Warner Bros using stolen files in war with Superman heirs...

[Yminale]

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.

There are huge differences. One is a physical construct (property) that exist in reality. The other is well intellectual that only exist on paper. The fact that they needed to be treated differently has been part of English Common Law since the time of Shakespeare.

The other difference is that property has "inherent" value while IP's may or may not be available. If I copyright, Avacado man the Hate Sponge, I don't necessarily have something of value.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

And it's not as though the Siegel and Shuster heirs are going to say "we don't want Superman to be used any more." I mean, I guess they could (?), but that would be stupid.

Exactly. Warners will not stop using Superman. They will have to pay the copyright holders for the right to do so. That's all.

And that's what's going to happen here. Warners, including DC Comics, and the heirs will need one another to continue profiting from Superman.

The heirs get a nice check and Warners gets to continue using the aspects of the character that the heirs own.

Sure, the heirs could theoretically shop what they own to Marvel or whomever, but it won't be the version of the character that is in the collective consciousness and they risk not turning a profit because of that.

Then again, they could. Surprising things have happen.

In the end, the character and what the heirs own will likely stay with DC and Warners even if there's a big paycheck involved.

 

[Vendikarr]

Another thing to keep in mind is that if SS get control of the aspects of Superman as seen in the early issues of Action Comics and Superman, they don't get to use the title of Superman for any book, movie, tv show etc. WB/DC owns the trademark on SUPERMAN, which is separate from the copyrights.

It's like how DC cannot refer to Captain Marvel as the title of a comic or TV show. Marvel comics owns the trademark to the title CAPTAIN MARVEL. DC can use it in the story itself, but not on the cover as title.

This severly diminishes the marketing for the character. SS would have similar difficulties if they tried to take the character anywhere other than WB/DC.

 

[Yminale]

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.

Technically DC owns the DC universe in the 21st century. Therefore any depiction of Superman in the 21st century would be violation of the judicial order. The SS claims end in the 1940's. Anything after that is owned by DC.

Now could SS get around it. Probably if they make Metropolis not look anything like the modern New York. Actually that could work if they make Metropolis look like one of those futuristic cities from the 1950's.

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?

Without the additions that have been added over the years, Superman becomes a second rate hero.

Like I said, it would be a car with missing parts. It might run but it won't run well. They would have to completely re-imagine him (Superman with a jet pack ??) but it wouldn't be the Superman people grew up with.

 

[Yminale]

It's like how DC cannot refer to Captain Marvel as the title of a comic or TV show. Marvel comics owns the trademark to the title CAPTAIN MARVEL. DC can use it in the story itself, but not on the cover as title. .

Yeah but they can use SHAZAM (yes I know it's the wizard's name) and that sounds cooler than Captain Marvel.

As a bonus, they can piss off Marvel by calling the wizard, STAN LEE.

 

[Kegg]

Technically DC owns the DC universe in the 21st century.

Now that's a little differently defined. I didn't say a hypothetical non-DC Superman would chill at Gotham and then head over to Oa to play interstellar golf.

But they don't own the 21st century. If S&S had their rights and went shopping elsewhere they could put Superman in the present day. So Superman can't chill with Hal Jordan but he could totally play tennis with Barack Obama (Tennis with Obama - I clearly could write this material. Let me know, claims holders.)

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I wonder in these discussions at what point does an intellectual property change from "private and certain people have the right to restrict it" to "a part of the shared culture that everybody has a right to" a la Robin Hood?

70 years after the death of the original author seems about right. Ulysses has literally just become public domain, you know.

Next year, actually.

Starting with next year's Bloomsday, the Joyce estate won't be able to tamp down on Ulysses readings for Bloomsday as they are this year. Next year sounds like the year to be in Dublin for Bloomsday, you fearful Jesuits.

(That's my favorite Buck Mulliganism, btw.)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Like I said, it would be a car with missing parts. It might run but it won't run well. They would have to completely re-imagine him (Superman with a jet pack ??) but it wouldn't be the Superman people grew up with.

Nope. Dumping a lot of the stuff other than Supes himself and the important parts of the outfit might really shake things up.

Move him to New York City.

