Are the Siegels and Shusters the next Tolkien estate?

[Mladen]

The law seems pretty clear here, so the families are absolutely entitled.
Motivation is irrelevant, the law states they contract has expired and the rights revert to the original owners.
I fail to see the problem?

A lot of people are rushing to the defense of innocent DC, but lets not forget there's a long history of comics creators being underpayed and blatantly taken advantage of by the publishing corporations. Just who are we defending here?

If the families are 'greedy and moochers' for wanting to have some of the profit of a creation they personally had nothing to do with, then what is Warner when it decided to buy DC and the rights to their characters?

 

[BrianWilly]

Key word being bought. It bought DC and to this day contributes both financially and creatively to keeping the persona alive, and reaps the benefits of it. By mere association they've done more for Superman than any of these people ever have.

You never get money from your family?

I never got money from a grandparent for work that I had absolutely nothing to do with, no. And when they gave me money, it's because they gave it to me, not because I sued people for it.

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.

We're not living in a communist society. Money doesn't get distributed based on who's going to miss it more or less. I'm betting that none of the heirs have ever written/drawn a Superman story in their lives, how do they have more claim to it?

I'm probably being overly harsh to them -- really, this whole thing is less about who's right and who's wrong than it is about who's simply more right -- but the idea of someone receiving royalties for years on end for something they didn't earn and won't be earning is just numbingly irritating to me.

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

Because it's always as simple as that. Men in suits with money are always badly bad and creators' families are always in the right.

 

[Spike_x1]

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.

 

[gildea]

Key word being bought. It bought DC and to this day contributes both financially and creatively to keeping the persona alive, and reaps the benefits of it. By mere association they've done more for Superman than any of these people ever have.

Except the creative people who do all that aren't the ones going to be affected by all of this.

Also I say again the legally couldn't if they wanted to as DC owned the rights then.

I never got money from a grandparent for work that I had absolutely nothing to do with, no. And when they gave me money, it's because they gave it to me, not because I sued people for it.

In this case the really shouldn't have had to sue.

So, not wanting to be morbid, but are you against the concept of inheritance?

We're not living in a communist society. Money doesn't get distributed based on who's going to miss it more or less. I'm betting that none of the heirs have ever written/drawn a Superman story in their lives, how do they have more claim to it?

No but the rules of the society we are living in dictate where this money is going.

I think you've missed construed my point here though, you said that people have made a far greater contribution to superman through their writings and such. My point is these are not the people that this decision effects, ie they're not going to miss money they weren't getting.

Legally couldn't if they wanted to as DC owned the rights then.

Because it's always as simple as that. Men in suits with money are always badly bad and creators' families are always in the right.

Given DC's history (and indeed marvels) history of stiffing creators it pretty much is.

 

[fifthfiend]

We're not living in a communist society.

So why are you complaining about the Siegels and Shusters? If capitalism = got mine **** you then it means exactly nothing who did the most for a character and the Siegel/Shuster families have every right to claw every red cent they can out of Time Warner's hands.

but the idea of someone receiving royalties for years on end for something they didn't earn and won't be earning is just numbingly irritating to me.

And yet the people at Warner Brothers reaping the vast majority of the benefit from something they didn't earn and won't be earning don't seem to irritate you at all.

Men in suits with money are always badly bad and creators' families are always in the right.

See, now you're totally just putting words in people's mouths.

But no seriously if you can explain to me why a bunch of guys whose primary achievements are selling themselves to AOL for internet monopoly-money and birthing the nonstop creative juggernaut that is the CW somehow posess an unqualified moral right to reap the benefits of Superman in perpetuity despite the court-validated claims of other legal stakeholders then hey, I'm all ears.

 

[BrianWilly]

I've already explained why Time Warner, even as a corporate entity, has done more for Superman than any of the S/S heirs have. The fact that they, y'know, publish Superman comics and make Superman movies and etc etc. To say that they don't earn their keep is ricockulous; every T-shirt they print, every coffee cup with the "S" on it is them earning their rights to a character. That's what a business is, that's what a copyright does. I couldn't hardly give less a sht what else they've done about AOL or the CW or whatever, all I know is that in this individual instance, they deserve Superman's royalties far more than the Siegels and Shusters, who have done nothing for Superman and will do nothing for Superman.

