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

[CaptainCanada]

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.

Correct: the Siegels own the original copyright, and not the derivative works that followed.

The Siegels can produce their own derivative works using generic elements. "The 21st century" is most assuredly a generic element. They can't have an obvious stand-in for Brainiac show up, for instance, but the idea that DC could successfully confine depictions of Superman to 1938 is absurd. DC would be laughed out of court.

And that article you linked doesn't say anything like what you seem to think it says.

 

[BillJ]

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.

No they're not. DC Comics owns any events, characters, created locales and updates to the character that are in relation to Superman that happen after a certain date.

DC Comics does not own the 21st century in regards to Superman. If they did, they wouldn't be in court because the rights the Siegel and Shuster estate received would be absolutely worthless. They would have no leverage to take Superman to another publisher or movie company.

I mean seriously, how could you shop Superman if he's relegated to appearing in 1938? How many comics are actually set in 1938?

 

[Yminale]

The Siegels can produce their own derivative works using generic elements. "The 21st century" is most assuredly a generic element. They can't have an obvious stand-in for Brainiac show up, for instance, but the idea that DC could successfully confine depictions of Superman to 1938 is absurd. DC would be laughed out of court.

First this wasn't the decision of DC or SS heirs. This was the decision of Judge Stephen Larson. Second It is being appealed. Third Superman IN New York in the 21st century maybe specific enough. There are creative ways around it but simply having Superman in New York (or in Chicago) in modern times isn't enough.

 

[Kegg]

Superman is playing tennis with Barack Obama. Obama compliments him on his backhand, assigns him to lead Seal Team Six. They lead a strike on Underman, a crazed Kryptonian terrorist who used to blow stuff up back on Krypton. Superman keeps punching Underman in the face until he is dead, and then jettisons his body into space.

Or: Superman is in New York. He fights New York criminal gangs and seeks to undercover the terrifying truth of a new deadly, addictive drug that turns people into muscular brutes that wildly punch people. It turns out this drug is the work of Lex Luthor, who he captures and has imprisoned.

How does either terrible story idea I made up just now conflict with the ruling? A S&S Superman can do stuff in the present day or New York, surely.

 

[Yminale]

DC Comics does not own the 21st century in regards to Superman. If they did, they wouldn't be in court because the rights the Siegel and Shuster estate received would be absolutely worthless. They would have no leverage to take Superman to another publisher or movie company.

I say it simply again. SS can not show a modern depiction of Superman. The problem is that the character was created in 1938. Since then DC has controlled the modern depiction of Superman including the films. If it looks like what DC has (and that's the problem) then it's not covered by the copyright. That's the issue with copyright. It doesn't have to be a perfect match. It only has to look close enough that the average person can't tell the difference.

 

[BillJ]

I actually find a Superman where he is the only super-powered being on the planet wildly compelling. It would create very interesting stories for the character and how the world around him perceives him.

 

[Yminale]

Superman is playing tennis with Barack Obama. Obama compliments him on his backhand, assigns him to lead Seal Team Six. They lead a strike on Underman, a crazed Kryptonian terrorist who used to blow stuff up back on Krypton. Superman keeps punching Underman in the face until he is dead, and then jettisons his body into space.

Or: Superman is in New York. He fights New York criminal gangs and seeks to undercover the terrifying truth of a new deadly, addictive drug that turns people into muscular brutes that wildly punch people. It turns out this drug is the work of Lex Luthor, who he captures and has imprisoned.

How does either terrible story idea I made up just now conflict with the ruling? A S&S Superman can do stuff in the present day or New York, surely.

If he's doing this flying around in his red and blue costume than you have a problem.

See there is where I have the problem. The suit is owned by SS but having Superman in his red and blue suit even jumping around a modern depiction of New York. That actually may not be covered.

And before people keep jaw boning. This is not a new problem. There was similar incident with Jame Bond when there were two competing Bond films.

 

[BillJ]

I say it simply again. SS can not show a modern depiction of Superman. The problem is that the character was created in 1938. Since then DC has controlled the modern depiction of Superman including the films. If it looks like what DC has (and that's the problem) then it's not covered by the copyright. That's the issue with copyright. It doesn't have to be a perfect match. It only has to look close enough that the average person can't tell the difference.

I really think you're misinterpreting here...

But the ruling did not give the family the full Superman copyright because DC Comics owns some of the important elements identified with the character, including his ability to fly, vision powers, the term Kryptonite, Lex Luthor, Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, and “expanded origins.”

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.

When they say the first two weeks of the comic strips, they are talking about the contents created within. Not a cut-off point for them to create Superman stories. DC only has the rights to elements they created for the character after they assumed control. DC did not create the 21st century.

