The War for Superboy is finally over........for now

[TheCorpulent1]

It's only because it's actually over a comic-related thing. I'm sure MySpace will never sue Marvel for name-checking their company without a disclaimer.

 

[Prognosticator]

DC's been wanting to use Clark Kent's past as Superboy, but without being able to use the name Superboy. That's just plain stupid.

The same for Superboy-Prime. He just became "Prime" or "Superman-Prime." Lame.

And they couldn't even use Superboy for Conner. That just plain sucks.

The fact that they couldn't use the god damn name was hindering their quality in the Superman and Teen Titan mythos.

Yeah, DC treated Schuster and Siegel pretty damn badly, but their families are a bunch of greedy asshats who just want to mooch off the legacy of their ancestors and don't give a damn about we the comic book reader.

So are we gonna see them start using it again anytime soon?

 

[Anubis]

Does it really matter? It's just a name.

 

[Prognosticator]

I know. And I know we'll still use it on here and whatnot.

But I personally thought the name "Superboy Prime" was (is) pretty badass!

 

[Superman_]

Plus I think the only person worth of being called Superman-Prime is the one from DC 1,000,000

 

[TheCorpulent1]

That was just Clark in a few hundred thousand centuries.

 

[Anubis]

So you may as well just call him Superman.

 

[Superman_]

That was just Clark in a few hundred thousand centuries.

I know that. I am just saying Superboy-Prime is not worth of the name Superman-Prime.

 

[BrianWilly]

I think it matters a lot, to both the characters and the stories. I'm sick of DC legally unable to refer to Superboy as Superboy and instead having to to verbal gymnastics and refer to him as Conner or Kon or whatever. Yes, that's his name, but his name is also Superboy. He was Superboy. There are moments where it simply did not work to refer to him by his civilian name. I'm sick of DC unable to draw a damn logo on the fronts of any character who may or may not actually be Superboy. Hell, even Match had to have the front of his damn shirt ripped off so we couldn't see the logo even though it was obviously there a few issues ago, and had to have some stupid mist or whatever covering it on the cover. That's stupid. There's absolutely no reason for that, I don't care who the hell your distant ancestors are, you're just stupid greedy mooks for it.

I despise any manner of censorship where artistic integrity is involved, especially over reasons as dumb as this one; these people didn't create the character and the original character doesn't even have to do with any of these characters that are being negatively affected by this except through roundabout flimsy logic. Obviously, even the judges have began to agree. The families may deserve some sort of copyright, but the extent it has gone to is offensively ridiculous.

 

[The_Mystery]

What I don't understand is what do they want with the name "Superboy" so much? Are they gonna publish their own Superboy comics? If not just let DC keep the name and take the royalties.

 

[Manic]

What I don't understand is what do they want with the name "Superboy" so much? Are they gonna publish their own Superboy comics? If not just let DC keep the name and take the royalties.

That's the ridiculous part. They only wanted the rights to Superboy so DC would have to pay them everytime they used him. That, or they could sell the rights back to DC for a ridiculous amount. They never had any intention of using the name themselves.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I think it matters a lot, to both the characters and the stories. I'm sick of DC legally unable to refer to Superboy as Superboy and instead having to to verbal gymnastics and refer to him as Conner or Kon or whatever. Yes, that's his name, but his name is also Superboy. He was Superboy. There are moments where it simply did not work to refer to him by his civilian name. I'm sick of DC unable to draw a damn logo on the fronts of any character who may or may not actually be Superboy. Hell, even Match had to have the front of his damn shirt ripped off so we couldn't see the logo even though it was obviously there a few issues ago, and had to have some stupid mist or whatever covering it on the cover. That's stupid. There's absolutely no reason for that, I don't care who the hell your distant ancestors are, you're just stupid greedy mooks for it.

I despise any manner of censorship where artistic integrity is involved, especially over reasons as dumb as this one; these people didn't create the character and the original character doesn't even have to do with any of these characters that are being negatively affected by this except through roundabout flimsy logic. Obviously, even the judges have began to agree. The families may deserve some sort of copyright, but the extent it has gone to is offensively ridiculous.

See, that's the part that gets me. If the Siegels want the concept of a young Clark Kent acting as a superhero under the name "Superboy," fine. I can live with Clark calling himself "Superman," even as a teenager (since it's now canon that he was active as a costumed superhero in his youth again). Spider-Man did it with no problem, and it actually works on a character level if you make it reflective of Clark's responsibility.

But what the hell does any of that have to do with Conner, who was a totally different character. He's not a young Clark Kent, he's a young clone of Clark and Lex with a unique personality. How does this ruling prevent DC from associating the name with him? How does the ruling prevent DC from putting the "S" shield on the chest of a character who's even more different from a young Clark Kent than Conner? Those parts of the ruling strike me as just about as dumb as the JLU creators not being able to use Nightwing because of Batman Begins or The Batman or whatever stupid reason DC concocted to keep him out.

 

[TheDemon'sHead]

I kinda don't blame them. It's not like they owe us anything, and it's not like we're really that inconvenienced by the lack of the name "Superboy." These are real people looking out for themselves in the real world as opposed to comic fans, who are concerned with fictitious people. I'd want a piece of the pie if my ancestor created something and got cheated out of his fair share.