S&S will own Clark Kent. They'll own certain parts of the origin story.

In any event, this won't happen. Warners will pay them.

 

[Yminale]

But they don't own the 21st century. If S&S had their rights and went shopping elsewhere they could put Superman in the present day.

No they couldn't. The judicial order made it very clear. Any modern depiction of Superman is the sole right of DC comics.

So Superman can't chill with Hal Jordan but he could totally play tennis with Barack Obama

As long as Superman is hanging out with Barack Obama flying jet packs in an alternate reality that doesn't look like anything like ours. Yep you could do it.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Another thing to keep in mind is that if SS get control of the aspects of Superman as seen in the early issues of Action Comics and Superman, they don't get to use the title of Superman for any book, movie, tv show etc. WB/DC owns the trademark on SUPERMAN, which is separate from the copyrights.

It's like how DC cannot refer to Captain Marvel as the title of a comic or TV show. Marvel comics owns the trademark to the title CAPTAIN MARVEL. DC can use it in the story itself, but not on the cover as title.

This severly diminishes the marketing for the character. SS would have similar difficulties if they tried to take the character anywhere other than WB/DC.

There was a judgment on a Betty Boop case recently that speaks exactly to this. Apparently, trademark can no longer be used to prevent the exploitation of items in the public domain. In other words, things that have fallen in the public domain can't be kept out of the marketplace through trademark protections held by others.

Link.

That's a legal decision that has to be keeping lawyers at Disney and Warners up at night, probably as they draft the next extension of the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.

 

[Kegg]

Next year, actually.

Eh, close enough.

Starting with next year's Bloomsday, the Joyce estate won't be able to tamp down on Ulysses readings for Bloomsday as they are this year.

The copyright's had a storied history and the Estate was quite within its rights to do so.

Next year sounds like the year to be in Dublin for Bloomsday, you fearful Jesuits.

That would have been 2004, really, there was a bit of a focus on the ficitious centenary.

But they don't own the 21st century. If S&S had their rights and went shopping elsewhere they could put Superman in the present day.

No they couldn't. The judicial order made it very clear. Any modern depiction of Superman is the sole right of DC comics.

They own the 21st century vis a vis Superman? I find it very hard to wrap my head around the logic of that. I can see the case for Superman as he's developed, but if you took the S&S elements of the character and just put him in the present day - not a DC licensed reality, but the present day - I'm missing the logic that DC would have a claim to that.

 

[Yminale]

Nope. Dumping a lot of the stuff other than Supes himself and the important parts of the outfit might really shake things up.

I'm assuming you mean DC comics. Well they did try to remake Superman (new costume, new powers) and it didn't go well.

Move him to New York City.

Well if we're talking DC, they could move him anywhere. Plus he can finally dump Lois Lane and get a real girlfriend (*cough* Wonder Woman *cough*).

S&S will own Clark Kent. They'll own certain parts of the origin story.

DC loves messing with their own reality but we shouldn't give them excuse to do it

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But they don't own the 21st century. If S&S had their rights and went shopping elsewhere they could put Superman in the present day.

No they couldn't. The judicial order made it very clear. Any modern depiction of Superman is the sole right of DC comics

Nope.

I'm assuming you mean DC comics. Well they did try to remake Superman (new costume, new powers) and it didn't go well.

The Red/Blue thing? Peanuts. Always planned as a temporary stunt.

They're doing it now, though, starting in September.

 

[CaptainCanada]

But they don't own the 21st century. If S&S had their rights and went shopping elsewhere they could put Superman in the present day.

No they couldn't. The judicial order made it very clear. Any modern depiction of Superman is the sole right of DC comics.

Er, no, it didn't say that at all.

They own the original elements. They can do whatever they want with them. DC can (and, in that case, would) keep an eye on any non-DC Superman stuff for evidence of parts of the mythos that DC owns, but "being set in the present day" is way, way too broad to qualify for that.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But they don't own the 21st century. If S&S had their rights and went shopping elsewhere they could put Superman in the present day.

No they couldn't. The judicial order made it very clear. Any modern depiction of Superman is the sole right of DC comics.

