Are the Siegels and Shusters the next Tolkien estate?

[Hush]

http://www.superherohype.com/news/justiceleaguenews.php?id=6982

A federal judge here on Wednesday ruled that the heirs of Jerome Siegel — who 70 years ago sold the rights to the action hero he created with Joseph Shuster to Detective Comics for $130 — were entitled to claim a share of the United States copyright to the character. The ruling left intact Time Warner's international rights to the character, which it has long owned through its DC Comics unit.

And it reserved for trial questions over how much the company may owe the Siegel heirs for use of the character since 1999, when their ownership is deemed to have been restored. Also to be resolved is whether the heirs are entitled to payments directly from Time Warner's film unit, Warner Brothers, which took in $200 million at the domestic box office with "Superman Returns" in 2006, or only from the DC unit's Superman profits.

Still, the ruling threatened to complicate Warner's plans to make more films featuring Superman, including another sequel and a planned movie based on the DC Comics' "Justice League of America," in which he joins Batman, Wonder Woman and other superheroes to battle evildoers.





This is absolutly ridiculous and i post it here cause it could affect the comic book world. Do you guys have any comments? Personally im kinda pissed people would be this greedy when $130 back in the day was a hefty sum.

 

[WompuM]

As long as superman expires after mickey mouse DC has nothing to worry about.

 

[Hush]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/business/media/29comics.html?_r=1&ref=media&oref=slogin

^^^ There is a bit more about it and the families just sound pissed that they are the heirs to guys who did'nt see potential. Honestly just go on with your life and be happy that they created such a long living character.

 

[CaptainCanada]

The Siegels' rights are pretty open-and-shut under current law; originally, copyrights lasted for 56 years; in the 70s, Congress extended that period by a couple of decades, and, to compensate for this modification of the agreements mid-term, wrote in that the creators could reclaim their stake, since they had only agreed to 56 years.

In the long-term, it just means that Time-Warner will either buy the Siegels' share in a one-off purchase, or set up a steady rate of pay per appearance or whatever.

 

[Hush]

Still Superman was SOLD and therefore given into posession of another person and they inturn have copyrighted the character and used him for the past 60 or so odd years. Then the WB comes and buys DC so they own him now how the Siegels or the Shusters think they have a right to anything is beyond me.

 

[CaptainCanada]

They have a right to it because Congress said they did under the changes to the copyright law done in the mid-70s, the same changes that were mainly done to greatly benefit the companies by allowing them to continue to hold the copyright past the original expiry point. Without those changes, Superman would have been public domain for a while now (albeit, with DC still in possession of the trademarks, something they hold basically in perpetuity).

 

[gildea]

Then the WB comes and buys DC so they own him now how the Siegels or the Shusters think they have a right to anything is beyond me.

Because the law says they do!

You're not a lawyer so that's why it's beyond you.

This is absolutly ridiculous and i post it here cause it could affect the comic book world. Do you guys have any comments? Personally im kinda pissed people would be this greedy when $130 back in the day was a hefty sum.

This is absolutely disgusting.

If you are the creator of superman, you should be set for life. I've no idea what $130 was back in the day (split between 2 mind you) but it does not set one up for life.

It's that simple.

 

[CaptainCanada]

If you are the creator of superman, you should be set for life. I've no idea what $130 was back in the day (split between 2 mind you) but it does not set one up for life.

It's that simple.

No, it's not. In retrospect, Siegel & Shuster's payment was a lot less than what DC made from the property in the future; but just because DC made a lot of money off it in no way means that they should be able to go back and renegotiate the deal; hindsight is 20/20. They were offered a contract, and they took it, in full awareness of what they were doing.

That issue is fundamentally unrelated to the current copyright issue, though both supporters and opponents of the Siegels tend to conflate them.

 

[gildea]

No, it's not. In retrospect, Siegel & Shuster's payment was a lot less than what DC made from the property in the future; but just because DC made a lot of money off it in no way means that they should be able to go back and renegotiate the deal; hindsight is 20/20. They were offered a contract, and they took it, in full awareness of what they were doing.

That issue is fundamentally unrelated to the current copyright issue, though both supporters and opponents of the Siegels tend to conflate them.

