Lawsuite

[tecnowraith]

Source: Cinescape (Cinescape)

Variety reports that the widow and daughter of Jerome Siegel, originator of the comicbook series SUPERBOY, is suing the WB over SMALLVILLE.

A federal judge in Los Angeles has found that WB's show may be infringing on the copyrights held on the Superboy character. The summary judgment also found that Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson had successfully recaptured the SUPERBOY rights as of mid November 2004.

The lawyer for Siegel and Larson told Variety, "Jerry Siegel's SUPERBOY focuses on Superboy's relationship with his parents and his adventures with school classmates in a small town which, by SUPERBOY #2, was named Smallville."

Warner Bros. said in response that it "respectfully disagrees" with the rulings and will pursue an appeal.

[AgentPat]

Oh, brother....



Super snit in 'Smallville'
Skein faces copyright infringement charges
By DAVE MCNARY

There's a big dispute in "Smallville."

A federal judge in Los Angeles has found that the WB's young Superman skein may be infringing on the copyrights held on the Superboy character by the widow and daughter of Jerome Siegel, originator of the comicbook series.

The March 23 summary judgment by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew also found that Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson had successfully recaptured the Superboy rights as of Nov. 17, 2004.

Lew's rulings in the copyright infringement lawsuit against Time Warner, Warner Bros. and DC Comics throw into question the ownership of "Smallville" episodes that have run since November 2004. Lew denied a request by the defendants for a ruling that "Smallville" did not infringe on the Superboy copyrights.

Warner Bros. said in response that it "respectfully disagrees" with the rulings and will pursue an appeal.

Still to be resolved is the question of whether "Smallville" -- now in its fifth season and centered on a teenage Clark Kent -- is actually infringing on the Superboy copyright. No trial date has been set in the suit, filed in 2004.

In their request for partial summary judgment, Siegel and Larson didn't ask for a copyright infringement ruling, which Lew said would require a "detailed factual comparison." But he noted, "Enough facts are presented, where this court, contrary to defendants' request, could find that the main character in 'Smallville' is in fact Superboy."

Lew also added in a footnote, "In the Superboy comic strip, a billboard on the side of a rural country road announces, 'Welcome to Smallville! Home of Superboy."

In response, Warner Bros. also pointed out that the suit is directed solely to rights relating to the costumed character Superboy -- not Superman. "Moreover, the court's ruling does not affect the television series 'Smallville,' which is grounded in depictions of a young Superman that pre-date the publication of Superboy in 1944 and which therefore are not subject to the termination notice, even if valid," Warner added.

Marc Toberoff, who represents Siegel and Larson, told Daily Variety that the only representations of a younger Superman which pre-date 1944 Superboy consist of one or two panels showing Superman as a baby or toddler. "Jerry Siegel's Superboy focuses on Superboy's relationship with his parents and his adventures with school classmates in a small town which, by Superboy No. 2, was named Smallville," he added.

The dispute over who owns Superboy goes back to 1938 -- the same year the first Superman comicbook, based on the story originated by Siegel and illustrator Joseph Shuster, was published.

A few months later, Siegel agreed to provide Detective Comics with a new Superboy comicstrip and submitted a plan that was turned down. Siegel unsuccessfully attempted several more times to pique Detective's interest in Superboy before entering the Army in 1943.

But Detective began publishing Superboy comics in 1944 while Siegel was stationed in the Pacific, resulting in a 1947 lawsuit in which New York state court Judge Addison Young found Siegel to be the sole owner of Superboy. In 1948, Siegel reached a settlement with National Comics Publications (predecessor of DC Comics) in which he sold ownership of Superboy and Superman to National.

Siegel and Shuster sued to regain the Superman copyright in 1973, but lost that suit two years later. Siegel then launched a PR campaign to protest DC Comics' treatment of him and Shuster, placing a "curse" on the upcoming "Superman" film and resulting in Warner Communications awarding annual pensions to the duo along with credit as co-creators.

Shuster died in 1992; Siegel passed away four years later.

The Superboy copyrights -- granted originally for the standard 28 years -- were renewed for another 28 years between 1972 and 1975.

However, Congress amended copyright law in 1976 to extend renewal terms from 28 years to 47 years in order to allow authors and their heirs to recapture copyrights for the extended renewal period. So in late 2002, Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson served the standard two-year notice they were terminating the 1948 grant of the Superboy copyright.

But in August 2004, DC Comics notified Siegel and Larson it was denying the validity of the termination notice and asserting it would "vigorously oppose" any attempt to exploit the Superboy copyrights. Siegel and Larson filed their suit two months later.

In their legal responses to the Superboy suit, Time Warner and its co-defendants had contended Superboy was simply a younger version of Superman and that Superboy was "work for hire" solely owned by its predecessors. But Lew said those arguments were unpersuasive in light of rulings made by Judge Young in the 1947 trial.

Lew noted that Young had made those determinations after hearing evidence from the parties who were "directly involved" in the original dispute.

"Defendants' attempt to recast Superboy as a 'derivative work' or 'work for hire' stands in stark contrast to Judge Young's conclusion that Detective/National was 'perpetually enjoined and restrained from creating, publishing, selling or distributing' Superboy, based on the fact that Siegel was the sole and exclusive owner," Lew said.

"Defendants' argument also contradicts the fact that Siegel subsequently transferred his exclusive interest in Superboy to National in the May 19, 1948, stipulated settlement. Had Superboy been nothing more than a derivative work, Siegel would have owned no interest in the Superboy property to transfer."

Lew also noted that the defendants' predecessors had relied on Young's rulings in previous cases such as Siegel-Shuster's unsuccessful 1973 suit. "Defendants now take the inconsistent position that this court is not bound by the state court findings, as they relate to Superboy," he wrote.

Toberoff, a specialist in intellectual property, represented Robert B. Clark in his suit against Warner Bros., which was settled last year for at least $17.5 million for infringing on the copyright to the 1974 film "Moonrunners" by making the feature "The Dukes of Hazzard." "Moonrunners" became the basis of the Warner TV series "The Dukes of Hazzard."

http://www.variety.com/story.asp?l=story&a=VR1117941008&c=1236

Let the fun begin. :rolleyes:

[The Sage]

Maybe they should've stuck to the "no flights" clause after all, LOL.

[NHawk19]

Oh, brother....



Let the fun begin. :rolleyes:

Look at it this way Pat

They name him Superman and this all goes away . . .:D hint hint WB.

Plus Superboy wore the tights Clark hasnt done that yet.

[Brainiac 8]

Oy, people sue over anything anymore.:down :o

[GothicPowerMix1]

So basically what will end up happening is. Put on the Suit or get cancelled :o or the obvious one. Pay me money or get cancelled. But why wait 5 Years after the Show First started to sue ?

[Ultimate_Superman]

But how will putting on the suit and calling him Superman sovle anything since the WB and DC already are paying out of the ass to them for Superman as well.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Plus DC has already lost the rights to Superman which is coming up very soon where either they will have to kill him for good or pay the family the money they want.

