Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1

[Kal-El.9859]

Originally Posted by AntMan

I think calling him a rat faced bastard is too kind.

yeah probably so

[merced]

It's a case of crony capitalism.

How corporations such as WB got Congress to extend the copyright period by several decades thus giving these corprorations exclusive use of a number of creative properties for several decades beyond when that use should have ended.

By all rights Superman should have been going public about now. In which case we'd possibly be getting a Marvel/Disney Superman film that might have been the success that eluded WB with SR and will probably elude them with MOS.

To be fair Congress inserted a clause in the bill allowing the original creators or their heirs to reclaim the copyrights during this extended period.

Many corporations were lucky as there was no one to reclaim the rights so the company got a free pass at exclusive use of the property for several extra decades.

WB wasn't so lucky. The heirs knew of the legal changes and to boot had been unhappy with the way both DC and WB had failed to exploit the Superman property for decades. In fact alowing it to fade as a viable franchise.

The heirs wanted not just to get revenue generated by Superman during the next 2 decades, they wanted to have some say in the direction of the franchise. Some quality control.

The problem is that Superman goes public around 2030. Without a resolution by 2013 this legal fight could go on till the early 2020s. To the point where the heirs have little time to exploit their rights - they may not have time to do a Superman film trilogy which would be lucrative financially and allow them to restore the franchise to it's historically more prominent place.

Me, I wish the law had never been passed by Congress and that Superman was going public now. I see that as possibly having saved the franchise.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by merced

It's a case of crony capitalism.

How corporations such as WB got Congress to extend the copyright period by several decades thus giving these corprorations exclusive use of a number of creative properties for several decades beyond when that use should have ended.

By all rights Superman should have been going public about now. In which case we'd possibly be getting a Marvel/Disney Superman film that might have been the success that eluded WB with SR and will probably elude them with MOS.

To be fair Congress inserted a clause in the bill allowing the original creators or their heirs to reclaim the copyrights during this extended period.

Many corporations were lucky as there was no one to reclaim the rights so the company got a free pass at exclusive use of the property for several extra decades.

WB wasn't so lucky. The heirs knew of the legal changes and to boot had been unhappy with the way both DC and WB had failed to exploit the Superman property for decades. In fact alowing it to fade as a viable franchise.

The heirs wanted not just to get revenue generated by Superman during the next 2 decades, they wanted to have some say in the direction of the franchise. Some quality control.

The problem is that Superman goes public around 2030. Without a resolution by 2013 this legal fight could go on till the early 2020s. To the point where the heirs have little time to exploit their rights - they may not have time to do a Superman film trilogy which would be lucrative financially and allow them to restore the franchise to it's historically more prominent place.

Me, I wish the law had never been passed by Congress and that Superman was going public now. I see that as possibly having saved the franchise.

What do the heirs.....do...outside of suing, though? Are they in comics or film...do they have a background in creative arts, publishing, or entertainment? Because if not...I doubt they're really qualified to do anything except receive the checks.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by merced

It's a case of crony capitalism.

How corporations such as WB got Congress to extend the copyright period by several decades thus giving these corprorations exclusive use of a number of creative properties for several decades beyond when that use should have ended.

By all rights Superman should have been going public about now. In which case we'd possibly be getting a Marvel/Disney Superman film that might have been the success that eluded WB with SR and will probably elude them with MOS.

To be fair Congress inserted a clause in the bill allowing the original creators or their heirs to reclaim the copyrights during this extended period.

Many corporations were lucky as there was no one to reclaim the rights so the company got a free pass at exclusive use of the property for several extra decades.

WB wasn't so lucky. The heirs knew of the legal changes and to boot had been unhappy with the way both DC and WB had failed to exploit the Superman property for decades. In fact alowing it to fade as a viable franchise.

The heirs wanted not just to get revenue generated by Superman during the next 2 decades, they wanted to have some say in the direction of the franchise. Some quality control.

The problem is that Superman goes public around 2030. Without a resolution by 2013 this legal fight could go on till the early 2020s. To the point where the heirs have little time to exploit their rights - they may not have time to do a Superman film trilogy which would be lucrative financially and allow them to restore the franchise to it's historically more prominent place.

Me, I wish the law had never been passed by Congress and that Superman was going public now. I see that as possibly having saved the franchise.

