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

[BillJ]

So if the estates decided to make their own Superman comics and movies, they could only be distributed in the United States? And if they are unable to come to a deal, DC could continue to publish Superman for consumption in international markets?

That is correct. Each nation has its own copyright rules, and this lawsuit only deals with US rights.

I think DC would continue to publish a premiere Superman title on the international markets if the estates pull out of a U.S. agreement. People who wanted it would just acquire it by "other means".

To me it doesn't seem like the estates have as much leverage as everyone assumes they do.

 

[CaptainCanada]

I think DC would continue to publish a premiere Superman title on the international markets if the estates pull out of a U.S. agreement.

The international markets for American superhero comics are pretty small; it's highly unlikely they'd put out a product aimed solely at that.

People make bad business deals all the time. I don't think the courts necessarily have the responsibility to protect people from their own stupidity.

People get confused on this point all the time: the current copyright reversion has nothing whatsoever to do with the conditions under which Superman was originally sold to DC Comics. DC could have given S & S a million dollars in cash and it would still be the same.

Under copyright extension laws, extended copyrights revert to their original owners, so DC doesn't have a leg to stand on. If the copyright extension legislation hadn't been passed, Superman would have entered the public domain in 1994 (which you could argue would have been better, but that's neither here nor there); DC wants to keep the copyright extension, but not honour the terms under which Congress extended it.

 

[BillJ]

I think DC would continue to publish a premiere Superman title on the international markets if the estates pull out of a U.S. agreement.

The international markets for American superhero comics are pretty small; it's highly unlikely they'd put out a product aimed solely at that.
still be the same.

I think it would serve two purposes to continue to publish internationally.

* It would be a thorn in the sides of the 'Estates'.

* It would still be available in America to compete with the 'Estates' version. I can go to a little newsstand and pretty much order anything I want from most of the world. The 'Estates' Superman would bear little resemblance to what we currently know and would not have access to DC's stable of heroes. While the DC comics published in the U.S. couldn't feature or reference Superman, an international publication could still have access to DC's stable of heroes.

The 'Estates' have more to lose than DC does at this point I believe.

 

[Distorted Humor]

Would be wonderful if some of the stuff started going public domain...that and a lot of fun and might be the best thing to have 12 publishers with there own "superman" comics...

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

As property rights go, intellectual property is a fairly recent, and still very controversial convention.

As Distorted Humor has already observed it's actually fairly old, but more importantly, the existence of intellectual property is not controversial. Put baldly it's pretty much the logic behind artists not starving to death in a capitalist economy.

It is indeed controversial, but maybe more in the legal community than in outside circles.

The idea of assigning property rights to something that is intangible was considered radical at the outset, and remains subject to controversy to this day.

This is not to say that artists creations are not worthy of some protection. It is to say that ownership of an intangible, versus ownership of something tangible, is like comparing apples and oranges (as comparisons in this thread have shown). And the latter has a much longer and established foundation than the former.

Would be wonderful if some of the stuff started going public domain...that and a lot of fun and might be the best thing to have 12 publishers with there own "superman" comics...

One of the things that Disney is doing is trying to protect its characters with trademark law instead of copyright law, which may ultimately solve the 'dilemma' of their characters falling into the public domain.

Warner could follow suit if the above strategy proves effective.

On a related note, have you guys seen this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo&feature=player_embedded

 

[Kegg]

The idea of assigning property rights to something that is intangible was considered radical at the outset, and remains subject to controversy to this day.

Outset, sure. Women's suffrage was controversial at the outset, and this is older than that.

You mean to tell me there's a body of legal opinion that, say, piracy of films is a perfectly legal activity? Or is there a distinction here between a character or concept (like Superman) and a more 'concrete' intellectual property like a Superman comic (which I think S&S have the rights to the first two or something like that?)

 

[TemporalFlux]

I haven't read much of this thread; I'm just throwing out a general opinion on the thing.

You know, at first I felt sympathy for the creators; but I've really fallen away from that the longer this has pressed on.

What's the situation here? If the heirs win (for something they didn't create), then they'll likely blow the money on mansions, fancy sports cars and the ability to get trashed on liquor on their trip to the Bahamas. If Warner wins (for something they didn't create), then the executives will likely blow the money on mansions, fancy sports cars and the ability to get trashed on liquor on their trip to the Bahamas.

Why the hell should I care who does what or who wins? This is greed. It's greed on the part of Warners. It's greed on the part of the heirs. Both are desperately clutching onto the work of dead men in order to stuff their own pockets. There's nothing to cheer here.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

The idea of assigning property rights to something that is intangible was considered radical at the outset, and remains subject to controversy to this day.

Outset, sure. Women's suffrage was controversial at the outset, and this is older than that.

You mean to tell me there's a body of legal opinion that, say, piracy of films is a perfectly legal activity?