[GothicPowerMix1]

I don't want them to kill Superman :o Smallville is just getting good & after all these years we are getting a Movie. Itd suck if they just kill Superman :o

[Ultimate_Superman]

Well thats what could happen remember DC has lost the rights to Superman I can't remember what year they have to turn everything over but if they dont buy it back from them you might see Superman in Marvel or hanging out with Spawn or whatever or you just may never see a Superman for a while. Though I am now wondering if they are going to kill SV because of this.

[GothicPowerMix1]

Though I am now wondering if they are going to kill SV because of this.

They can't kill SV now. But now thanks to this I would not be surprised if Season 6 = the Final Season. But this Show must get One More Season :o Then again WB shows have an habit of ending very crappily :o

[avidreader]

Oy, people sue over anything anymore.:down :o

Its the land of Freedom of Speech, but if you say something I dont like, I'll sue you. ;)

[Ultimate_Superman]

They can't kill SV now. But now thanks to this I would not be surprised if Season 6 = the Final Season. But this Show must get One More Season :o Then again WB shows have an habit of ending very crappily :oReally? Look at Lois and Clark it was a highly rated show but was killed to bring back the wonderful world of Disney

[GothicPowerMix1]

Really? Look at Lois and Clark it was a highly rated show but killed to bring back the wonderful world of Disney

Even that ended crappily :o

[Ultimate_Superman]

True but it was not their fault the network went out of its way to try and kill the show and couldn't even do it show they just said we're not bringing it back.

[GothicPowerMix1]

True but it was not their fault the network went out of its way to try and kill the show and couldn't even do it show they just said we're not bringing it back.
I just hope this lawsuit does not effect Smallville & Superman that much. The WB has money they need to step up. This World is full of greedy bastards & the greedy bastards win :o I just hope WB is careful & knows what its doing

[Kaboom]

3 things....

1. tony, love the new avatar, but i cant see it to well, bigger version maybe?

2. isnt it pissin anybody else off that lawsuit is spelled "lawsuite" in the thread.

3. I'm not going to throw legal advice around on the web, BUT the WB is in kind of a damned if you damned if you dont situation, because it seems to me any actions they would have to take to quiet title to the superman properties would put them in the precarious situation of having superman come into the public domain. Paying them off might be the easiest and in the end, least costly thing they could do.

[GothicPowerMix1]

isnt it pissin anybody else off that lawsuit is spelled "lawsuite" in the thread

rofl

[Kane]

Theyll have to jump some years ahead to put on the suit.

If Clark puts on the suit at 18, he will be Superboy.

I guess this is why they named Superboy's university from the 1980s TV series into Shuster College and why Superboy was retconed out of postcrisis origins (good move).

I wonder how DC still managed to make Kon-el and Superboy Prime work?...


Spoilers...





Though it may be no coincidence that both are dying for good in todays issue of Infinite Crisis.

[tecnowraith]

Give me a break, it was early in the morning (for me that is) when I posted this. And now I can not even edit it the title.

[Brainiac 8]

Its the land of Freedom of Speech, but if you say something I dont like, I'll sue you. ;)


LOL:up: :D

That is the way the nation works now.

Just like the "I spilled hot coffee on me, and McDonalds didn't tell me ahead of time it was hot" lady. It's just stupid, stupid, stupid.

Also, DC wouldn't ever lose the property of Superman. He is their flagship, iconic character. If they were ever in danger of losing him, I'm sure they would go as far as going bankrupt if it meant keeping him.

[Brainiac 8]

Though it may be no coincidence that both are dying for good in todays issue of Infinite Crisis.


Crisis, you just reminded me why I dread going to the comic shop to pick up #6 today. I like Kon-el, and don't want him to croak.:(

[avidreader]

Where's Hulk when you need him.

I have a little legal experience, but I'm nowhere near the legal eagle that :hulk: is.

First thing I note is that Smallville started before 2004, which is when these ladies assumed the copyrights to Superboy.

Secondly, Clark has never been referred to as the Superboy character and he doesnt wear the costume.

Thirdly, its in the story of Superman that he grew up in Smallville when he was a teenager.

Anyway, this dispute has been going since 2004 and probably wont be settled before Smallville ends.

[Kane]

Crisis, you just reminded me why I dread going to the comic shop to pick up #6 today. I like Kon-el, and don't want him to croak.:(

:D I would! Hes served his purpose and they seem to be going back to an older classic version of TT anyways.

Just as Supergirl and Barry died in issues 6 and 7 of COIE, Kon will die in IC #6 and I predict Wally will fall in IC#7.

The new Flash in the new series, I think, will be Bart Allen.....he comes out of the speedforce having aged several years and is now an adult.

[Kane]

Anyway, this dispute has been going since 2004 and probably wont be settled before Smallville ends.

It may actually end sooner than you think, especially with DC killing off its Superboy characters.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Theyll have to jump some years ahead to put on the suit.

If Clark puts on the suit at 18, he will be Superboy.

I guess this is why they named Superboy's university from the 1980s TV series into Shuster College and why Superboy was retconed out of postcrisis origins (good move).

I wonder how DC still managed to make Kon-el and Superboy Prime work?...


Spoilers...





Though it may be no coincidence that both are dying for good in todays issue of Infinite Crisis.Remember they kill Conner and bring in a guy called Supernova and remember Conner is suppose to come back (meaning they could have gotten rid of Superboy and brought him back under a new name with no problem.)

[Brainiac 8]

:D I would! Hes served his purpose and they seem to be going back to an older classic version of TT anyways.

Just as Supergirl and Barry died in issues 6 and 7 of COIE, Kon will die in IC #6 and I predict Wally will fall in IC#7.

The new Flash in the new series, I think, will be Bart Allen.....he comes out of the speedforce having aged several years and is now an adult.

That is one thing I hope is going to happen, Bart as the new Flash. That would be awsome. Of cource it would be too if Barry stays around after issue 5.

The only thing about Kon vs. Supergirl from COIE is that Kon is a lot cooler than she was. In my opinion that is.:O

[Kane]

Remember they kill Conner and bring in a guy called Supernova and remember Conner is suppose to come back (meaning they could have gotten rid of Superboy and brought him back under a new name with no problem.)

I doubt Conner is tied to Supernova (who I assumed was female). If they brought Barry and Kara back right after the crisis, it would have cheapened it bigtime.

Same goes for Conner; if hes the major death of IC. It would render IC #6 pretty pointless and I heard they went 'all out' for his death.

[Ultimate_Superman]

I doubt Conner is tied to Supernova (who I assumed was female). If they brought Barry and Kara back right after the crisis, it would have cheapened it bigtime.

Same goes for Conner; if hes the major death of IC. It would render IC #6 pretty pointless and I heard they went 'all out' for his death.They did but they are bringing him back and he is suppose to get his own title once he does come back. It is suppose to be like a return of Superman thing only with out the 4 Superboys

[Kane]

That is one thing I hope is going to happen, Bart as the new Flash. That would be awsome. Of cource it would be too if Barry stays around after issue 5.

The only thing about Kon vs. Supergirl from COIE is that Kon is a lot cooler than she was. In my opinion that is.:O

I like precrisis Supergirl. The new one is kinda slutty but whatever, she reflects most teenage girls today lol

Kon's concept was cool, the 'son' of Superman and Luthor in a way...

