Good. Now maybe we'll see a movie where Superman is just already there and dealing with a situation instead of all this Donner love and origin after origin. Enough already.
Superman Legal Battles - An interesting turn of events
- Thread starter God Magnus
- Start date
If Smallville can destroy the Fortress like once a season, I suppose Clark's link to Jor-El might go and he just has to muddle through on his own! But it does sorta suck that they own the Krypton name too because they could simply call him "The Kryptonian" or something equally goofy. Admit it, Superman is hardly the most inspired name. Just as inspired as old Golden Age characters like "Lady Luck" "Captain - Whatever" "Blonde Phantom"
Although really when you think about it, given that the character came out in 1938 its amazing that the original comics weren't even just put into the Public Domain like so many old Golden Age comics and characters. So really on one hand, its was DC/National Comics that really kept the character popular and on the map. If DC/National had decided to just abandon the character like so many others the Seigels wouldn't really have anything to bitch about, but when you've got the single most recognisable comic book character in the world... and the most profitable... I suppose that would create enough cause for everyone involved to want some part of it.
Although don't the Seigels also own the Superboy name or has that been settled, since they brought back Superboy in the comics again after they sort of "dropped" him during the disputes.
Of course, what the fuck does it matter who really owns what, its DC publishing and Warner making movies and tv shows and stuff with him... are the Seigels going to go and do their own work with it? I mean really! When was the last time ANY Seigel put pen to paper and created something? Unlike the Romita Clan, where the son became an artist in his own right, or the Kuberts or even the Lee/Liebers, where there's some form of creativity that still exists in the family, all I see is the S&S families going after more and more money, which I thought they already got a lot of over the years.
Stan Lee doesn't get too much from his characters and while I'm sure he's fought some legal battles over it, I doubt he would say "Well then fine, you can't publish them anymore."
Fuckin' kids. That's all this is. Greedy Kids who are trying to cash in on work they never did. They should be happy that every Superman comic, tv show, movie whatever has the S&S "created by" title card. What about all the comics that so many other of their contempories created that went into the PD or were picked up by other companies and they did whatever they wanted to it. Even the Ghost Rider western comics from the Golden Age are PD.
Although really when you think about it, given that the character came out in 1938 its amazing that the original comics weren't even just put into the Public Domain like so many old Golden Age comics and characters. So really on one hand, its was DC/National Comics that really kept the character popular and on the map. If DC/National had decided to just abandon the character like so many others the Seigels wouldn't really have anything to bitch about, but when you've got the single most recognisable comic book character in the world... and the most profitable... I suppose that would create enough cause for everyone involved to want some part of it.
Although don't the Seigels also own the Superboy name or has that been settled, since they brought back Superboy in the comics again after they sort of "dropped" him during the disputes.
Of course, what the fuck does it matter who really owns what, its DC publishing and Warner making movies and tv shows and stuff with him... are the Seigels going to go and do their own work with it? I mean really! When was the last time ANY Seigel put pen to paper and created something? Unlike the Romita Clan, where the son became an artist in his own right, or the Kuberts or even the Lee/Liebers, where there's some form of creativity that still exists in the family, all I see is the S&S families going after more and more money, which I thought they already got a lot of over the years.
Stan Lee doesn't get too much from his characters and while I'm sure he's fought some legal battles over it, I doubt he would say "Well then fine, you can't publish them anymore."
Fuckin' kids. That's all this is. Greedy Kids who are trying to cash in on work they never did. They should be happy that every Superman comic, tv show, movie whatever has the S&S "created by" title card. What about all the comics that so many other of their contempories created that went into the PD or were picked up by other companies and they did whatever they wanted to it. Even the Ghost Rider western comics from the Golden Age are PD.
I think the Siegels just want their fair share of the profits from the comics DC publishes and the movies and shows Warner Bros. makes. Just because they theoretically could publish their own stuff doesn't mean they intend to.
They were...
That was when they sold the character to DC.
It was latter day legaleeze mumbo jumbo that said 'Even if you sold it, you can still get ownership back'.
"National" (DC's name at the time) paid for ownership of the character fair and square.
Picture this-
You buy a small Mom'n'Pop grocery store, and under your business saavy it turns into a large grocery chain making tons of money.
Do you expect the original owners to show up one day and say 'We love what you've done...Now give it all to us...for FREE!"
Makes no sense, and isn't fair. DC bought the character and made Superman what he is today. It's not right for them to ride on DC's coattails and try to take over. I don't care what all the paper pushers say.
If I buy something, it's MINE and nobody should be able to get it back years later because they changed their mind, or because the property is now of greater value.
Nick...
Your two long posts suggest you're reacting and not thinking. You've gotten thinigs mixed up as to who owns what, what happened when, etc.
For example, SMALLVILLE destroyed the Fortress ONE time. That was at the very end of season 7. During season 8 it was restored, and still exists.
In your earlier post you said something about "Lon-El" 'taking on the mantle', apparently in connection with the absense of Clark Kent and Lois Lane.
There is no "Lon-El". There's a Mon-El, and a Kon-El, but no "Lon-El".
Also, how would one of them assuming the Superman name (which is what I assume you meant) connect up to the absence of Clark and Lois?
Plus, while Lar Gand ("Mon-El") isn't Kryptonian, his name is (given him by young Clark when it was thought the Daxamite was a relative, having the same powers and all). Kon-El's name is also Kryptonian, as is half his DNA.
I hate this mess as much as you likely do, but let's hold to facts and think things out when we're talking about it.
It's what Jonathan would have wanted out of his son's fans...
gastrof does has a bit of a point.
As much as I like to see creators get credit for their creations, the fact remains that they did sell the Superman character to the company that currently is DC. From what I have read about the selling, it was a bit of a raw deal for them, but they agreed to it and it was sold.
Now, I don't know the exact details about selling, nor with they "actually" sold, so maybe there is a bit of wiggle room. It is interesting (and increasingly confusing) that these legal battles take place.
As much as I like to see creators get credit for their creations, the fact remains that they did sell the Superman character to the company that currently is DC. From what I have read about the selling, it was a bit of a raw deal for them, but they agreed to it and it was sold.
Now, I don't know the exact details about selling, nor with they "actually" sold, so maybe there is a bit of wiggle room. It is interesting (and increasingly confusing) that these legal battles take place.
Er, no. This is Siegel's heirs asserting their rights under copyright law. And the case that they are entitled to at least Action Comics #1 is open-and-shut; it's written right into the law.
A lot of the discussion on this tends to bog down around whether S & S were treated fairly in 1938, but that's completely irrelevant. They could have gotten a princely deal and they'd still be entitled to take action. DC only paid them for 56 years of ownership; when Congress extended copyright law, they acknowledged this by providing for those elements originally created (and only those elements; hence, they own nothing of the stuff DC later did with the character) to revert to their original owners. Hence, Siegel and his heirs are wholly within their rights to apply for reversion (Schuster's will too, when the next extension takes effect).