Well I'm sure characters like Superman and Mickey Mouse will never be allowed to go to public domain as long as they are being utilized by their respective owners.

[Superfreak]

here's a question: Were they parodying Toberoff in SR?

[akfj]

In what way?

[Superfreak]

Originally Posted by akfj

In what way?

Lex Luthor taking advantage of a really old lady

[merced]

Originally Posted by KalMart

What do the heirs.....do...outside of suing, though? Are they in comics or film...do they have a background in creative arts, publishing, or entertainment? Because if not...I doubt they're really qualified to do anything except receive the checks.

They take their rights to presumably Marvel/Disney and make a deal with that studio. As you say the heirs have the rights but not the infrastructure/expertise to do films, books, video games and the rest.

It surely looks like WB/DC are not willing to pay a license fee and profitsharing to the heirs. In that scenario then WB/DC needs to allow the heirs to licsense their rights to others and not simply sue on and on delaying the heir's ability to use the rights and running the clock out on them - all rights go public around 2030.

With a guarantee of no legal attacks by WB I suspect Marvel would sign a deal with the heirs in a NY minute.

By the same token the heirs need to not sue WB/DC's attempt to create a rebooted new character with the rights DC retains. DC and WB nees to think this out - if there character is basically new then they keep the rights for another 75 years and don't need to worry about 2030.

It's basically a "two state solution".

[merced]

Originally Posted by Superfreak

Lex Luthor taking advantage of a really old lady

I believe the widow recently passed away and the children are carrying on the lawsuit.

The heirs have not a lot of money and lawyers are uber expensive especially in ongoing cases. There was probably no other way to pay Toberoff. But 47% of the rights - ouch!!

[merced]

Originally Posted by Showtime

Well I'm sure characters like Superman and Mickey Mouse will never be allowed to go to public domain as long as they are being utilized by their respective owners.

No, once the rights go public (75 years) no one owns them and anyone could use the character.

The law simply granted corporations another 20 years or so to exclusively use the characters. So Mickey too will eventually go public - 95 years after he was copyrighted by Disney.

The copyright extension applies across the board.

Otherwise Superman would be set to go public now which IMO would have been the best thing that could have happened.

[Superfreak]

another question: who owns the shield? I mean I'm seeing some really funny editions of it nowadays. On the weekend it was the gay/lesbian pride festival in Toronto, and I saw rainbow coloured superman shield t shirts for sale. Is that legal?

[Superfreak]

Originally Posted by merced

I believe the widow recently passed away and the children are carrying on the lawsuit.

The heirs have not a lot of money and lawyers are uber expensive especially in ongoing cases. There was probably no other way to pay Toberoff. But 47% of the rights - ouch!!

I was wondering more about the parody, than the situation

[solidsnake86]

Originally Posted by merced

Otherwise Superman would be set to go public now which IMO would have been the best thing that could have happened.

What would this accomplish exactly and how would it be the best thing that happened?

Superfreak, WB owns the shield, which happens to be the most important aspect to the character and that is not going anywhere. What the estates own is useless without WB's half.

[merced]

Originally Posted by solidsnake86

What would this accomplish exactly and how would it be the best thing that happened?

Superfreak, WB owns the shield, which happens to be the most important aspect to the character and that is not going anywhere. What the estates own is useless without WB's half.

Anyone could make a Superman film.

My bet is Marvel/Disney would have taken a stab at it. They have a good track record and they could use it as a jumping point to create a new character in their universe.

WB/DC has not exploited the character for decades. The books are like step children seldom getting the good artists or writers. Superman sells less than 30,000/month. less than Batman, Flash, JL, Green Lantern.

Recently for a year Superman wasn't even in his own books.

For whateve reason DC and WB have ignored the property and having Superman go public IMO could only be a step in the right direction.

[solidsnake86]

Marvels done the same stuff with their characters you're just choosing to ignore it. If it wasn't for brubacker on captain america the character would still be a joke and same goes for JMS's thor run, his character would probably still be dead.

Its a little naive to think Marvel is going to do something different and frankly your fanboy is showing. Last time I checked WB had a tv series based on the character that lasted for 10 years. They also had one in the 90s, a cartoon, 5 movies and plenty of products.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by solidsnake86

...WB owns the shield, which happens to be the most important aspect to the character and that is not going anywhere. What the estates own is useless without WB's half.

