Siegel's vs DC on Superman

[Skyhawke]

Newsarama.com Blog

Interesting article about the Siegel's and DC and the ownership of Superman. So what do the Siegal's really have with their half of Superman? What can they get out of it monetary wise?

I think all they will get out of it lawyer fees in the end if they try to sell Superman anywhere and trying to define what Joe Siegal's Superman is and how it relates to the Superman(s) being portrayed today. It is an empty victory for them in the end.

[WetRats]

I agree that the only people who will likely end up benefiting from this is the attorneys on both sides.

Just Bill had a very good commentary/rant on the case on the latest Just Bill's Comic Drawerbox. (No longer a vaporcast, in case you missed it)

[JohnMayo]

My understanding is the DC now owes 50% of the money made in the USA from Superman to the Siegel's. I would think that would benefit the Siegel's financially.

The other things to consider are that DC owns the Superman trademark entirely but could lose the other half of the ownership of Superman in 2013.

While I hope that DC is able to retain ownership and control of Superman, I also hope that they pay the creators/estates of the creators a fair share of the money that Superman has earned over the decades.

[Skyhawke]

My problem with the whole thing is, to my understanding DC has already paid Shuster and Siegel's family once. They have come back a second time saying the first agreed upon payment isn't enough, we want more.

The only reason Superman is popular to this day still is because of the marketing and creative forces that have behind Superman all these years. So they get all the benefits of monetary gain and none of toil.

But this might be all moot if this gets appealed anyway.

[JohnMayo]

My problem with the whole thing is, to my understanding DC has already paid Shuster and Siegel's family once. They have come back a second time saying the first agreed upon payment isn't enough, we want more.

The only reason Superman is popular to this day still is because of the marketing and creative forces that have behind Superman all these years. So they get all the benefits of monetary gain and none of toil.

But this might be all moot if this gets appealed anyway.

I see your point and kind of agree to it. However, this entire aspect of copyright law exists for this very purpose of allowing creators to see some of the reward when something they created hits big. And, in fairness, DC has gotten made a ton of money off Superman over the decades. Much, much more than they have every paid out to the creators.

DC should have just put the guys on salary as "creators emeritus" or something any let them draw a decent paycheck over the years. If they had been more generous over the years it is possible that this might not have gone to court.

[WetRats]

DC should have just put the guys on salary as "creators emeritus" or something any let them draw a decent paycheck over the years.

I thought they did that in the 70s.

[WetRats]

My understanding is the DC now owes 50% of the money made in the USA from Superman to the Siegel's. I would think that would benefit the Siegel's financially.

But it'll go through appeals for another ten years of more before they see any of it. Meanwhile the legal fees are piling up, *plus* if/whenever there is a settlement, the attorneys will reap the lion's share of *that*.

[JohnMayo]

DC should have just put the guys on salary as "creators emeritus" or something any let them draw a decent paycheck over the years.

I thought they did that in the 70s.

I was thinking that they just got a flat amount back in the 1970s. I'd have to research it to know for sure.

[JohnMayo]

My understanding is the DC now owes 50% of the money made in the USA from Superman to the Siegel's. I would think that would benefit the Siegel's financially.

But it'll go through appeals for another ten years of more before they see any of it. Meanwhile the legal fees are piling up, *plus* if/whenever there is a settlement, the attorneys will reap the lion's share of *that*.

True. The lawyers do seem to be the ones that will benefit regardless of how things turns out. Sort of ironic that given that they had the least to do with the creation or marketing of Superman...

[Skyhawke]

http://www.newsarama.com/DC/Superman/Si ... intOct.htm

[JohnMayo]

http://www.newsarama.com/DC/Superman/Si ... intOct.htm

"The creators and publisher settled in May of 1948, with $100,000 being paid to the creators, who also lost their jobs as a direct result of the action."

Hmmm... I wonder if that might have caused some bad blood with the creators...


"The complaint continues to explain Siegel and Shuster’s 1975 agreement with Warner Communications which provided for the payment of $10,000 to each, modest annual payments plus medical benefits to Siegel, Shuster, and upon their deaths, to certain of their respective heirs, and that Siegel and Shuster would be given creator credit on Superman. This was given to the creators in exchange that they acknowledge that Warner Communications is the exclusive owner of all rights, title and interesting and to Superman. (Of course, in 1976, copyright law, with respect to creators, profoundly changed)."

This does seem to be a step in the right direction from DC...

So, WetRats, it looks like you were right about the creators getting some money and annual amount each year back in the 1970s.

I hope that they came come to a mutually beneficial and equitable solution to all of this. But I have no idea what such a solution would be.

[Lobo]

For clarification...

The only reason Siegel's estate had a case is because Superman wasn't a work-for-hire creation. Siegel & Shuster signed a contract with National Periodicals (Later DC) which only granted DC 28 years of copyright ownership, with the right to one 28 year extension.

The Copyright Act of 1976 added a clause which prevented the terms of existing contracts from being extended retroactively, allowing creators (or their estates) the right to terminate copyright agreements when the copyright term would have originally ended, had Hollywood not been writing legislation with their checkbooks.

Siegel's estate now owns 50% of the American copyright (DC still owns the international copyright) to Superman's story in Action Comics #1. Shuster's estate can petition the courts for the other 50% in 2013.

Because of the "trademark loophole", as long as DC maintains the trademark on Superman, it would be difficult for Siegel & Shuster to do much with their copyright.

DC still owns the copyright on all of the remaining Superman stories. The original story only has Superman (in his original costume) Clark Kent, The Daily Star, a reporter named Lois (no last name), no Perry White, no Jimmy Olsen, no Daily Planet, no Kryptonite, no ability to fly, no Lex Luthor, etc.

In theory, if Siegel and Shuster's estates (when they're granted the rights in 2013) were to deny DC the right to exploit their trademark for 5 years, the estate could apply for the trademark to Superman, but if they wanted to do anything without DC, they'd have to pull a "Project Superpowers" and start from scratch, based only upon elements included in the original story.

Key words, "in theory".

It's unlikely they would pursue this, because any story elements too close to something DC already did (in a story DC still owns the copyright on) would probably land them in court.

Of course, if movie companies didn't insist on buying copyright extensions, Siegel & Shuster's estates wouldn't have a case, the Golden Age stories would be in the public domain where they belong, and DC would still control Superman as long as they maintained their trademark.

That's what they get for being greedy.

Speaking of which...

http://tinyurl.com/6ohd4w

Justice is served!

[WetRats]

Here's a spontaneous conspiracy theory just for you, Lobo:

Superman Returns was designed to be a flop, in anticipation of the suit going this way. Warner's accountants will be able to show that, thanks to its failure, they've actually lost money on Superman, and therefore the Siegel heirs owe them money!

[Lobo]

Here's a spontaneous conspiracy theory just for you, Lobo:

Superman Returns was designed to be a flop, in anticipation of the suit going this way. Warner's accountants will be able to show that, thanks to its failure, they've actually lost money on Superman, and therefore the Siegel heirs owe them money!

No conspiracy theory required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

For the conspiracy-minded, however, note the numbers in this URL:

http://www.comicbookpage.com/forum/view ... ?p=666#666

[WetRats]

For the conspiracy-minded, however, note the numbers in this URL:

http://www.comicbookpage.com/forum/view ... ?p=666#666

DC Comics' old offices were in this building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/666_Fifth_Avenue