But I think they may be paving the way (by killing Kon) for Clark and Lois to have their own son. Lois' 'three words that will change Supermans life forever' still need to happen ("I Am Pregnant")

As far as Bart goes, I'll miss Wally. He was awesome...but its tradition for Flashes to change up at major points in DC history.

[Brainiac 8]

They did but they are bringing him back and he is suppose to get his own title once he does come back. It is suppose to be like a return of Superman thing only with out the 4 Superboys

MWAHAHAHAHAAHA:up: :D

Whoo, I needed a good belly laugh.

[Kane]

They did but they are bringing him back and he is suppose to get his own title once he does come back. It is suppose to be like a return of Superman thing only with out the 4 Superboys

Wheres the proof that confirms this?

[Ultimate_Superman]

its the rumors

[Brainiac 8]

Wheres the proof that confirms this?

I just assumed he was joking. I mean could you imagine:

Cyborg-kid
Super Toddler
Steel-lite
The Eradicator lad:D :joker: hahaha

[Kane]

Rumors are BS. I really dont see them bringing him back like this, sounds more like a fanboy dream. It would totally dumb down his death in issue #6 way too soon.

After IC they wont have Prime's wall punching to blame for all these strange ressurections and timeline chnages anymore, I think everything will be tighter.

[Brainiac 8]

Rumors are BS. I really dont see them bringing him back like this, sounds more like a fanboy dream. It would totally dumb down his death in issue #6 way too soon.

After IC they wont have Prime's wall punching to blame for all these strange ressurections and timeline chnages anymore, I think everything will be tighter.

I agree, I think they are trying to fix the last several years of glitches.

C'mon you didn't find STEEL-LITE funny at all. Oh well...:O

[Kane]

Its early in the day.... maybe later.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Your right on the rumors :( Robin is trying to bring him back not Superman.

[Ultimate_Superman]

3 things....

1. tony, love the new avatar, but i cant see it to well, bigger version maybe?

Is this better?

[Bruce_Wayne29]

From what I remember, the Superman rights expire in 97 but I think it's related to movies. In fact that was one of the reasons they couldn't wait till SV end to start the movie, because suposedly if a new Superman movie doesn't come out until 2007 they loose the rights. That's what I heard, I haven't heard anything regarding rights to comics...

[Ultimate_Superman]

No they lost all rights to Superman.

[Serene]

This maybe a silly question... but I wonder if having this lawsuit looming over them will affect the decision to have Clark fly or not?

Will flying make him more "Superboy-ish" to the courts?

[Ultimate_Superman]

This maybe a silly question... but I wonder if having this lawsuit looming over them will affect the decision to have Clark fly or not?

Will flying make him more "Superboy-ish" to the courts?It could depending on what you call Superman or Superboy-ish. Its like why dont they go after Marvel for Supreme Power or all their other Superman rip-offs??? Why only go after DC? As I said before this lawsuit really could kill the next season of SV if the WB doesn't feel like paying and the only people who would suffer is the fans. Really the point of the matter is the family feels like they were robbed and they pretty much were it like the the guy who takes the credit for Batman really he didn't make Batman but the man who did has no living family members so he is robbed.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Because really what your looking at is if they bring another suit asking for the show to stop with all use of powers till this case is settled they have a pretty good chance of that happing.

[NHawk19]

Where's Hulk when you need him.

I have a little legal experience, but I'm nowhere near the legal eagle that :hulk: is.

First thing I note is that Smallville started before 2004, which is when these ladies assumed the copyrights to Superboy.

Secondly, Clark has never been referred to as the Superboy character and he doesnt wear the costume.

Thirdly, its in the story of Superman that he grew up in Smallville when he was a teenager.

Anyway, this dispute has been going since 2004 and probably wont be settled before Smallville ends.

I wouldnt go that far . . .Remember Aquadude

[Ultimate_Superman]

Also remember when Iceman got his powers. They do throw around the term Superboy like its. None thing.

[GothicPowerMix1]

If Clark does not fly at all because of this Law Suit I would rather them end the Show. No flying = this Show turns into Dawsons Creek :o I can understand with budget limits they have to limit his flying. But if he can not fly period. Then BLAH him flying is such a big part of his Character

[Kane]

This maybe a silly question... but I wonder if having this lawsuit looming over them will affect the decision to have Clark fly or not?

Will flying make him more "Superboy-ish" to the courts?

But hes already flown? I dont think it matters.

The decision of the lawsuit will simply result in some kinda cash settlement most likely.

[Super_Ludacris]

I would laugh my ass off if in court the trial was broken down to Pre and Post crisis evidence and things of that nature

[The Sage]

I would laugh my ass off if in court the trial was broken down to Pre and Post crisis evidence and things of that nature

Well there is a Silver Age story where Perry White went to Smallville to interview Superboy.

Season 3 episode 5.

Okay I'm done.

[AgentPat]

Variety: "Still to be resolved is the question of whether Smallville … is actually infringing on the Superboy copyright."

Warner Bros.: "The court's ruling does not affect the television series Smallville, which is grounded in depictions of a young Superman that pre-date the publication of Superboy in 1944 and which therefore are not subject to the termination notice, even if valid."

Smallville Pilot:
Lana Lang: "What are you, man or superman?"
Clark Kent: "I haven't figured it out yet."

Case closed for me, but I'm not an expert in intellectual property rights and/or copyright infringement. Eh. People will sue for anything these days.

http://www.patcostello.com/smileys/but.gif if this DOES go to court, I'll be right there with Ludacris LMAO because you KNOW it's gonna come down to pre and post crisis comparisons...

Variety: "In their request for partial summary judgment, Siegel and Larson didn't ask for a copyright infringement ruling, which Lew said would require a 'detailed factual comparison.'"

[Darthphere]

This is all rubbish, they have little to no case. Its convenient waiting 5 years to bring this lawsuit, you know once Smallville started making some money. And on the eve of the Superman movie. They get paid enough as is. I really hate when family members think they deserve something for what someone else created.

[triplet]

Uhm... they're Siegel's heirs, they're entitled to inherit whatever he owns and the court said he owned Superboy.

Whether Smallville is based on Superboy, which I think is seriously in question, is a whole 'nother matter...

[Darthphere]

Uhm... they're Siegel's heirs, they're entitled to inherit whatever he owns and the court said he owned Superboy.

Whether Smallville is based on Superboy, which I think is seriously in question, is a whole 'nother matter...


Ok?:confused: Theyre heirs, it doesnt mean jack. It just means their father and husband co-created possibly the greatest character in comics. Theyre getting paid everytime a Superman related item is sold. This is pure greed at its finest.

[The Sage]

Speaking of Superboy....

My boy!!!!! :(

[Kane]

Superboy got slaughtered. I loved it.

[The Sage]

Superboy got slaughtered. I loved it.

A hero's true farewell.

[The Sage]

Secondly, Clark has never been referred to as the Superboy character


AC called him "Superboy".


and he doesnt wear the costume.