No it’s not. The shield is financially valuable to WB/DC; they can license it out to manufacturers of bumper stickers and coffee mugs. But that’s small comfort for those who want to enjoy Superman stories. “Aspects” of Superman’s character are now (or soon will be) shared by WB and S&S. That’s the problem. There’s not much to cheer in just owning a logo.

[Superfreak]

Originally Posted by solidsnake86

Marvels done the same stuff with their characters you're just choosing to ignore it. If it wasn't for brubacker on captain america the character would still be a joke and same goes for JMS's thor run, his character would probably still be dead.

Its a little naive to think Marvel is going to do something different and frankly your fanboy is showing. Last time I checked WB had a tv series based on the character that lasted for 10 years. They also had one in the 90s, a cartoon, 5 movies and plenty of products.

snake, always nice to shoot the **** with a local. Did you happen to see the rainbow \S/'s I was talkin about over the long weekend?

[solidsnake86]

^No I'm actually am in school in the U.S. now so I don't really see much news from back home unless its on the yahoo canadian homepage.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by merced

They take their rights to presumably Marvel/Disney and make a deal with that studio. As you say the heirs have the rights but not the infrastructure/expertise to do films, books, video games and the rest.

It surely looks like WB/DC are not willing to pay a license fee and profitsharing to the heirs.

Not as long as Toberoff has ownership interest in it.

Originally Posted by merced

In that scenario then WB/DC needs to allow the heirs to licsense their rights to others and not simply sue on and on delaying the heir's ability to use the rights and running the clock out on them - all rights go public around 2030.

With a guarantee of no legal attacks by WB I suspect Marvel would sign a deal with the heirs in a NY minute.

And take on a Superman that doesn't fly and can't fight Lex Luthor, etc...unless they pay the ridiculous asking price from WB to use the rest?

Don't hold your breath. I very much doubt Marvel (or anyone) would be willing to develop a character that's been the face of DC comics since the beginning of comics, but is now damaged goods with legal baggage that they'd have to tiptoe around. They don't need that...their characters are already doing fine in theaters, thank you very much.

Don't forget...they'd have to deal with that lawyer/movie-mogul-wannabe too.

Originally Posted by merced

By the same token the heirs need to not sue WB/DC's attempt to create a rebooted new character with the rights DC retains. DC and WB nees to think this out - if there character is basically new then they keep the rights for another 75 years and don't need to worry about 2030.

It's basically a "two state solution".

DC is already showing that they're prepared to at least try going forward with 'the hero formerly known as Superman', especially if Toberoff is a major shareolder of the heirs' 'half'.

But lets say the heirs would want to at least 'entertain' offers....how would they do that? They'd need...a lawyer! Their current one has his own entertainment industry aspirations in mind.....and they couldn't afford to pay him in the first place, hence the ownership deal. What else could they offer aside from...the little bit of Superman that they still had? So now you'd have two Toberoffs...probably fighting over what deal to make with who...and the heirs are left at the soup line.

Meanwhile, DC is just moving ahead with their new(-ish) character named The Man Of Steel.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by merced

No, once the rights go public (75 years) no one owns them and anyone could use the character.

The law simply granted corporations another 20 years or so to exclusively use the characters. So Mickey too will eventually go public - 95 years after he was copyrighted by Disney.

The copyright extension applies across the board.

Otherwise Superman would be set to go public now which IMO would have been the best thing that could have happened.

What makes you think that another law won't be passed which would block characters like Mickey Mouse or Superman going public again?

[merced]

Originally Posted by Showtime

What makes you think that another law won't be passed which would block characters like Mickey Mouse or Superman going public again?

Anything is possible. Americans are increasingly fed up with this kind of crony capitalism though - like the bailouts of the banks w/taxpayer money.

Sherlock Holmes has gone into the public domain - so characters have done this in the past. The exception was this law which circumvented, one time, the 75 year rule.

[merced]

Originally Posted by KalMart

Not as long as Toberoff has ownership interest in it.


And take on a Superman that doesn't fly and can't fight Lex Luthor, etc...unless they pay the ridiculous asking price from WB to use the rest?

DC is already showing that they're prepared to at least try going forward with 'the hero formerly known as Superman', especially if Toberoff is a major shareolder of the heirs' 'half'.

