This is so lame. Siegel and Shuster were paid very well over the years for the success their character brought to DC, and now people who've done nothing but be born to the right lineage are creating a hurdle to the character's continued use because of their own greed.




















Although, anything that saves us from a 'Superman Returns' sequel can't be all bad...but still. Grrrrrrrr. Bad heirs!

Up until the '70s, they weren't. DC screwed them until Superman: The Movie came out. The fact that they had not gotten a pension or anything like that was beginning to give DC bad press around the time of the movie's premiere. DC gave them a monthly check to shut everyone up/make themselves look better.

Hoooboy. I support the existence of copyright and general IP rights. But this kinda crap is beyond lame. The pre-existing copyright terms were already pretty fine the way they were but Congress keeps extending them to the point that they will never end. Copyright recovery is ghey. Creators should learn from their mistakes -- or, I dunno, study an' learn not to make them in the first place -- instead of thinking they can turn back the clock.

Copyright always annoys me. That's the reason we never get anything good, like Jump Superstars

I blame Disney for this anyway...

The point is that they were paid, though. And the money they got before the 70s was exactly what they agreed to. No one was swindling them, they just couldn't have predicted what a huge cashcow the character would turn into.

But what did these people do to deserve any money from DC/Time Warner?

If there was no underhanded play or anything, yeah, why do these people get anything?

It's the copyright recovery nonsense. They're "looking out for the little guys" who may or may not have gotten swindled back in the day before social movements shifted us from the more hardcore ferengi-type capitalism to the mixed economy we have today. The particular nonsense from around the '70s. Copyright was formed to benefit the public domain by offering incentive to the author/creator yet eventually expiring -- not being perpetually extended over and over. Thanks a lot, Sonny Bono.

Edit: Oh yeah. There was a period where works passed automatically into the public domain if an author didn't put a proper copyright notice on the work before it being published, etc. My understanding was that copyright recovery was intended to handle those who accidentally lost rights they had or should've had. (I don't consider something like Superman to count, the more I think about it.)

this is a hurdle to future Superman stories how?

From the article:



We won't see Superman disappear from the comic shelves or anything, but it stands to reason that Time Warner will be less likely to spend time and money developing projects they don't own complete rights to, because of the headache of dealing with other copyright holders and the decreased profit to be derived from such projects.

Hate to sound bitchy but I seriously think after you die, all copyright SHOULD end. The only exception is in physical invention ie. patent.

Well, copyright should end unless it's been properly set up by an entity beyond yourself - Jim Henson's heirs have proper claim to many of his creations, and they should, because he set things up to properly transfer to them by way of a company he formed.

S&S made Supes, got paid very well*, surrendered the rights.

The end.




*Does anyone know what $93,000 in the 1940s translates to in today's dollars? According to this website it's $1,374,861.64

That's what I thought you meant.

A lack of Superman films would be a big *don't notice* from me.

Oh I agree, if you are responsible for a studios exsistence in the first place, and your kids take over then yes they should. If you create a charachtor and you die, if your sons/daughters dont write any stories then they should loose the copywright.

Heh. It's not even a matter of anything to lose though. The heirs never had the copyright. It was traded away by the sole and rightful owners. And Superman wasn't anywhere near the icon of cultural Americana back then as it was now. A lot of other creative, marketing, artistic, and writing talent went into continuing to build Superman. People tend to go on about the "evil, faceless corporate entity making millions off of the hard work of the creators", but the creators just hit on an idea. Behind that corporation are all the salaries and compensations of people who helped to turn that idea into something bigger.

Barring exceptions for disabled children unable to care for themselves and similar circumstances, I think all inheritance should just end outright. Wouldn't have these issues in the first place. But in this case, the exchange was fully settled decades ago. It's absolutely ridiculous that these people're just suing someone with deep pockets.

Dear Estates of Mr's. Siegel and Shuster.

As a representative of the Nietzsche estate, I regret to inform you that you have infringed on our copyright of "Superman."

Ain't It Cool News had a dramatically different take on the news:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36212

Me thinks Harry is blinded by a sense of admiration for the creators, causing him to overlook what is fair for the people who signed legitimate contracts and whether the rightful copyright owners should have to pay people who did nothing to further Superman as a property. I wonder if it's honest oversight that keeps him from mentioning the $93,000 they received in the 40s in his portrayal of S&S's treatment by DC? It seems to me the real justice was done regarding the creators 60 years ago.

And the more I think about the idea that these heirs may reclaim total ownership of the character in 2013...it's just so completely unfair and ridiculous.

I don't know... someone has to own the property. You could go back and forth over who would be the best trustee. I tend to favor protection from commercialism and the integrity of the property above other concerns, but that's just my general philosophy about things.

It's not a question of who the best trustee is, it's a matter of who purchased what and how. Warner did nothing wrong, and now their property is being stripped from them in the name of...what, exactly?

Let's say you purchase a classic car. You acquire the car legally, invest in it and restore it, and now you make a nice profit touring this classic car around at conventions and auto shows and the like. This is a judge coming in and taking away your car because the son of the guy who made the car back in the 30s wants it back, even though you rightfully purchased and invested in it.

It's outrageous.

The thing is, S&S sold their interests in Superman to DC in a legally binding agreement. At this point it was no longer their property.

I'd argue that by trying to "do the right thing" and compensate S&S after the fact, DC actually undermined their rights for the property, as it makes it look like the original amount paid wasn't valid.

Agreed. I think if there had been no further compensation, it would have been a more black & white situation.

Well, the first amount of extra compensation paid out in the 40s was also under court order, so it's not like they had a choice.

cool, I sound like trench

Ah, I was unaware of that - however, I don't think the monthly payments they began in the Seventies were...

No, but at that point what's done is done.







And sorry, LM. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I cut and pasted wrong somewhere.

n/p, it could have been worse

True, it now appears that perhaps they should have fought that $93K ruling in the 40s -as that was for the time, a considerable sum of money. (That website you posted is OK for doing inflation corrected numbers, but it's only tied to a single determinant [in this case CPI], so I don't think it's 100% correct.)

I'm now a bit curious what the exact ruling in that case was, because I'm guessing that first $130 payment was completely legal. How many other characters were creators paid a similar amount which turned out to be a bust?

Well, we don't know that they didn't fight it. I'd be shocked if there weren't a failed appeal attempt or two connected to that case. I'd also love to know more of the details of that case.

It was the Depression. $130 was a lot of money. Superman's a cultural icon now but let's consider the scope of what the character was at the time too.