Neither did he. :D
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6530/366zl.jpg

[AgentPat]

AC called him "Superboy".And Chloe called Eric "Superboy" in Leech. She even wrote an article on him.

In the SV Pilot, Lana asked Clark if he were man or superman. Clark said he hadn't figured it out yet. That's the whole premise to SV in a nutshell.

I think Warners has a pretty good case here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but post crisis Superboy isn't Clark Kent, right?

Neither did he. :D
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6530/366zl.jpgBut that's Conner, not Clark. Conner is Superboy, and Clark is Superman. They're two different characters, even if SV's Clark isn't called Superman yet. Furthermore, didn't that comic series come out *after* SV? Couldn't DC argue that series was designed to look like SV, not the other way around?

I'm with Hulk on this. I think that lawsuit is gonna tool around in legal hell till long after SV is done. But if and when it does reach trial, it's gonna be pretty funny to see play out.

[The Sage]

And Chloe called Eric "Superboy" in Leech. She even wrote an article on him.

In the SV Pilot, Lana asked Clark if he were man or superman. Clark said he hadn't figured it out yet. That's the whole premise to SV in a nutshell.

I think Warners has a pretty good case here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but post crisis Superboy isn't Clark Kent, right?


Right. But since he does have the name "Superboy", that could've been the reason for his death this month. Sounds like DC is covering that fast.

But hasn't been said that much of Smallville is based on the Silver Age, hence Pre-Crisis? Perry coming to Smallville to interview Superboy, Lois Lane coming to Smallville as well. Prior to Birthright, Lex had never been in Smallville or interacted with Clark Kent until Metropolis.


But that's Conner, not Clark. Conner is Superboy, and Clark is Superman. They're two different characters, even if SV's Clark isn't called Superman yet. Furthermore, didn't that comic series come out *after* SV? Couldn't DC argue that series was designed to look like SV, not the other way around?


That Superboy has been for nearly 13 years.

Thing is, Clark isn't Superman on Smallville. Isn't that the reason many people say he's innocent of what happened in "Reckoning', because he's not Superman yet and is learning through mistakes no matter what they are?

Plus, you factor in the supervillains he's fought. Make the show interesting they do, but post-crisis Young Clark didn't fight any supervillains. But pre-crisis Young Clark did. They'll probably argue that.

On another note, if this does affect the comics even more, then they'll probably yank the Superboy in the Legion of Superheroes.


I'm with Hulk on this. I think that lawsuit is gonna tool around in legal hell till long after SV is done. But if and when it does reach trial, it's gonna be pretty funny to see play out.

We'll see. In the long run, can't really hate the Siegel or Shuster families. They're really just getting what was denied to them for decades.

[Ultimate_Superman]

And Chloe called Eric "Superboy" in Leech. She even wrote an article on him.

In the SV Pilot, Lana asked Clark if he were man or superman. Clark said he hadn't figured it out yet. That's the whole premise to SV in a nutshell.

I think Warners has a pretty good case here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but post crisis Superboy isn't Clark Kent, right?

But that's Conner, not Clark. Conner is Superboy, and Clark is Superman. They're two different characters, even if SV's Clark isn't called Superman yet. Furthermore, didn't that comic series come out *after* SV? Couldn't DC argue that series was designed to look like SV, not the other way around?

I'm with Hulk on this. I think that lawsuit is gonna tool around in legal hell till long after SV is done. But if and when it does reach trial, it's gonna be pretty funny to see play out.No Pat Superboy has been around since the early 90's remember Superboy was made when Superman died.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Right. But since he does have the name "Superboy", that could've been the reason for his death this month. Sounds like DC is covering that fast.

Not really because Robin is trying to reclone him though I do hope Superman already brought him back as SuperNova

[The Sage]

Not really because Robin is trying to reclone him though I do hope Superman already brought him back as SuperNova

Oh I know, I read Teen Titans. Who is SuperNova?

[Brainiac 8]

But hasn't been said that much of Smallville is based on the Silver Age, hence Pre-Crisis? Perry coming to Smallville to interview Superboy, Lois Lane coming to Smallville as well. Prior to Birthright, Lex had never been in Smallville or interacted with Clark Kent until Metropolis.


Actually, Pre-Crisis Superboy and Lex Luthor did interact in Smallville. In the Superboy comics, Superboy accidentally caused Lex to lose his hair, by blowing flames out from spilled chemicals. The effects of the blown fumes caused him to lose his hair.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Actually, Pre-Crisis Superboy and Lex Luthor did interact in Smallville. In the Superboy comics, Superboy accidentally caused Lex to lose his hair, by blowing flames out from spilled chemicals. The effects of the blown fumes caused him to lose his hair.Where there you have Lex's real origin and why he hates Superman.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Oh I know, I read Teen Titans. Who is SuperNova?Now one knows he or she is a new Super-Hero who I am hoping is Superboy

[Super_Ludacris]

Most DC adaptions are influenced by pre-crisis it seems, because most of the writers grew up off that. Really only DCAU and BB you could argue are different

[The Incredible Hulk]

well that and the fact that Byrne was a HACK!

[Brainiac 8]

well that and the fact that Byrne was a HACK!

Amen to that.:up:

[The Sage]

Actually, Pre-Crisis Superboy and Lex Luthor did interact in Smallville. In the Superboy comics, Superboy accidentally caused Lex to lose his hair, by blowing flames out from spilled chemicals. The effects of the blown fumes caused him to lose his hair.

I'm sorry, I should've said prior to Birthright in the Post-Crisis.

[AgentPat]

Right. But since he does have the name "Superboy", that could've been the reason for his death this month. Sounds like DC is covering that fast.I might buy into that theory IF the lawsuit involved the Superboy comics as well as SV, but it doesn't. They're only going after SV. Gee, wonder why? Couldn't have anything to do with the gobs of money it's worth vs. a pulp comic that prints how many issues per year, and in what quantities? LOL

But hasn't been said that much of Smallville is based on the Silver Age, hence Pre-Crisis? Perry coming to Smallville to interview Superboy, Lois Lane coming to Smallville as well. Prior to Birthright, Lex had never been in Smallville or interacted with Clark Kent until Metropolis.I'm sure some of those arguments will play into the plaintiff's case. I just think Warners' has a better case in rebuttal. It's up to the plaintiffs to prove SV is based on Superboy, and it simply is not. There are elements from Superboy, but SV's Clark Kent was never meant to be seen as "Superboy" as established in pre-crisis comics. There's a HUGE difference there Sage, and the lack of a suit is a perfect place to start.

That Superboy has been for nearly 13 years.Okay. I didn't know that. I don't read Superboy comics. I thought it was a new thing with Teen Titans, but I don't know how long they've been around either.

Thing is, Clark isn't Superman on Smallville.No, he's Clark Kent. But when push comes to shove, he's more Superman than Superboy in design and foreshadowing, and that's the point I think Warners will make.

Isn't that the reason many people say he's innocent of what happened in "Reckoning', because he's not Superman yet and is learning through mistakes no matter what they are?Well, I'm not gonna get into the debate over guilt or innocence in Wreckoning; it's irrelevant to the case being tried. Regardless of whether he's Superboy or pre Superman, SV's Clark Kent is still young. That's the point.