 

[Sindatur]

I say it simply again. SS can not show a modern depiction of Superman. The problem is that the character was created in 1938. Since then DC has controlled the modern depiction of Superman including the films. If it looks like what DC has (and that's the problem) then it's not covered by the copyright. That's the issue with copyright. It doesn't have to be a perfect match. It only has to look close enough that the average person can't tell the difference.

I really think you're misinterpreting here...

But the ruling did not give the family the full Superman copyright because DC Comics owns some of the important elements identified with the character, including his ability to fly, vision powers, the term Kryptonite, Lex Luthor, Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, and “expanded origins.”

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.

When they say the first two weeks of the comic strips, they are talking about the contents created within. Not a cut-off point for them to create Superman stories. DC only has the rights to elements they created for the character after they assumed control. DC did not create the 21st century.

Yea, basically anything in the comics before DC took over, they do not have the rights to, without paying for the rights. So, SS could do stories in any setting they wanted, as long as that setting isn't fictional created by DC, using any of those elements before DC took over, and would be in trouble if they used any elements DC created.

So if DC created the City Metropolis, another fictional (or any real city) would ahve to be used. If Metropolis was before DC took over, and DC and SS divorced, DC could no longer use the fictional city Metropolis

 

[Snaploud]

DC did not create the 21st century.

We don't know how Flashpoint ends yet.

 

[Yminale]

I really think you're misinterpreting here...

I wish I was but there is actually case law behind this (I mentioned James Bond which is the most famous).

This is why copyrights need to end in short period of time. Figuring out who owns what gets too convoluted.

So if DC created the City Metropolis, another fictional (or any real city) would ahve to be used. If Metropolis was before DC took over, and DC and SS divorced, DC could no longer use the fictional city Metropolis

Well actually they could since you can't copyright term in general use (like metropolis).

Is your head spinning yet? Welcome to the ugly world of copyrights.

 

[BillJ]

So if DC created the City Metropolis, another fictional (or any real city) would ahve to be used. If Metropolis was before DC took over, and DC and SS divorced, DC could no longer use the fictional city Metropolis

Well actually they could since you can't copyright term in general use (like metropolis).

Is your head spinning yet? Welcome to the ugly world of copyrights.

They can use metropolis as a description, not a proper name. This isn't anywhere near screwed up as you're trying to make it sound.

 

[Snaploud]

So if DC created the City Metropolis, another fictional (or any real city) would ahve to be used. If Metropolis was before DC took over, and DC and SS divorced, DC could no longer use the fictional city Metropolis

Well actually they could since you can't copyright term in general use (like metropolis).

Is your head spinning yet? Welcome to the ugly world of copyrights.

They can use metropolis as a description, not a proper name. This isn't anywhere near screwed up as you're trying to make it sound.

Metropolis was used as a proper name in the famous 1927 film (well before Superman). I'm not sure who holds the rights to that movie, though.

 

[Yminale]

They can use metropolis as a description, not a proper name. This isn't anywhere near screwed up as you're trying to make it sound.

There are many places that have Metropolis or it's derivative Metropolitan as part of their proper names.

from Wikipedia.

• Metropolis (television), a fictional city in the fictional state of Evergreen in the show 21 Jump Street.
• Metropolis, Illinois, a city in Massac County, Illinois, United States
• Metropolis, Nevada, a ghost town in Elko County, Nevada, United States
• Metropolis (Anatolia), a classical city in western Turkey

Finally Fritz Lang or his heirs didn't sue SS.

 

[BillJ]

And before people keep jaw boning. This is not a new problem. There was similar incident with Jame Bond when there were two competing Bond films.

I don't think your interpreting what happened there appropriately either...

Thunderball

Kevin McClory was able to remake his early sixties script Thunderball in the eighties, as Never Say Never Again, with a different production company and it looks like it takes place in the eighties.

So I don't think Siegel and Shuster estates would have any problem using their Superman in a 21st century.

They can use metropolis as a description, not a proper name. This isn't anywhere near screwed up as you're trying to make it sound.

There are many places that have Metropolis or it's derivative Metropolitan as part of their proper names.

from Wikipedia.

• Metropolis (television), a fictional city in the fictional state of Evergreen in the show 21 Jump Street.
• Metropolis, Illinois, a city in Massac County, Illinois, United States
• Metropolis, Nevada, a ghost town in Elko County, Nevada, United States
• Metropolis (Anatolia), a classical city in western Turkey

Finally Fritz Lang or his heirs didn't sue SS.

I'm certain that if DC applied pressure the name in a fictional TV show would've been changed or they would've been paid. Real city names do not apply in copyright law. I'd have specified, but I thought you knew better.

Well actually they could since you can't copyright term in general use (like metropolis).