No, I'm saying that the idea of protecting intangibles has always been a difficult concept. Hard to define, hard to interpret, hard to protect.

This difficulty leads to ambiguity, which leads to controversy.

This thread is a perfect example. How clear is it to anyone here exactly what the S&S heirs should own, and what the limits of that ownership are, both conceptually as well as over the course of time?

It's a huge mess.

As opposed to my pen, or my car, or my house. Those are easy.

The length of time that a work should be protected is equally controversial. Copyright law is supposed to provide a balance between the rights of authors on the one hand, and the interest of the public in having access to these protected works and the ideas that they contain on the other.

Anytime you increase or shorten the length of time that a work is protected, you alter that balance, along with the policies meant to be served by that balance.

How to protect intangibles is controversial. How long to protect them is controversial. How to define these concepts is controversial. How to intrepret these laws is controversial. This very discussion is controversial.

 

[Kegg]

How to protect intangibles is controversial. How long to protect them is controvesial. How to define these concepts is controversial. How to intrepret these laws is controversial. This very discussion is controversial.

Right, my ownly assertion is that I'd be surprised that 'intangibles should be protected' is in itself controversial, rather then how it should be argued and where the lines should be drawn.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

How to protect intangibles is controversial. How long to protect them is controvesial. How to define these concepts is controversial. How to intrepret these laws is controversial. This very discussion is controversial.

Right, my ownly assertion is that I'd be surprised that 'intangibles should be protected' is in itself controversial, rather then how it should be argued and where the lines should be drawn.

Well, that's why it was such a hard sell originally.

This is too different. To difficult. Therefore, let's just not open that can of worms.

 

[BillJ]

Why the hell should I care who does what or who wins? This is greed. It's greed on the part of Warners. It's greed on the part of the heirs. Both are desperately clutching onto the work of dead men in order to stuff their own pockets. There's nothing to cheer here.

This pretty much sums up my feelings.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Why the hell should I care who does what or who wins? This is greed. It's greed on the part of Warners. It's greed on the part of the heirs. Both are desperately clutching onto the work of dead men in order to stuff their own pockets. There's nothing to cheer here.

This pretty much sums up my feelings.

Hey, I'm greedy, too.

I just want more Superman.

 

[Valin]

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.

Whomever owns the rights to that movie is being silent.

 

[sojourner]

^Like the movie?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, I'm guessing that was pretty much the inference there.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Would be wonderful if some of the stuff started going public domain...that and a lot of fun and might be the best thing to have 12 publishers with there own "superman" comics...

One of the things that Disney is doing is trying to protect its characters with trademark law instead of copyright law, which may ultimately solve the 'dilemma' of their characters falling into the public domain.

Warner could follow suit if the above strategy proves effective.

I noted a few pages back a lawsuit on precisely this point over Betty Boop. Some of the early cartoons are public domain, and the current trademark owners were attempting to use trademark to keep merchandise based on the public domain Betty Boop out of the marketplace. The 9th Circuit ruled that trademark doesn't supercede copyright:

“If we ruled that Avela’s depictions of Betty Boop infringed Fleischer’s trademarks, the Betty Boop character would essentially never enter the public domain,” U.S. Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace wrote. Link

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

Whichever of the two sides is more willing to give me a GOOD Superman movie and comics gets my vote.

WB is not doing so well.

Damn, it's too bad Grant Morrison can't own Superman :-P

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Would be wonderful if some of the stuff started going public domain...that and a lot of fun and might be the best thing to have 12 publishers with there own "superman" comics...

One of the things that Disney is doing is trying to protect its characters with trademark law instead of copyright law, which may ultimately solve the 'dilemma' of their characters falling into the public domain.

Warner could follow suit if the above strategy proves effective.

I noted a few pages back a lawsuit on precisely this point over Betty Boop. Some of the early cartoons are public domain, and the current trademark owners were attempting to use trademark to keep merchandise based on the public domain Betty Boop out of the marketplace. The 9th Circuit ruled that trademark doesn't supercede copyright:

“If we ruled that Avela’s depictions of Betty Boop infringed Fleischer’s trademarks, the Betty Boop character would essentially never enter the public domain,” U.S. Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace wrote. Link

Well, let's see what happens after Disney gets their turn in the ring.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Warners can - and has - trademarked Supes' shield; they don't seem to enforce these trademarks nearly as aggressively or effectively as Disney, though. Have they ever, anywhere, at any time successfully gone after a teeshirt manufacturer who's slapped an "S" shield on their product?

At Green Lantern this evening I saw at least a dozen GL teeshirts, all different, all commercially produced and not a one (as nearly as I could tell) bearing a trademark. And half the guys under the age of 24 in my state seem to have a bat tattooed somewhere on their anatomy.

 

[Jetfire]

I have a GL shirt I got at Walmart a long time ago...I have 3 different Superman shirts...2 with \S/hields and one with artwork.