I was speaking from a moral perspective not from a legal one.

However I'm truly dubious if they were as you describe "fully aware".

 

[Harlekin]

Doesn't really matter does it? I'm not hearing any ****ing about Shuster and Siegel selling Doc Occult to DC.

Although I feel for the family, Siegel and Shuster sold their creation, and that's how it works.

 

[CaptainCanada]

However I'm truly dubious if they were as you describe "fully aware".

All they'd have to do is read the contract, which said they were signing away the rights to DC in exchange for a fixed sum.

 

[DBM]

Doesn't really matter does it? I'm not hearing any ****ing about Shuster and Siegel selling Doc Occult to DC.

Although I feel for the family, Siegel and Shuster sold their creation, and that's how it works.

I don't want to get into this too much because it's very complicated , but S&S are not complaining about Doc Occult (or Slam Bradley or any of the other characters they created) because those were work-for-hire. Work-for-hire means that DC (or National at the time) hired them to create characters for the company.

The stickiness about Superman is that DC clearly bought the copyright use from them which means that Superman was their creation and not work-for-hire. If it had been work-for-hire DC would never have bought Superman's copyright use in the first place because they would have already owned it.

When the law changed, their rights changed and they are now entitled to something different than they were in the past. I don't see why people have a problem with this. They are simply exercising their legal rights. And to claim that it's just because the heirs are greedy is not true. S&S fought for nearly their whole lives on this issue and their heirs are just carrying on.

 

[Harlekin]

Ah, okay, I was not aware of that legal conundrum. Puts things in a different light me. Thanks, DBM.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I sympathise with Siegel and Shuster for DC pretty much screwing them over.

But their heirs come off as a bunch of pricks who are just riding off of their success.

 

[Stallion9979]

This is simply a way for people to cash in...if Superman flopped and didnt become the success that it is would they be in court over it...i think not...

they sold the rights pure and simple...just cause they made a bad decision doesnt mean they can mulligan to get rich...

im disgusted with this...

does this mean i can sell things to people and if they turn a profit i can sue to get back compensation...

 

[Stallion9979]

and as far as $130 bucks back then goes...for 5 cents you could watch like 4 movies...at the current price of a single movie ticket which goes for about 10 bucks...a nickle was worth 40 dollars now...

so their $130 fee was quite a hefty sum of money....

 

[CaptainCanada]

This is simply a way for people to cash in...if Superman flopped and didnt become the success that it is would they be in court over it...i think not...

they sold the rights pure and simple...just cause they made a bad decision doesnt mean they can mulligan to get rich...

im disgusted with this...

does this mean i can sell things to people and if they turn a profit i can sue to get back compensation...

No one is disputing that they sold the rights.

However, under the law, once a certain period has expired, the creators (or their heirs) are legally entitled to apply and have the copyright returned to them. That is what the Siegels are doing.

 

[Hush]

Because the law says they do!

You're not a lawyer so that's why it's beyond you.

Are you a lawyer and therefore have knowledge pertaining to the case at hand? If not, I would shut the hell up. I am expressing my opinions in the Thread that I ****ing started.

This is absolutely disgusting.

If you are the creator of superman, you should be set for life. I've no idea what $130 was back in the day (split between 2 mind you) but it does not set one up for life.

It's that simple.

Well guess what, they created Superman and SOLD him. End of story. Laws have change and such but to be completely honest the S&S clans are just being greedy. Why do they need the copyright? SO they can charge the WB everytime they want to use it?

Im sorry but if my great great grand daddy sold the rights to Batman after he created him I would think he is crazy but I would also just have pride that I know he created him. Trying to get money this late in the game just makes you look greedy. In anycase thats what I think of and in the time Supes was created $130 was a damn steal.

 

[gildea]

Are you a lawyer and therefore have knowledge pertaining to the case at hand? If not, I would shut the hell up. I am expressing my opinions in the Thread that I ****ing started.

The expressing my opinion defence how very impressive. Wow you even put in some asterix I am bamboozled by your wit and inventiveness.

Well guess what, they created Superman and SOLD him. End of story.

Except it's really not. Man I hope you don't say something that completely contradicts this (checks the very next sentence) Oh wait you do..... Also read DBM's post.