Plus, you factor in the supervillains he's fought. Make the show interesting they do, but post-crisis Young Clark didn't fight any supervillains. But pre-crisis Young Clark did. They'll probably argue that.Possibly. I don't know what they'll argue quite frankly, but one of the key sticking points from the Variety article seems to be the name of the town itself. The plaintiffs are arguing that since Superboy's home town was Smallville, then the Clark Kent in Smallville (the show) must be Superboy. But I'm not buying into that equation.

On another note, if this does affect the comics even more, then they'll probably yank the Superboy in the Legion of Superheroes.It hasn't effected them yet (directly). Again, the lawsuit cites SV, not the comics. I don't think the comics are worth their time, but that's just my opinion.

We'll see. In the long run, can't really hate the Siegel or Shuster families. They're really just getting what was denied to them for decades.Welcome to America, 'cause if a loophole can be found, a good lawyer will squeeze an elephant through it. And a dumb jury will be right there to back 'em up. :p

[Ultimate_Superman]

I'm sorry, I should've said prior to Birthright in the Post-Crisis.Yes, Yes you should have but didn't.

[The Sage]

I might buy into that theory IF the lawsuit involved the Superboy comics as well as SV, but it doesn't. They're only going after SV. Gee, wonder why? Couldn't have anything to do with the gobs of money it's worth vs. a pulp comic that prints how many issues per year, and in what quantities? LOL


Good point, considering Superboy comics haven't been printed for years.


I'm sure some of those arguments will play into the plaintiff's case. I just think Warners' has a better case in rebuttal. It's up to the plaintiffs to prove SV is based on Superboy, and it simply is not. There are elements from Superboy, but SV's Clark Kent was never meant to be seen as "Superboy" as established in pre-crisis comics. There's a HUGE difference there Sage, and the lack of a suit is a perfect place to start.


A good point, and I don't think Warners will lose. I do think Siegels do have some ground though.


Okay. I didn't know that. I don't read Superboy comics. I thought it was a new thing with Teen Titans, but I don't know how long they've been around either.


No problem.


No, he's Clark Kent. But when push comes to shove, he's more Superman than Superboy in design and foreshadowing, and that's the point I think Warners will make.


I'm sure they will.


Well, I'm not gonna get into the debate over guilt or innocence in Wreckoning; it's irrelevant to the case being tried. Regardless of whether he's Superboy or pre Superman, SV's Clark Kent is still young. That's the point.


Hmm...yeah I think I'll avoid that argument myself.


Possibly. I don't know what they'll argue quite frankly, but one of the key sticking points from the Variety article seems to be the name of the town itself. The plaintiffs are arguing that since Superboy's home town was Smallville, then the Clark Kent in Smallville (the show) must be Superboy. But I'm not buying into that equation.


That is a weak excuse.


It hasn't effected them yet (directly). Again, the lawsuit cites SV, not the comics. I don't think the comics are worth their time, but that's just my opinion.


Probably true.


Welcome to America, 'cause if a loophole can be found, a good lawyer will squeeze an elephant through it. And a dumb jury will be right there to back 'em up. :p

Ain't that the truth. :p

[The Sage]

Yes, Yes you should have but didn't.

Alright enough out of you, LOL.

[Brainiac 8]

I'm sorry, I should've said prior to Birthright in the Post-Crisis.

Sorry, I thought you meant pre-crisis.:O

[GothicPowerMix1]

This Case reminds me of Da Vinci Code case. Been going on for YEARS but now that theres a Da Vinci Code Movie coming out the Case gets made Public & everyone knows about it. The WB will just end up paying any kind of money they choose

[NHawk19]

OK I'm down to two issues:

1. When did the name Smallville first get created?

2. If the name Smallville is so great why not go for comics?

After that I think it will all come down to comparisons between what Superboy has done and what Young CK on SV has done. Hope this doesnt ruin our seeing him in the suit though

As far as killing Conner. . . .DC may just be posturing to avoid another lawsuit and make it seem as though it would be unprofitable to go after them because future revenue wouldnt be there.

[Kane]

Theyre going to kill Superboy Prime in the next issue too. Reminds me of when they killed Blue Beetle II, his rights were a mess.

Hawk, the name Smallville has been around since the creation of Superman. Whats being debated here is the actually content and premise of the show; the adventures of young teenage Clark Kent....which is pretty much Silver Age Superboy adventures without the costume.

Im sure theyll find some creative way to deal with this somehow.

[Ultimate_Superman]

2. If the name Smallville is so great why not go for comics?
.They already did and won DC has to turn over the rights very soon.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Really lets get down to the issue of it. MONEY. Thats all they want if the WB says we'll give you 400 mil for everything dealing with Superman all this will go away like nothing happened.

[roach]

Really....and who here wouldnt want a piece of the pie if their dad created Superman and you posses the rights to Superboy.

1) If Clark wore a super suit everytime he went into action would the show be called Superman or Superboy???

[Kane]

It would be called Superboy. Hes only 18 and still lives in Smallville (they have to keep him there to keep the title of the show relevant).

The Superboy(s) of the 80s tv series were the same age (maybe older) attending Shushter University.

Kon-El was cloned in the 90s as a 16 year old boy, Im sure by now hes at least SV Clark's age or older (Kon certainly looks alot older than first appearance).....but now hes dead.

Superboy Prime spent several years in hypertime with the Flashes in IC, yet when he returned, a few years older.....they still called him Superboy.. not Superman.

I'd say if they play their cards right they have some strong arguements here. WB should just settle somehow, like DC already did.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Superman all because of Lois now if they kept Lois and The Planet out of it then you could call it Superboy.

[Ultimate_Superman]

It would be called Superboy. Hes only 18 and still lives in Smallville (they have to keep him there to keep the title of the show relevant).

The Superboy(s) of the 80s tv series were the same age (maybe older) attending Shushter University.

Kon-El was cloned in the 90s as a 16 year old boy, Im sure by now hes at least SV Clark's age or older (Kon certainly looks alot older than first appearance).....but now hes dead.

Superboy Prime spent several years in hypertime with the Flashes in IC, yet when he returned, a few years older.....they still called him Superboy.. not Superman.

I'd say if they play their cards right they have some strong arguements here. WB should just settle somehow, like DC already did.No because the thing with them was here never went to the city, he never met Lois (which also defines Superman) and The Planet was never there. When you add these things you throw out Superboy and then go into Superman with just Lana visiting.

[Kane]

No because the thing with them was here never went to the city, he never met Lois (which also defines Superman) and The Planet was never there. When you add these things you throw out Superboy and then go into Superman with just Lana visiting.

Not really. I mean hes been going to the city, Metropolis, in the earlier seasons too, when he was 16, that doesnt make him Superman. Its just because of the silly liberty the show took in putting Metropolis and Smallville driving distance to each other.

As far as Lois goes, shes just there...for ratings, they arent even romantically-linked in the slightest. There were zany precrisis Superboy stories in the old days showing a young Lois in Smallville making Lana jealous.

