Lawsuite

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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???
 
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.
 
Superman all because of Lois now if they kept Lois and The Planet out of it then you could call it Superboy.
 
Crisis Superman said:
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.
 
Tony_Montana said:
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.
 
Crisis Superman said:
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.
 
Tony_Montana said:
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.
 
Superman-based out of Metropolis
Superboy based out of Smallville
 
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.
 
Yes Superman is mobile but he pretty much operates out of Metropolis
 
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.
 
Crisis Superman said:
.....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..
 
I duno. I just learned that word from Batman. He said it once on JLU.
 
Kaboom said:
Crisis Superman said:
.....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:
 
^^^^^^ 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."
 
avidreader said:
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.

Dnsk said:
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



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

E! Online said:
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.
 
^^^^^^^^^^^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.
 
From K-Site:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]About Smallville's connection to Superboy, we give yo[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]u this, a quote from KryptonSite's first interview with Al Gough, posted in early 2001, before the pilot episode of Smallville was even shot:[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]AG: [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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." [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"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 - considered by many to be an inspiration for the show - ever "Superboy." [/FONT]
 
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.
 
^^^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?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"