Laws have change and such

No they haven't. Well not since 1978, I guess I'm not sure what timescale you're working on (and the law only changed to DC's advantage back then I should add).

but to be completely honest the S&S clans are just being greedy. Why do they need the copyright? SO they can charge the WB everytime they want to use it?

Yes the people suing the MULTI BILLION DOLLAR CORPORATION are the greedy ones here. I guess because they have families and stuff to feed and would like to live in a nice house and see millions and millions of dollars being made off something they have a legal claim on, coupled with some no doubt backed up anger that their family where pretty shoddily treated by dc for a while (though in truth dc did get better eventualy).

Im sorry but if my great great grand daddy sold the rights to Batman after he created him I would think he is crazy but I would also just have pride that I know he created him. Trying to get money this late in the game just makes you look greedy. In anycase thats what I think of and in the time Supes was created $130 was a damn steal.

Good for you. But you're a blatant liar if you're telling me that you could legally own a share of batman and wouldn't take it. I would also wish your relation for creating what is essentially a multi million dollar pop culture icon got something representing a realted reward for his efforts.


I don't really understand how you are using the law to defend DC but when the heirs use a different law decry them for being greedy?

 

[Mr.LethalWeapon]

I'm a little uncomfortable with this.

How much was Superman worth when DC bought the rights to the character?

Then take into account what's been done with the character since then. The creators made the character but who made the character into what it is today?

Lee and Kirby made X-Men, but what writer turned it into the mega-seller that it eventually became?

I hope those making the decisions in this case take these questions into account.

 

[Hush]

The expressing my opinion defence how very impressive. Wow you even put in some asterix I am bamboozled by your wit and inventiveness.

Sorry You got so confused by what i said. I'll rephrase for your peanut sized brain. Isaid you are not a lawyer and I started the thread,. Another thing, is expressing opinions illegal now?

Except it's really not. Man I hope you don't say something that completely contradicts this (checks the very next sentence) Oh wait you do..... Also read DBM's post.

Your right it may not be the end of the story but they did Create and Sell him. I don't contradict myself you only posted like two words of the sentence.

No they haven't. Well not since 1978, I guess I'm not sure what timescale you're working on (and the law only changed to DC's advantage back then I should add).

I was simply stating that the laws HAVE changed, as you so clearly point out. In favor of DC?Yes. Does not change the fact that they still they have changed.

Yes the people suing the MULTI BILLION DOLLAR CORPORATION are the greedy ones here. I guess because they have families and stuff to feed and would like to live in a nice house and see millions and millions of dollars being made off something they have a legal claim on, coupled with some no doubt backed up anger that their family where pretty shoddily treated by dc for a while (though in truth dc did get better eventualy).

Im sorry but when did you need MILLIONS to feed your family? They have no Legal claim cause there family sold it when thy made it, is this getting through to you? The S&S clans should just have pride in the fact that they have there family name on every publication of the character. Are they entitled to money, not if they sold it, which they did. The movie Mr. Woodcock came out last year and my last name is Woodcock does that mean im entitled to some cash? No. Just because something was made and it has your name on it or it created by your family and that part of your family sold it off doesnt mean you should just get some sort of royalty check.

Good for you. But you're a blatant liar if you're telling me that you could legally own a share of batman and wouldn't take it. I would also wish your relation for creating what is essentially a multi million dollar pop culture icon got something representing a realted reward for his efforts.

Maybe If i had made it in this day and age and signed the right contract but if i had done what Siegel and Shuster did I would just have to live with it. Maybe you just don't have the pride to deal with that. $130 dollars was some serious jack back then, there were more important things than big houses and nice cars and thats what they sold the character for, more important things.

I don't really understand how you are using the law to defend DC but when the heirs use a different law decry them for being greedy?

Im just saying that I don't think the S&S clans deserves anything when they have literally done nothing to further the character or promote the character. SUperman was on sale and bought the WB has treated it like a spoiled brat and made oney off it why od the heirs think they deserve any of that?

 

[storyteller]

My only beef is that these guys while they created the original guy are not responsible for the superman we all came to love. These guys didnt create the man who could fly. They create the guy who coup only leap a tall building. They didnt create the superman rogue gallery. They didnt create the longest running version of his costume. To me its like giving a guy my beat up car, him suping it up and winning the daytona, then my kids expecting compensation.