Its not exactly Lana 'visiting' when shes the second main character of the show in the creds.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Not really. I mean hes been going to the city, Metropolis, in the earlier seasons too, when he was 16, that doesnt make him Superman. Its just because of the silly liberty the show took in putting Metropolis and Smallville driving distance to each other.

As far as Lois goes, shes just there...for ratings, they arent even romantically-linked in the slightest. There were zany precrisis Superboy stories in the old days showing a young Lois in Smallville making Lana jealous.

Its not exactly Lana 'visiting' when shes the second main character of the show in the creds.I understand that but once you put the suit on him he becomes Superman instead of Superboy because in the comics Lois only popped up once or twice. In SV Lois has set-up shop and would be moving in on Clark if that was the case because they can't have Lois there and not have her go after him when he is in the suit above all things. They dant keep having him pop in and out of the Planet when he dons the suit.

[Kane]

I understand that but once you put the suit on him he becomes Superman instead of Superboy because in the comics Lois only popped up once or twice. In SV Lois has set-up shop and would be moving in on Clark if that was the case because they can't have Lois there and not have her go after him when he is in the suit above all things. They dant keep having him pop in and out of the Planet when he dons the suit.

:confused: Weak arguement. If Lois showed up on the Superboy series, the show would still be Superboy.....shes kinda a moot point at this stage. The daily planet and Lois are there but Clark doesnt work for the DP (its been there for several seasons) and isnt in a relationship with Lois (which is what the Superman and Lois characters are famous for).

The title of 'Superboy' or 'Superman' really has very little to do with Lois Lane.

[roach]

Superman-based out of Metropolis
Superboy based out of Smallville

[Ultimate_Superman]

Superman is moblie he doesn't have a base he goes where he pleases (hint why he owned Batman in For Tomorrow which made Batman look bad because he just showed how easy his job is.)
Superboy is Smallville.

[roach]

Yes Superman is mobile but he pretty much operates out of Metropolis

[Kane]

Umm Im sure Superboy has left Smallville several times (in the old comics) but his home is in Smallville, hes based in Smallville. Superboy even travlled to the future for a while with the Legion and Im certain hes been to Metropolis in his classic adventures.

Clark in SV is based in Smallville too, its his home. It will likely be his home till the series ends (given the title).

If they wanted him to go to Metropolis full time, he would have gone to Met U with Lana and Chloe....

But then the show wouldnt be Smallville anymore, with the main character based outside Smallville...

They kept him local for a reason.

[Kaboom]

[quote=Crisis Superman].....shes kinda a moot point at this stage. quote]

its a moo point....like the sound cows make because it doesnt matter.



that has got to be one of my all time favorite jokes from friends..

[Kane]

I duno. I just learned that word from Batman. He said it once on JLU.

[GothicPowerMix1]

[quote=Crisis Superman].....shes kinda a moot point at this stage. quote]

its a moo point....like the sound cows make because it doesnt matter.



that has got to be one of my all time favorite jokes from friends..

:up:

[Kaboom]

^^^^^^ youre right. the word moot means that there is no use discussing or arguing somehting, because the situation has been resolved.

but in an episode of friends, joey thought the word "moot" was "moo." so he says not to worry about osmehitn because its a "moo" point.

chandler goes " a moo point joey?"

and joey replies: "Yeah. Moo. like the sound cows make. because it doesnt matter. its moooooooooooo."

[twylight]

First thing I note is that Smallville started before 2004, which is when these ladies assumed the copyrights to Superboy.

They placed WB on a two year notice in 2002.

So basically what will end up happening is. Put on the Suit or get cancelled :o or the obvious one. Pay me money or get cancelled. But why wait 5 Years after the Show First started to sue ?


Superboy Ruling Throw Smallville Rights Into Limbo

April 06, 2006


A federal judge in Los Angeles has ruled that the WB's SMALLVILLE may be infringing on the copyrights held on the Superboy character by the widow and daughter of Jerome Siegel, creator of the comicbook series, reports VARIETY. The March 23 summary judgment by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew also found that Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson had successfully recaptured the Superboy rights as of Nov. 17, 2004.

Lew's rulings against Time Warner, Warner Bros. and DC Comics throw the ownership of SMALLVILLE episodes that have run since November 2004 in limbo. Lew denied a request by the defendants for a ruling that SMALLVILLE did not infringe on the Superboy copyrights.

Warner Bros. said that it "respectfully disagrees" with the rulings and will file an appeal.

The infringement suit was filed in 2004, but no trial date has been set.

In their request for partial summary judgment, Siegel and Larson didn't request a copyright infringement ruling, which Lew said would require a "detailed factual comparison." But he noted, "Enough facts are presented, where this court, contrary to defendants' request, could find that the main character in SMALLVILLE is in fact Superboy."

Lew added in a footnote, "In the Superboy comic strip, a billboard on the side of a rural country road announces, 'Welcome to Smallville! Home of Superboy.’"

In response, Warner Bros. claims that Superboy is a different character from the young Superman depicted in the popular TV series. "Moreover, the court's ruling does not affect the television series SMALLVILLE, which is grounded in depictions of a young Superman that pre-date the publication of Superboy in 1944 and which therefore are not subject to the termination notice, even if valid.”

Marc Toberoff, who represents Siegel and Larson, told DAILY VARIETY that the only representations of a younger Superman which pre-date 1944 Superboy consist of one or two panels showing Superman as a baby or toddler. "Jerry Siegel's Superboy focuses on Superboy's relationship with his parents and his adventures with school classmates in a small town which, by SUPERBOY No. 2, was named Smallville," he added.

The dispute over who owns Superboy goes back to 1938 — the same year the first SUPERMAN comicbook, based on the story originated by Siegel and illustrator Joseph Shuster, was published.

Then, Siegel agreed to provide Detective Comics with a new Superboy comicstrip and submitted a plan that was rejected. Siegel unsuccessfully tried several more times to sell Detective on Superboy before he entered the Army in 1943.

Detective then began publishing SUPERBOY comics in 1944 while Siegel was stationed in the Pacific, resulting in a 1947 lawsuit where New York state court Judge Addison Young ruled Siegel to be the sole owner of Superboy. In 1948, Siegel reached a settlement with National Comics Publications (predecessor of DC Comics) where he sold ownership of Superboy and Superman to National.

Then in 1973, Siegel and Shuster sued to regain the SUPERMAN copyright, but lost that suit two years later. Siegel then launched a PR campaign to protest DC Comics' treatment of him and Shuster, putting a "curse" on the upcoming SUPERMAN film and resulting in Warner Communications paying annual pensions to the duo along with credit as co-creators.

Shuster died in 1992; Siegel passed away four years later.

The Superboy copyrights were granted originally for the standard 28 years then renewed for another 28 years between 1972 and 1975.

However, in 1976, Congress amended copyright law to extend renewal terms from 28 years to 47 years so that authors and their heirs could regain copyrights for the extended renewal period. So in late 2002, Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson served the standard two-year notice they were ending the 1948 grant of the SUPERBOY copyright.