But lets say the heirs would want to at least 'entertain' offers....how would they do that? They'd need...a lawyer! Their current one has his own entertainment industry aspirations in mind.....and they couldn't afford to pay him in the first place, hence the ownership deal. What else could they offer aside from...the little bit of Superman that they still had? So now you'd have two Toberoffs...probably fighting over what deal to make with who...and the heirs are left at the soup line.

Meanwhile, DC is just moving ahead with their new(-ish) character named The Man Of Steel.

If you read Trexler's stuff WB/DC''s strategy is clear.

They want to create a new character formerly known as Superman who can pass the not-being a derivative test in the courts. It won't be easy but clearly DC will change the character as much as they have to to get where they need to get.

If they succeed it's a big win for them in that they get the villains and a lots of good stuff.

But the biggest win is that they own the character in toto and the clock starts running from scratch. The new guy formerly known as Superman will be in WB/DC's control for 75 years. No having to give him up in 15 plus years when he goes public as the heirs and Toberoff will both have to do with their rights.

DC IMO absolutely wants a new character and is willing to say an early goodbye to Superman and make sure no one uses him in the interim. Again, IMO.

The second part of their strategy is to mount a legal assault on the heirs and Toberoff which will effectively block them from using their rights for as long as possible. 10 or more years. So that when they get the rights unencumbered they'll have little if any time to make any money off of them.

I wish DC would license the rights to the heirs so another classic Superman film can be made but I agree with you - with Toberoff in the mix that won't happen. Even if he wasn't there ZI think WB would fear a Marvel/Disney Superman film would be a hit and embarrass them. After SR and now GL.

Both Toberoff and the heirs have problems with freeing up the international rights to Superman which WB and DC will still own 100% of. So Toberoff could make a film for release in the US but couldn't release it overseas w/o WB's permission and after paying huge fees.

Toberoff and the heirs could go to the international court in the Hague ... but, get the picture, whatever they win in 2013 is useless for a least a decade if not more.

The real losers are the heirs. In the end they will get squat from all this effort.

And WB/DC will have ditched Superman and perhaps created a new character who may actually be more viable. No one knows.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by merced

If you read Trexler's stuff WB/DC''s strategy is clear.

They want to create a new character formerly known as Superman who can past the not-being a derivative test. It won't be easy but clearly DC will change the character as much as they have to.

If they succeed it's a big win for them in that they get the villains and a lot of good stuff.

But the biggest win is that they own the character in toto and the clock starts running from scratch. The new guy formerly known as Superman will be in WB/DC's control for 75 years. No having to give him up in 15 plus years when he goes public as the heirs and Toberoff will both have to do with their rights.

DC IMO absolutely wants a new character and is willing to say an early goodbye to Superman.

The second part of their strategy is to mount a legal assault on the heirs and Toberoff which will effectively block them from using their rights for as long as possible. 10 or more years. So that when they get the rights unencumbered they'll have little if any time to make any money off of them.

In the ned, I'd wish DC would license the rights to the heirs so another classic Superman film can be made but I agree with uyou - with Toberoff in the mix that won't happen.

Both Toberoff and the heirs have problems with freeing up the international rights to Superman which WB and DC will still own 100%. So Toberoff could make a film for release in the uS but couldn't release it overseas w/o WB's permission and after paying huge fees.

Toberoff and the heirs could go to the international court in the Hague ... but, get the picture, whatever they win in 2013 is useless for a least a decade if not more.

The real losers are the heirs. In they end they will get squat from all this effort.

And WB/DC will have ditched Superman and perhaps created a new ccharacter who may actually be more viable. No one knows.

They'll end up with ownership/rights in name only...which to some, is rather fitting since they're only Seigel & Shuster in name only.

But then...Siegel & Shuster sold off the most iconic of all superheroes, leaving them with very little...and their offspring...gave their lawyer 47% ownership.

Maybe it's more than just a name.

[Superfreak]

Originally Posted by solidsnake86

^No I'm actually am in school in the U.S. now so I don't really see much news from back home unless its on the yahoo canadian homepage.

basically the gay/lesbian version of the supershield.

[merced]

Originally Posted by KalMart

They'll end up with ownership/rights in name only...which to some, is rather fitting since they're only Seigel & Shuster in name only.

But then...Siegel & Shuster sold off the most iconic of all superheroes, leaving them with very little...and their offspring...gave their lawyer 47% ownership.

Maybe it's more than just a name.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

They were had by the big boys - WB/DC and Toberoff.