 

[Hush]

I've already explained why Time Warner, even as a corporate entity, has done more for Superman than any of the S/S heirs have. The fact that they, y'know, publish Superman comics and make Superman movies and etc etc. To say that they don't earn their keep is ricockulous; every T-shirt they print, every coffee cup with the "S" on it is them earning their rights to a character. That's what a business is, that's what a copyright does. I couldn't hardly give less a sht what else they've done about AOL or the CW or whatever, all I know is that in this individual instance, they deserve Superman's royalties far more than the Siegels and Shusters, who have done nothing for Superman and will do nothing for Superman.

Thank you, how can people not see this? Warner Bros. have treated Superman like a spoiled brat and given everyone here at least some form of entertainment over the years and the S&S clan wants money for doing nothing to help any of this to happen. I understand the law perfectly but this is one case where judgement is misplaced, due to the above reasons.

 

[fifthfiend]

I've already explained why Time Warner, even as a corporate entity, has done more for Superman than any of the S/S heirs have.

Right, and if comparing legal constructs to actual human beings were in any way a meaningful comparison, you would have blown my socks off.

Actually it still wouldn't have cause you would have to explain this thing where you think DC has spent eighty years promoting Superman as some kind of charity work, and all those enormous multi-billions of dollars in profits they have reaped from this character sort of showed up by accident, or exactly how anybody else was supposed to do anything "for" Superman considering the legal monopoly which Time Warner posesses for all works featuring the character and which indeed exists today due to the enormous sums of money which Time Warner, among others, have spent lobbying lawmakers to prolong it.

But those aside if you want to talk about "entities" well, the Siegel and Shuster "familial entities" have done infinitely more than Time Warner have for Superman by creating him in the first place so, well, there you go. Meanwhile my question about the actual individuals who hold legal control over and reap the greatest benefit from the character remains unanswered. Seriously, explain to me why oh, say, Time-Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes enjoys some particular moral right to benefit from Superman's profitability which any given member of the Siegel family does not posess.

EDIT: And okay man I mean this is really just buggin' me --

Every T-shirt they print, every coffee cup with the "S" on it is them earning their rights to a character.

-- just let me take a second and fix that real quick --

Every T-shirt they print, every coffee cup with the "S" on it is them making money for themselves by way of their legal monopoly over that character's publication, of which a court of law has ruled the Siegels and Shusters also posess a part of the rights.

There now, much better.

...I mean among other things, I'd like to know where that argument would work in the case of, say, outright theft? Like let's just say hypothetically that DC just outright stole Superman, just held a gun to Jerry Siegel's head and said give me this character or I plug you. Well by your terms of argument DC would today enjoy a superior moral right to benefit from that stolen property, on the basis that they had spent the last several decades benefitting from their stolen property.

I mean I'll grant as I'm doing just a bit of stretching the terms of argument, but considering as your entire standpoint is that Time-Warner's leadership is entitled to steal what the Siegels and Shusters legally own because of the unique moral standing conferred upon them by having successfully made a whole lot of money for themselves, I really don't think it's very much of a stretch.

 

[BrianWilly]

Oh damn, y'know what? I just remembered that I don't actually care that much. In my opinion, WB and DC deserve Superman's royalties much more than the family heirs, who really don't deserve it at all...and I've already explained why I think so in very clear, explicit terms. Take it or leave it, but don't trip all over it.

 

[gildea]

Oh damn, y'know what? I just remembered that I don't actually care that much. In my opinion, WB and DC deserve Superman's royalties much more than the family heirs, who really don't deserve it at all...and I've already explained why I think so in very clear, explicit terms. Take it or leave it, but don't trip all over it.

That's too mature an attitude for a message board.

Though you're explanation does rest on the ignoring of 2 key facts:
1. Not owning the copyright S&S's families couldn't contribute to the mythos
2. Having been the de facto other party as the heir's of S&S their actual contribution is as that of being the creators and allowing superman to continue on in his many forms (which is all the people you defend are doing)