In reply in August 2004, DC Comics informed Siegel and Larson it was denying the validity of the termination notice and said it would "vigorously oppose" any attempt to exploit the SUPERBOY copyrights. Two months later, Siegel and Larson filed their lawsuit.

Time Warner and its co-defendants argued Superboy was simply a younger version of Superman and that Superboy was "work for hire" solely owned by its predecessors. However, Lew stated those arguments were unpersuasive in light of rulings made by Judge Young in the 1947 trial.

"Defendants' argument also contradicts the fact that Siegel subsequently transferred his exclusive interest in SUPERBOY to National in the May 19, 1948, stipulated settlement. Had SUPERBOY been nothing more than a derivative work, Siegel would have owned no interest in the SUPERBOY property to transfer."

Lew also noted that the defendants' predecessors had relied on Young's rulings in previous cases such as Siegel-Shuster's unsuccessful 1973 suit. "Defendants now take the inconsistent position that this court is not bound by the state court findings, as they relate to SUPERBOY," he wrote.

Animation World Network (http://news.awn.com/index.php?ltype=top&newsitem_no=16613)



This one explains the Lawsuit better. :)

"Smallville," Big Stakes

by Joal Ryan
Apr 6, 2006, 7:25 PM PT

In the comics, Superboy died Wednesday. In the courts, a nearly 60-year battle over the superhero remains very much alive.

At stake: The future of Smallville. At least.



A judge has left for a jury to decide whether the WB's show about Clark Kent's bucolic hometown infringes on the Superboy copyright held by the heirs of Superman cocreator Jerry Siegel.

If the Siegel camp is ultimately victorious, Time Warner, the WB's corporate parents, might have to seek license approval from the family before producing new episodes of the series, which is expected to make the jump next fall to the new network, the CW. A win also could affect the afterlife of shows already in the can.

The stage for this sticky situation was set when U.S. District Court Judge Ronald S.W. Lew ruled last month that Siegel's widow, Joanne Siegel, and daughter, Laura Siegel Larson, recaptured the Superboy character's copyright in November 2004.

In another blow to Time Warner, the Mar. 23 summary judgment, which was first reported Wednesday by Variety, rejected a motion by the conglomerate that essentially argued Smallville isn't about Superboy, and, thus, doesn't trespass on the Siegels' copyrighted material.

"I believe it's impossible to honestly trace the history of Smallville without accounting for its derivation from Superboy," intellectual property attorney Marc Toberoff, who represents the Siegels, said Wednesday.

A call seeking comment from Time Warner, which can appeal the summary judgment, was not returned Thursday.

In his ruling, Lew didn't hand the Smallville deed to the Siegels, but he wrote that he could find that "the main character in Smallville is in fact Superboy."

According to the WB, the main character of Smallville is Clark Kent. According to comic-book lore, Clark Kent is the mild-mannered secret identity of Superman. And he is the mild-mannered secret identity of Superman's teen-aged self, Superboy.

The difference is Time Warner owns Superman; the Siegels, per the court, own Superboy.

"The fight [is] about Superboy because it couldn't be about Superman," said Barry Freiman, a contributing editor to the fan site Superman Homepage.

And to understand the fight is to understand the history of comic books because, as artist Neal Adams said, "There is no more classic example of this--Superman is the first comic book superhero."

In 1938, Detective Comics, a predecessor of Warners-owned DC Comics, published the first issue of Action Comics featuring the first adventure of Superman, a man-sized alien of super strength as dreamed up in high school by buddies Siegel and Joe Shuster. For their creation, Siegel and Shuster were paid $130, or $10 a page.

Months later, in November 1938, Siegel pitched the publisher a new hero: Superboy.

"No character had been done as a teenager," said Adams, who lobbied on behalf of Siegel and Shuster in the 1970s. "It was a totally new idea then--and now. Who's going to do Captain America as a boy? Who's going to do Sub-Mariner as a boy?"

Different or no, the publisher passed.

But Superboy was an idea that would fly. The character debuted in the January/February 1945 issue of DC's More Fun Comics. At the time, Siegel wasn't in a position to pick up a copy at the corner drugstore--he serving overseas in the Army.
"superboy"

When Siegel returned from World War II, his Superman/Superboy battles began. In 1947, Siegel and Shuster sued National Comics Publications, then the name of DC's parent company. The judge "split the baby in half," as comic historian and writer Mark Evanier put it, finding that Superman was the property of National, and that Superboy was the property of Siegel, the character's sole creator.

"While you and I may not look at Superboy as a whole other character," Freiman said, "he really is a separate character in terms of ownership."

Siegel and Shuster settled with National for $94,000, per a retelling of the case in Lew's ruling--the partners got the money; National got both Superman and Superboy.

In 1973, Siegel and Shuster sued again, trying, but failing, to get back the Superman copyright. By then, the duo had seen Superman spawn radio shows, movie serials, animated serials, a live-action TV series and a Broadway show, It's a Bird...It's a Plane...It's Superman!

Adams, who first met the pair in the 1960s, once heard Shuster rave about the star-studded premiere of It's a Bird... When Adams asked Shuster what he thought of the show, Shuster replied, "Oh, I couldn't afford to go..."

Eventually, Adams helped secure credits, and even a pension for Siegel and Shuster. Adams said he went to Warners, which by the 1970s had gobbled up DC, and explained the situation: "It's Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster--they created the biggest icon in the world, bigger than Sherlock Holmes...And all you have to do is pay them [what you would for] a decent secretary."

In the end, Siegel and Shuster didn't get rich, but they "got taken care of," Adams said. Where once Siegel had placed a "curse" on Superman: The Movie, it became his and Shuster's pleasure, Adams said, to see their names associated with the 1978 film. (To this day, the WB notes in its Smallville media materials that Siegel and Shuster are the creators of Superman; the residents of Smallville, however, are said to be "based on DC Comics characters.")

If Siegel made peace with Superman, Superboy remained a sore subject, according to Adams--the manner in which National launched the character while Siegel was away at war "kinda got stuck in his craw."

Siegel died in 1996, at age 81; Shuster, in 1992, at age 78.

In 2002, Siegel's widow and daughter put Time Warner on two-years' notice that they intended to terminate the 1948 Superboy copyright agreement. Per Lew's ruling, a 1976 law giving authors and their heirs the right to recapture copyrights of works sold before 1978 gave the family the in.

In 2004, the Siegels sued Time Warner, alleging Smallville infringed on that copyright with every episode produced after the family exerted its copyright control. As it stands now, the disputed episodes entail most of season four and all of the current fifth season. (Presumably, Superboy, a 1988-92 syndicated series, would be in the clear.) Time Warner's subsidiaries--DC Comics, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Warner Bros. Television and Warner Communications--were named as codefendants.

Smallville, which has eschewed the cape, but kept on such familiar Superman/Superboy associates as Lex Luthor, Lana Lang and Jonathan and Martha Kent, debuted on the WB in 2001.

That the Superboy battle is still being waged six decades after the first Siegel-Shuster lawsuit is "pretty amazing," Freiman said. That doesn't mean, however, that he's surprised.

"They're [the Siegels] fighting almost harder than Joe and Jerry fought," Freiman said. "Joe and Jerry were almost beaten down."

