever movie they want to make. And to avoid the incessant legal squabbles that the Superman franchise seems to carry in its wake.

 

[tharpdevenport]

This is the kind of bullshit that can destroy a legendary superhero.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

This is the kind of bullshit that can destroy a legendary superhero.

Lex Luthor, eat your heart out!

 

[davejames]

You know, I'm all for the creators finally getting what they're due... but does it really do the character any good to split apart the rights three ways to Sunday like this?

Hopefully both sides will play nice and try to keep everything intact for future Superman stories, but somehow I doubt that'll happen...

 

[Christopher]

From the article:

In 2008, the same court order ruled on summary judgment that the Siegels had successfully recaptured (as of 1999) Siegel's copyright in Action Comics No. 1, giving them rights to the Superman character, including his costume, his alter-ego as reporter Clark Kent, the feisty reporter Lois Lane, their jobs at the Daily Planet newspaper working for a gruff editor, and the love triangle among Clark/Superman and Lois.

That doesn't seem right. The Daily Planet and Perry White were created for the Superman radio series. Siegel & Shuster had Clark working for the Daily Star under editor George Taylor, then changed it to fit the radio series.

 

[Garth Rockett]

Many key elements of the Superman mythos were established in those issues...

But not - according to the 2008 judgment - Clark Kent, Lois Lane, the Superman costume or, now, Krypton.

I'd rather be in the position of trying to do Superman without Lex Luthor and kryptonite than without Clark Kent and the blue union suit and Lois Lane.

But my point was, as things stand now, DC is not in the position of doing Superman without Clark Kent, the costume, and Lois Lane. They still own 50% and can exploit it any way they wish as long as they split profits with the Siegels. Unless the Shuster estate can successfully terminate transfer of copyright (and what I'm reading about the case suggests that's uncertain right now) worst case scenario for DC is if the Siegels attempt to publish their own Superman elsewhere, in which case they'll have Superman without the current S-shield (the current configuration came later, and is a DC trademark), the Superman logo, the ability to prominently display the Superman name, Lex Luthor, Kryptonite, Jimmy Olsen, the Daily Planet, Perry White, Superman's ability to fly, X-ray vision, heat vision, super-breath, etc. DC will have access to everything, including what the Siegels have, and so will have a distinct advantage in the marketplace.

It's closest analogue would probably be James Bond. Kevin McClory retained the film rights to the Thunderball script, but when his rival Bond film Never Say Never Again was released, they didn't have access to the Bond theme and the gun barrell logo, not to mention the expertise of Eon's crew in producing Bond films for two decades at that point. At the end, NSNA lost the box office battle against Octopussy even though NSNA had Sean Connery going for it.

Of course, if the Shuster estate manages to successfully terminate it's transfer of copyright, DC is well and truly screwed. They still have ownership of enough material to make life hell for the Siegels and Shusters if they try to go without them, especially given that the Superman in the first issue of Action Comics had few of the powers he's known for today - they could only publish a Superman who could leap an eighth of a mile, for instance. Anything they could produce without DC would bear little resemblance to the character as he exists in the mind of the public.

It's in everyone's best interests to work out a deal on this, and I'm surprised it hasn't been done yet. The estates of the creators deserve to get paid for the fruits of their labors, but at the same time it makes little sense for Superman to go forward without DC. It shouldn't be that hard to find an arrangement that would make everyone happy.

 

[shivkala]

As it currently stands, neither side really has the better hand, so to speak. I definitely see the estates holding this ruling over Warner's head to try to get them to reach an agreement.

The current storyline has Superman out of his two main titles and in Worlds of New Krypton, where we see him in a Kryptonian Military Outfit, not his usual costume. I guess they could always come up with a way to rename New Krypton and keep the story going. I'm not sure if the name "Kal-El" is a part of this ruling (seeing as how he was originally "Kal-L"), but the wouldn't even need to use the "Superman" name.

Superman's aunt, Alura, is living on New Krypton, but his parents were still killed when Krypton exploded, so there really wouldn't be much need to mention them (or, if DC really wanted to play hardball, we could learn that Superman was born to Alura and Zor-El, but Jor-El and Lara watched over him, thus working around the lawsuit, but giving them a way not to mention Jor-El and Lara after the "big reveal.").

Though, while the current storyline is interesting, it is something fans would want to read for an indefinite period of time, instead of the familiar blue and red suited Superman flying through Metropolis?

 

[Nick Ryder]

Well look at smallville. He's the "RedBlue Blur" I suppose they could call him something else if the Siegals make life hell. Call him simply "Kal-L" or "Cal-L" - look at the JLU cartoon series, Wonder Woman called him Kal-El almost more than she called him Superman. And honestly Superman is more of a title bestowed on him by the press in the current continuity. He could just say "Don't call me Superman, call me Kal-L." or HEH... General Kal El.

I mean really he's sort of the defacto General of the JLA.

As for Clark Kent and Lois Lane, they could always have them disappear for a while like they did with Superboy. Have Lon El take on the mantle.

Suppose the Seigels could have a Superman similar to the Golden Age character, with blue suit, and instead of the S, have him simply called "The Kryptonian". Basically its what Smallville is. Really. He's not called Superman, he doesn't use the suit. He does use the current S, but they could always change it a bit, or go back to that 2 ovals in the triangle for his symbol. He doesn't really fly, he leaps. Lois can still be his love interest. Heck if DC can't use Lois Lane for some reason, then go with Chloe Sullivan as her real name. Say that Sullivan was her mother's retconned maiden name and Chloe was her real name she just went by Lois Lane for national security reasons.

There are so many ways they could have the same character in two different realms and even two different characters based on the other. If DC had two brain cells to rub together, they'd make a deal with the Seigel/Schuster clan to let them do their own "Ultimate DC" like thing that they can control using their elements and the mainline Superman can change to be more original. It would suck yes, but at least it would fuckin' force DC to BE ORIGINAL FOR ONCE IN THEIR SORRY LIVES!

 

[Admiral_Young]

Interesting ruling...as to how it would affect World of New Krypton. This is supposed to only be a twelve issue mini-series (unless its been expanded) and Superman will return to Action Comics next spring when Geoff Johns is finished with Blackest Night. The New Krypton storyline could be effected only by the House of El characters such as Alura, I'm curious if they ruling means they can't do a origin remake or retelling or can't even mention Jor-El or Lara in the comics? How will this affect Smallville then since Jor-El also plays a role on the show and will be returning for season nine?

 

[wamdue]

so basically the Siegels, own everything about Superman which takes place on his life pre Earth? no great loss there the Superman origin story has been told way to many times as it is.

The loss of Jor El is more of an issue, as already mentioned you have to wonder what it means for his part in Smallville, but if I was Warners I would not mind.