70 years after the death of the original author seems about right. Ulysses has literally just become public domain, you know.
Warner Bros using stolen files in war with Superman heirs...
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Yeah, but this house was sold seventy years ago. If the S/S clan had a compelling legal right to the property, one would think it would have surfaced in decades of litigation.
My grandpappy used to have a lot of money, but made some lame investments and now lives on Social Security. Should I go around suing the people whose defunct businesses he loaned money to for seventy years, demanding the cash back?
Well, like I said, I wasn't addressing the specifics of this particular case. I was just addressing the general argument (which one tends to see too often) that an author's children don't deserve anything because they didn't create anything.
Which ignores the fact that maybe the author intended his labor to benefit his children . . . like most people do.
It has. The courts have found that the heirs have rights here. This is why Warners is fighting so hard now to get out from under their legal obligations as currently defined by all of that litigation.
If you think this is some kind of groundless nuisance lawsuit you've missed what's been going on for a long time.
Let me know when you start paying property taxes on the assessed valuation of your intellectual property.
Cute, but beside the point - you don't actually think that there are property taxes on every kind of property in all locations, do you? I mean, you don't think that's a relevant part of the definition of property?
In 2013 the Siegel and Shuster heirs share ownership of the greater part of Superman - that's the status quo, now. Warners is spending a lot of money desperately trying to find a way to steal the rights back in court. That's all that's going on here.
Hell, the studio's rushing a Superman production right now for very little real reason other than legalities. Clearly they have money to burn.
In 2013 the Siegel and Shuster heirs share ownership of the greater part of Superman - that's the status quo, now. Warners is spending a lot of money desperately trying to find a way to steal the rights back in court. That's all that's going on here.
Hell, the studio's rushing a Superman production right now for very little real reason other than legalities. Clearly they have money to burn.
The WB has no incentive to give in to SS heirs. The WB are legitimately going to lose the movie rights in 2013. Yeah they don't get a Superman movie (which could hurt their 2012 Summer line up) and Superman won't show up in JLA but they have BATMAN, maybe Green Lantern and then there are other characters like the Flash, Hawkman and Green Arrow.
SS heirs have the weaker position and they know it. Still nothing wrong with maximizing what advantage they do have..
Exactly. Warners will not stop using Superman. They will have to pay the copyright holders for the right to do so. That's all.
Just because you have a pile of parts doesn't mean you have a car.
I've been doing some research and found that the SS heirs actually have less than what appears
What the SS heirs own
The name Superman and Superboy
All the characters in Smallville (Ma and Pa Kent, Lana Lane)
All the Major characters in Metropolis
Lex Luthor
The Suit
The origin
What they don't own.
Superman's flying powers!!! (not part of the original IP) This is probably a deal breaker right there. Other powers like heat vision, X-Ray vision, and freeze breadth.
The Fortress of Solitude
The Rest of Superman's Rogue's Gallery (Braniac, Zod, Bizzaro, Apokalypse, Metallo etc. ) No bowing before Zod for their Superman.
No connection to the rest of the DC universe. That means no JLA, no ass kicking by Batman.
No connection to the past movies so a direct sequel is out.
The WB is going to lose the rights in 2013 if they don't make a movie.
This is something that Warner looks like it brought on itself in the 70's, they should've eaten the bad press and played hardball.
It seems pretty apparent that the creators sold Superman to DC, then had a change of heart when they saw how successful it was.
It seems pretty apparent that the creators sold Superman to DC, then had a change of heart when they saw how successful it was.
You know, speaking as one of those casual pop culture non-fan people, besides the flying powers that's about all I know about Superman. They don't own Apokalypse? What the heck is Apokalypse?
Seems they have a pretty good claim there.
Ooops!! I meant Darkseid the ruler of Apokolips
Did I mention that technically they can't have a modern Superman? It would have to be set in the 40's. There are problems (people are sick of Lex Luthor) and major holes (flying) so the claim is not as good as you first realize.
Oh SS Superman isn't affected by Kryptonite (that came later). Bonus!
Last edited by a moderator:
But if they own 'Krypton', they could make a good argument that WB/DC shouldn't be able to use "Krypton"-ite either.
I pay taxes on my royalties and advances. And, if and when I kick the bucket, I damn well expect my loved ones to keep getting my royalties.
Often, intellectual property is all that an author or artist has to leave their heirs.
If the SS heirs "win", WB/DC can't use Superman
so that's the least of their problems. The SS heirs could use the original concept of "K-metal" but their Superman is already underpowered as is so it's kind of pointless.
Not irrelevant at all. It's simply an illustration of the point that we absolutely do not treat intellectual property like we do physical property. Any physical property that's worth enough to tax is taxed. Intellectual property is only subject to taxes on the income it generates. On the other hand, a house does not become government property x number of years after the death of its builder.
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.
That's only true if DC actually owns the intellectual property rights to the 21st century. If that's the case, then there's a lot of people in violation of that copyright.
It's the essence of the character. He's a guy who wears a blue/red suit, is called Superman and also Clark Kent, has a big old S on his chest and has super-strength. And if people are tired of one villain, why do you need to revive another?
Which is not property taxes. Were you to own a piece of commercial real estate instead of a piece of commercial IP you would pay the income on top of your property taxes which you pay whether your property is generating money or not. You even pay them if it's losing money. Once again, physical property and IP are treated very differently, with IP having many advantages, but arguments are made as if they were treated the same.
Often a house full of junk is all that anybody has to leave their heirs. What's your point?