Er, no, it didn't say that at all.

They own the original elements. They can do whatever they want with them. DC can (and, in that case, would) keep an eye on any non-DC Superman stuff for evidence of parts of the mythos that DC owns, but "being set in the present day" is way, way too broad to qualify for that.

Exactly so.

 

[Yminale]

Nope.

Well you're wrong
http://www.slashfilm.com/warner-bros-has-lost-krypton-will-lose-superman-in-2013/

The court battle is ongoing, and on Wednesday, Judge Stephen Larson awarded the Siegel family rights to more additional works, including the first two weeks of the daily Superman newspaper comicstrips, as well as the early Action Comics and Superman comicbooks. What this means is that the Siegels now control depictions of Superman’s origin story. Everything from the planet Krypton, his parents Jor-L and Lora, the launching of the infant Kal-L into space by his parents as Krypton is destroyed and young Superman’s crash landing on Earth.

Larson made it clear that only what was produced directly by SS is covered by the copyright. Anything else including Superman in modern times (which is a derivative work) is not covered.

 

[BillJ]

Larson made it clear that only what was produced directly by SS is covered by the copyright. Anything else including Superman in modern times (which is a derivative work) is not covered.

One, your interpretation would never stand up on appeal.

Two, you're basically saying that DC owns the rights to the 21st century. How are other publishers creating comics if that were the case?

I believe that a third party could produce a Superman in the 21st century with no issues as long as they left DC inspired events, characters and locales out of the equation.

Seriously, you can't believe what your typing? By your interpretation, whoever owns Superman in the 1940's would own the Nazi's, FDR, World War II and anything else historical that was mentioned in a comic.

 

[Yminale]

They own the original elements. They can do whatever they want with them. DC can (and, in that case, would) keep an eye on any non-DC Superman stuff for evidence of parts of the mythos that DC owns, but "being set in the present day" is way, way too broad to qualify for that.

The problem is the original elements are set in the 40's so a modern update with be considered derivative work that is not covered by the copyright.

The other problem is there is already a modern depiction of Superman both in comics and film (i'm not sure how "Smallville" fits into this) owned by WB/DC.

Like I said SS heirs or whoever owns the copyright would have to radically change things.

 

[Vendikarr]

Nope.

Well you're wrong
http://www.slashfilm.com/warner-bros-has-lost-krypton-will-lose-superman-in-2013/

The court battle is ongoing, and on Wednesday, Judge Stephen Larson awarded the Siegel family rights to more additional works, including the first two weeks of the daily Superman newspaper comicstrips, as well as the early Action Comics and Superman comicbooks. What this means is that the Siegels now control depictions of Superman’s origin story. Everything from the planet Krypton, his parents Jor-L and Lora, the launching of the infant Kal-L into space by his parents as Krypton is destroyed and young Superman’s crash landing on Earth.

Larson made it clear that only what was produced directly by SS is covered by the copyright. Anything else including Superman in modern times (which is a derivative work) is not covered.

They can set Superman in the present day, they just cannot show him having abilities that exceed the abilities Superman has in his early Action and Superman comics.

For an example of the powerset the original Superman displayed, look at the character of Jim Powell from No Ordinary Family. When I saw the character in action, I thought he was pretty damn close to the original Superman.

 

[Yminale]

One, your interpretation would never stand up on appeal.

Well you're right. That's why both sides are appealing but as it stands that's how it is.

Two, you're basically saying that DC owns the rights to the 21st century. How are other publishers creating comics if that were the case?

As I keep saying. IT'S ONLY FOR SUPERMAN. No one else.

I believe that a third party could produce a Superman in the 21st century with no issues as long as they left DC inspired events, characters and locales out of the equation.

I'm sure they could but it couldn't look like anything in the comics now or Superman:Returns. That's pretty tough to do when you think about it.

Seriously, you can't believe what your typing? By your interpretation, whoever owns Superman in the 1940's would own the Nazi's, FDR, World War II and anything else historical that was mentioned in a comic.

Yes Copyright laws can be that F*ed up but it's not the case here. SS heirs only own the right to Superman as depicted in the 1940's. They do not own the 1940's.