I don't blame Siegel and Shuster's family one bit for trying to obtain the rights to "Superboy". This is the last chance the family has of trying to claim the rights to a Superman related property. By all means they should try to own the rights. Siegel and Shuster and many other creators of the golden age died as poor men. So what many of you are saying that a gigantic corporation like Time-Warner can't provide sufficient reparations to their families just because you don't like the inconsistency? These were people's lives.

If a relative was killed in an automobile accident and you could sue the responsible party for 20M, most of you would. The money wouldn't bring your loved one back but it's something. Morally most people would feel that the money was inconsequential but it would have to be done. It's the same case as the Siegel and Shuster's. It's the mere principle.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I don't blame Siegel and Shuster's family one bit for trying to obtain the rights to "Superboy". This is the last chance the family has of trying to claim the rights to a Superman related property. By all means they should try to own the rights. Siegel and Shuster and many other creators of the golden age died as poor men. So what many of you are saying that a gigantic corporation like Time-Warner can't provide sufficient reparations to their families just because you don't like the inconsistency? These were people's lives.

If a relative was killed in an automobile accident and you could sue the responsible party for 20M, most of you would. The money wouldn't bring your loved one back but it's something. Morally most people would feel that the money was inconsequential but it would have to be done. It's the same case as the Siegel and Shuster's. It's the mere principle.

Don't get me wrong, the Siegels, the Shusters, the Kanes, the Fingers, and all the other Golden Age creators families do deserve a large pension for their ancestors creating some of the biggest names in comic books.

But they don't deserve the copyright. They sold their characters to DC and DC owns them plain and simple. It would be like someone who used to own something trying to take back something that you bought from them. Also the Siegels were just being greedy asshats here. They had no intention on using Superboy or printing Superboy comics or whatever. They just wanted DC to pay them a huge ass amount of money and it's been affecting us the reader as a result. So they can go screw themselves for all I care.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I don't think there's much of a distinction in the corporate world. While I'm sure a lot of people at DC would love to give pensions to the Golden Age creators' families, they're not the ones who sign the checks. Corporate suits at DC or Warner Bros. do, and I doubt they'd have much incentive to give money away to the family if the family didn't own some tangible part of the character. Saying "my grandfather created him!" isn't enough.

 

[Eros]

If I recall, siegal[ or was it shuster],] hated the superboy concept, and was mad at DC for creating him, they wanted superman to begin his career as an adult, not at the bloody age of 9.

 

[BrianWilly]

http://blog.newsarama.com/2007/08/16/whats-so-super-about-superboy/

Interesting summary of the events. It even includes a link to the judge's full opinion, though most of it is incomprehensible legal yatter.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

"Yatter"?

 

[BrianWilly]

It's a word and it exists I swear to god.

I dunno.

 

[fifthfiend]

post deleted as I am flip-flopping on my original view of the case.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Except that Siegel didn't sell Superboy to DC, so DC doesn't own jack-****. This really isn't that hard a point to grasp.

I wasn't talking about Superboy in particular, I was talking about Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, etc. in general. The creators sold their creations to DC, even if the amount was pitiful.

Fixed that for you.

No, the Siegels are being greedy here. They're just looking for a huge payoff and that's it and it's affecting the comics that DC is publishing. And Superboy isn't a separate character, it's the same damn character as Superman. It's like saying the Muppet Babies are different characters than the Muppets. Or Baby Looney Tunes are different characters than the Looney Tunes. They're the same, just different ages.

Sure Siegel came up with the idea of Superboy and DC turned it down and then published a Superboy comic that was in the idea of Siegel, but having a child version of a character is still the same damn character.

 

[Superman_]

I wasn't talking about Superboy in particular, I was talking about Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, etc. in general. The creators sold their creations to DC, even if the amount was pitiful.

Agreed. I mean yes it is sad but a deals a deal no matter how much you were screwed. When you give away all rights to something you lose it forever you should not be allowed to come and take it back.

 

[Superman_]

IMO this case is like Bill Gates selling you Microsoft and anything having to do with Microsoft for only $12,000 and then wanting the company or at least wanting rights and profits to the company. I mean come on now you don't do that as I said before they were screwed over royally but whats done is done.

 

[TheDemon'sHead]

IMO this case is like Bill Gates selling you Microsoft and anything having to do with Microsoft for only $12,000 and then wanting the company or at least wanting rights and profits to the company. I mean come on now you don't do that as I said before they were screwed over royally but whats done is done.

It's not done though.

They were screwed and they know they have no rights to Superman. So they are trying to do what they can. That's why all of this deals with the Superboy character and not Superman proper.

If the Seigels end up owning the rights, more than likely the Superboy rights will be leased out to DC. Jerry Seigel, himself, was the one who started the current lawsuit. He died during the process, his wife and daughter are following through on his intentions. So calling the Seigels a bunch of moneygrubbing, greedy bastards is pretty harsh.

 

[Anubis]

I don't see why you guys give a f**k at all really. So what? No more, Superboy. He's dead anyway. f**k em.