 

[gildea]

Sorry You got so confused by what i said. I'll rephrase for your peanut sized brain. Isaid you are not a lawyer and I started the thread,. Another thing, is expressing opinions illegal now?

No it's just asinine to state on a message board " I'm expressing my opinion when it's so blatantly obvious.

Your right it may not be the end of the story but they did Create and Sell him. I don't contradict myself you only posted like two words of the sentence.

They created and sold a copyright (as DBM states). Which is different.

I was simply stating that the laws HAVE changed, as you so clearly point out. In favor of DC?Yes. Does not change the fact that they still they have changed.

Given the context you clearly didn't know this though, you assumed they had changed to allow this case to be pursued by the families.

Im sorry but when did you need MILLIONS to feed your family?

Big family? Fat family? Severe allergy to anything but caviar?

They have no Legal claim cause there family sold it when thy made it, is this getting through to you?

Except they just won a court case based on a law that gave the legal claim.

Something definitely isn't getting through to you.

The S&S clans should just have pride in the fact that they have there family name on every publication of the character. Are they entitled to money, not if they sold it, which they did.

Nope, sold the copyright read DBMs post. Legally entitled to money etc etc

The movie Mr. Woodcock came out last year and my last name is Woodcock does that mean im entitled to some cash? No. Just because something was made and it has your name on it or it created by your family and that part of your family sold it off doesnt mean you should just get some sort of royalty check.

This analogy, I'm almost lost for words. I'm curious at which point you thought it made any sort of sense, or constituted logical debate. It's so far removed from anything relating or even bearing a passing similarity to the issue here that I really should just have ignored it. But it's so completely out of the blue in it's ridiculousness that I have to comment.
Let's bullet point the failings:
1. Is your name an exploitable intellectual property (in the sense of relating to you & family)?
2. Are you the heir of the person who created said intellectual property?
3. Did your family sell a copyright on their intellectual property (their name!!)?
4. Has said copyright expired?

I could go on about the sheer wrong-headness of this "analogy" but I don't have all day.

Again and I repeat because it seems completely lost on you, read DBMs post, these people are LEGALLY entitled to their cut, like the court case has said.

Maybe If i had made it in this day and age and signed the right contract but if i had done what Siegel and Shuster did I would just have to live with it.

Ok maybe you would. Anyone with a lick of sense though would read up on their copyright law and say "hey look there is a law that allows us to reclaim what our family created".

Maybe you just don't have the pride to deal with that.

It's called common sense.

$130 dollars was some serious jack back then, there were more important things than big houses and nice cars and thats what they sold the character for, more important things.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

Use that inflation calculator. It says that $130 dollars equates to $1858.94 today, divided by 2 thats $929.47 each (you know less than most modern DC employees make for an issue). On minimum wage in 1938 you could make $130 dollars with roughly 3 months work.

So can we cut the wrong notion that $130 was a fortune back in the day?

Im just saying that I don't think the S&S clans deserves anything when they have literally done nothing to further the character or promote the character.

Legally they couldn't because of DC owning the copyright. (unless DC employed them). S&S did create lots more superman stories you know....

SUperman was on sale and bought the WB has treated it like a spoiled brat and made oney off it why od the heirs think they deserve any of that?

No he wasn't the copyright for action comics #1 was, not superman. Read DBM's post.

 

[BrianWilly]

These individuals did not create Superman. I don't feel that they have any rights to him and that they just come across as greedy and mooching off the works of their betters.

The law says otherwise, though, and so they're eligible to contend for this undeserved fortune. Of course "eligible" is not the same as "entitled" in my mind, and we all know that the law isn't right 100% of the time.

 

[gildea]

These individuals did not create Superman. I don't feel that they have any rights to him and that they just come across as greedy and mooching off the works of their betters.

You never get money from your family?

Also the people who came after S&S and created everything else, you think they're the people who are going to miss the money?

It's only going to be the corporate owners who have never written/drawn a superman story in their lives.


I can't believe that people are putting faceless corporate big wigs before the families of the creators.