Evanier said he was only surprised that the current Siegel dispute had gotten this far. A jury trial could be in the offing by the end of the year, although no date has been set.

"This thing could get much bigger," Evanier said. "[And] it'll get bigger and bigger until the people at Time Warner make the Siegels a nice settlement."

Freiman wondered whether the Superboy copyright issue would come into play "anytime you have a young Clark Kent--which isn't just Smallville. [It could] affect anytime you have a Clark Kent flashback."

With Superboy being killed in the latest issue of the comic miniseries Infinite Crisis, on the stands Wednesday, Evanier said he wouldn't be surprised if the death had something to do with the ongoing legal battle--"a fortuitous way to build up and transfer heat to another property." Then again, he wouldn't be surprised if Superboy--an all-new, DNA-generated spawn of Superman and Lex Luthor known as Conner Kent--was killed simply for the bottom line.

"In comics these days," Evanier said, "you kill off characters as a sales gimmick."

Presumably, it's only the war over Superboy that won't die.

E! Online (http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,18747,00.html)

In 2002, Siegel's widow and daughter put Time Warner on two-years' notice that they intended to terminate the 1948 Superboy copyright agreement. Per Lew's ruling, a 1976 law giving authors and their heirs the right to recapture copyrights of works sold before 1978 gave the family the in.

In 2004, the Siegels sued Time Warner, alleging Smallville infringed on that copyright with every episode produced after the family exerted its copyright control. As it stands now, the disputed episodes entail most of season four and all of the current fifth season. (Presumably, Superboy, a 1988-92 syndicated series, would be in the clear.) Time Warner's subsidiaries--DC Comics, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Warner Bros. Television and Warner Communications--were named as codefendants.

THAT right there explains a lot.

[Kaboom]

^^^^^^^^^^^HULK lets discuss.....


to me, now, i agree with the WB and i think the judge was wrong.

If siegel sued and entered into a settlement agreement with the WB, the agreement was likely adopted by the court as an order. Which would make it a FINAL JUDGMENT.

that being the case, the principles of res judicata would apply and the court shouldnt even be entertaining this action unless it was in the form of a breach settlement agreement. but even if that were the case, i think laches would apply.

[KalKai]

From K-Site:

About Smallville's connection to Superboy, we give you this, a quote from KryptonSite's first interview with Al Gough, (http://www.kryptonsite.com/gough.htm) posted in early 2001, before the pilot episode of Smallville was even shot:
AG: He just wears regular clothes, he isn't in disguise, he just has to keep his powers secret. He won't be wearing glasses. I always thought the glasses and that sort of persona that he plays in Metropolis is to disguise the fact that he is Superman in the costume. Here he's a kid dealing with these sort of extraordinary powers and trying to get through high school. Part of it is keeping these things secret. It's more along the lines of the movie where he didn't have the costume until he went to Metropolis. Basically, we're not doing "Superboy."
"We're not doing Superboy." I think that's all that needs to be said. If Smallville resembles anything from the past, it would be the scenes of a young Clark in Smallville in the classic Superman movies - who, any Superman fan will tell you, never was "Superboy." Nor was Jeph Loeb's Superman For All Seasons (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1563895285/gijoevid) - considered by many to be an inspiration for the show - ever "Superboy."

[Kane]

I think theyll examine the content of the show. Ive read alot of those old Superboy comics and there are alot of similarities. Obviously theres no costume, but its the zany adevntures of teen Clark. In the these precrisis comics, he knew a young Lex Luthor (who was his close friend for some time before he turned evil) and Pete Ross was his friend, confidant and keeper of his secret.

Lana was also his official girlfriend back then in those issues (something that never happened in the postcrisis revised version but is similar to SV) and apparently was determined to figure out all of Clark's secrets. Kryptonite was everywhere back then (used as gimmicks for the plot and for villians)....[also sounds familiar] and Superboy went on adventures each week in his Small town and beyond and fought crime to defend Smallville. I recall young Lois appearing and there was even one where Perry appeared.

There is actually enough evidence here for a strong case; enough to make DC do its part and eliminate it's Superboy characters.

[NHawk19]

^^^If it comes down to content then I think WB may have problems. But the arguement is still Clark Kent came before Superman/Superboy, and neither of those two have been established yet.

So I guess the question is who owns Clark Kent and his back story?

[Ultimate_Superman]

no really it all comes down to stop using the powers because as long as you use the powers it is really pretty much coming off as Superboy with out the suit.

[GothicPowerMix1]

no really it all comes down to stop using the powers because as long as you use the powers it is really pretty much coming off as Superboy with out the suit.

A Show about Clark Kent with no Super Powers = DEAD

[Ultimate_Superman]

Thats right but thats the way they might have to go. I mean pretty much SV is really going off of Pre-Crisis stories and really following Superboy more then Superman. So really if they asked to put a stop on the shows until the lawsuite s setteled then they really could get it because the fact of the matter is suit or no suit they are doing Superboy call it what you want but it is Superboy. One thing about Post-Crisis Superman is that they took away Superboy. They didn't have him in Smallville saving Lanas butt all the time like Pre-Crisis Superboy. Instead he learned more about his powers roaming the world which I thought was great.

[Supershizzle]

of course you want it to be that way, because it's the most negative for Smallville. Your bias is quite clear.

[Ultimate_Superman]

right as I have stated before I do love the show for what it is but if you want the lawsuite to go away thats how the outcome would be if the WB didn't feel like paying money, but we all know in the end they will buy the rights to Superman and Superboy so its not even an issue.

[Supershizzle]

the legalities of the suit are far more complicated than what you're stating. If it was as simple as WB just paying off the Siegel's, there wouldnt be a lawsuit. Regardless of the outcome of the current proceeding, there will be appeals that will have this tied up in court for long past the point that Smallville is still airing, even if it, as it now looks, goes a full 7 seasons.

[NHawk19]

The rights to \S/ are worth a hell of a lot more than a simple one time payout. Look for this to drag on.

[Ultimate_Superman]

No I am not saying a buyout I am saying the WB has more then enough money to buy the rights to Superman or to buy enough to share the rights of Superman they just are holding out right now.

[NHawk19]

Oh you mean have WB liscense them from the Seigels. It may come to that but either way look for the Seigels to put up a fight until its their decision to make.

[Supershizzle]

WB already owns the rights to Superman, the dispute is about the rights to Superboy and like I said, if it was as easy as "just buying them" they wouldve done that and made this just go away. The Siegel's want residuals dating back to the beginning of Season 4, plus any going forward. That includes, airings, videos, and other promotions.

[Ultimate_Superman]

WB already owns the rights to Superman, the dispute is about the rights to Superboy and like I said, if it was as easy as "just buying them" they wouldve done that and made this just go away. The Siegel's want residuals dating back to the beginning of Season 4, plus any going forward. That includes, airings, videos, and other promotions.Sorry to tell you the WB don't own the rights to Superman anymore tey are living on borrowed time with the rights to Superman. Thats why it is the fear of many fans that the WB if the dont want to pick up the rights to Superman may kill him off in such a way that it would be hard to bring him back.