Is your head spinning yet? Welcome to the ugly world of copyrights.

They can use metropolis as a description, not a proper name. This isn't anywhere near screwed up as you're trying to make it sound.

Metropolis was used as a proper name in the famous 1927 film (well before Superman). I'm not sure who holds the rights to that movie, though.

I was actually being specific to how Siegel and Shuster would've been able to use the term in their Superman.

 

[Snaploud]

It seems strange that DC owns the rights to Superman flying. It's not as if flying is unique to Superman. There have been plenty of fictional examples of flying people going back through time. Peter Pan, for instance...

 

[Yminale]

And before people keep jaw boning. This is not a new problem. There was similar incident with Jame Bond when there were two competing Bond films.

I don't think your interpreting what happened there appropriately either...

Thunderball

Kevin McClory was able to remake his early sixties script Thunderball in the eighties, as Never Say Never Again, with a different production company and it looks like it takes place in the eighties.

So I don't think Siegel and Shuster estates would have any problem using their Superman in a 21st century.

Close, McClory wanted to actually make another movie (I think the working title was "Warhead 2000") based on Thunderball with Sony pictures. MGM sued and basically saying that McClory had basically violated the court agreement by making a modern adaption of the film. They succeeded in getting an injunction on the film.

In the end, McClory just gave up and sold the rights back to MGM.

 

[Yminale]

I'm certain that if DC applied pressure the name in a fictional TV show would've been changed or they would've been paid. Real city names do not apply in copyright law.

Actually they do. The City of New York owns the copyright to New York City and NYC. I know the state of Kentucky owns the copyright to Kentucky. I'm sure their other example but I'm not aware of them.

 

[BillJ]

And before people keep jaw boning. This is not a new problem. There was similar incident with Jame Bond when there were two competing Bond films.

I don't think your interpreting what happened there appropriately either...

Thunderball

Kevin McClory was able to remake his early sixties script Thunderball in the eighties, as Never Say Never Again, with a different production company and it looks like it takes place in the eighties.

So I don't think Siegel and Shuster estates would have any problem using their Superman in a 21st century.

Close, McClory wanted to actually make another movie (I think the working title was "Warhead 2000") based on Thunderball with Sony pictures. MGM sued and basically saying that McClory had basically violated the court agreement by making a modern adaption of the film. They succeeded in getting an injunction on the film.

In the end, McClory just gave up and sold the rights back to MGM.

Which is why Warner Brothers/Orion Films made a Bond movie? Which grossed $160 million dollars?

Never Say Never Again

Never Say Never Again, released in 1983 by Warner Bros., is an adaptation of the James Bond novel Thunderball, which was previously filmed in 1965 as Thunderball. Unlike the majority of Bond films, it was not produced by EON Productions. Because of this, it is referred to as an "unofficial" James Bond film by EON fans. The film, like the original, stars Sean Connery as British Secret Service agent James Bond 007. Connery had been the first actor to portray Bond in a motion picture, in 1962's Dr. No, but after his participation in a string of commercially successful films (interrupted by George Lazenby's brief portrayal of Bond) Connery left the franchise in 1971, intending for Diamonds Are Forever to be his last Bond film. Eleven years later, in Never Say Never Again he would portray Bond for his seventh and final time on the screen. It was reportedly his favorite Bond movie to work on.

Although the film was not part of EON's Bond film franchise, subsequent mergers and dealings mean that it is currently owned, like the rest of the series, by United Artists' parent, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer:[1] It was released only four months after the EON Bond film Octopussy, starring Roger Moore. MGM acquired the distribution rights in 1997 after its acquisition of Orion Pictures. The film also marks the culmination of a long legal battle between United Artists and Kevin McClory that goes back to his working on the original story with Ian Fleming and Jack Whittingham.

Seems to me he was able to make a competing Bond film using the elements from his own work that was a direct competitor to UA's Bond franchise and that it took place in the 1980's.

I'm certain that if DC applied pressure the name in a fictional TV show would've been changed or they would've been paid. Real city names do not apply in copyright law.

Actually they do. The City of New York owns the copyright to New York City and NYC. I know the state of Kentucky owns the copyright to Kentucky. I'm sure their other example but I'm not aware of them.

Those exist for marketing purposes and you know it. The only reason you have issues with copyright law is because your constantly trying to twist it to fit what ever argument you have here.

 

[Sindatur]

So if DC created the City Metropolis, another fictional (or any real city) would ahve to be used. If Metropolis was before DC took over, and DC and SS divorced, DC could no longer use the fictional city Metropolis

Well actually they could since you can't copyright term in general use (like metropolis).

Is your head spinning yet? Welcome to the ugly world of copyrights.

Sure, lower case metropolis, but, not uppercase Metropolis.