No more Superman?

[Kommando]

Interesting article I found here.  I wonder what DC would be like without Superman?

[AfghanAnt]

Interesting article I found here.  I wonder what DC would be like without Superman?

They would go bankrupt.

[stumpy]

I really doubt DC will lose the Superman franchise. Ultimately, if the courts take the rights away and give them to the estates, WB will be willing to shell out more than anyone else, because Superman is better branded as part of the DC universe than he could be anywhere else. Other companies may love the chance to get the character, but they won't make as much from him and won't be able to pay as much for licensing.

I am a little annoyed by the legal wrangling here. DC (or whoever they were back then) bought the rights to the character in 1938. Siegal and Shuster created it, but DC owns it. People can get distracted over whether S&S made a good deal for themselves, or they gave it away too cheaply, or whatever. But, they did make the deal. (And, frankly, making $75,000 a year in those days was excellent money.) It bothers me that they (and their heirs) can come back years later and go crying to a court to throw out the contract because the character went on to be a huge success that no one could have imagined in 1938.

I don't mean to take any credit away from S&S, but DC took the risks in publishing that character. If the character had flopped and lost money, would anyone think DC would be right to come back and get a judge to say it's okay to renegotiate their salaries for less? I don't think so.

Say I design a web site for someone (something I don't do anymore) and it includes distinctive design elements that they want to use as a recognizable part of their business, trademarks, etc. I agree to sell them the rights to the designs to make use of in their business. If their business turns into a huge success and the designs become famous recognized marketing symbols, I can certainly say I designed them and be proud of it, but I should not be able to go back years later and say, "Owing to the huge success you have had, I want to throw out our original deal and take more money or I am going to court to get the rights returned to me and I will sell them to your competitors to use." I think that system is baloney.

[tommyboy]

I'm not generally one to take the side of any big business or corporation, but I tend to agree with Stumpy here.
S+S sold their product to another company to distribute and manufacture, and it was phenomenally successful.
But I doubt they left the office thinking "we were robbed" the day they signed the contract. Like anyone else who gets a deal, they were probably pleased to see their work published, and to get paid for that.
As an adult, you make decisions and have to live with the consequences. Neither DC nor S+S could have known at the time the worth of the character, so the deal as struck was fair, at that time.
If I buy a lottery ticket and I win, I don't expect the store I bought it in to sue me for some of my winnings. They sold me the ticket knowing there was a chance it might win big, but it was a small chance, and I paid for it. It's mine.
I have some sympathy for S+S and their families, but would suggest setting up a charity where people can voluntarily donate to them if they feel an "injustice" was done, rather than retroactively changing the terms of a contract signed willingly by both parties.

[thanoson]

But, imagine Superman in Marvel comics. Seeing the different perspective of heroes lives in Marvel. Coming across Sentry, Hyperion and Gladiator. Fighting against all the psychic characters in Marvel. Coming across Absorbing Man or Psycho Man. I'd pay to see that.

[JKCarrier]

Superman isn't going anywhere. Time-Warner will shell out whatever it takes to hang onto him.

And no, this isn't some underhanded stunt by the Siegel & Shuster estates, and whether the original contract with DC was "fair" or not doesn't really enter into it. America copyright laws allow a creator to file for copyright termination after a certain amount of time:

http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/copyterm.html

[The Hitman]

I was under the impression that this is why DC put Supes off- world, and started filling his former books with the likes of Mon- El and the like. Preparing for the (unlikely) scenario where they can no longer use Superman.

[lugaru]

The only thing that could happen is that superman becomes public domain, in which case DC will still have the best superman stories thanks to their continuity, familiarity with the character and the fact that he has interacted with their stable of heroes for decades.

Now if DC would have never had superman I think they would have ended up darker than Marvel. Superman naturally lends himself to a little bit of fun and whimsy, he invites crazy stories. Their flag would have been Batman, and whithout his friendship with Superman I dont think he would have become much of a camp figure. Also the power level in DC would be a LOT lower, I mean Superman creates big heroes and villains but with Batman as a main character you would have more jokers, two faces and flash rogues gallery villains.

[AfghanAnt]

The only thing that could happen is that superman becomes public domain.

Never going to happen ever. There is too much money made off of him. He is the most well-known fictional character world-wide.

[stumpy]

JKCarrier, I totally agree that changes in the copyright laws are what made this possible, although, to be clear, the S&S estates were not obligated to take advantage of the legal changes. I think those changes are wrong-headed, and my opinion isn't based on any sympathy for Warner Bros or any other entity in this. Intellectual property is an artificial construct designed to encourage productivity and innovation in the arts and sciences by giving people exclusive right to realize (and profit from) their ideas for some period of time. That period of time should not be extended indefinitely, so that it far eclipses the lifetime of the creator. My problem with the S&S estates taking this legal action isn't that I think WB should have exclusive rights to Superman forever; my problem is that no one should have exclusive rights to any idea forever.

I also agree that the new laws make it unlikely that Superman will become public domain and I think that's too bad. Not because I have anything against someone or some company making a living off of his own ideas (or even getting fabulously wealthy from them), but because the concept of a time limit on the exclusivity period is a good thing that encourages the same innovation and creativity that the original exclusive rights did. Competition for the best use of a character is a good thing. I would rather that anyone could publish Superman stories and the company that publishes the best ones makes the most money from them, not just the company that happens to own the license.

[Ares_God_of_War]

The only problem I have with something like Superman being public domain is that if the internet has taught me anything it is that people will abuse things people love in perverse and demeaning ways because they can. Imagine if you will Adult only superman comics or basically a LolCat superman.

[Kommando]

The only problem I have with something like Superman being public domain is that if the internet has taught me anything it is that people will abuse things people love in perverse and demeaning ways because they can. Imagine if you will Adult only superman comics or basically a LolCat superman.

Shall I provide links to Superman/Goku Yaoi?  That has never stopped anyone.  The thing is, public domain would not really hurt the property.  Sure, there would be a lot of crap out there, but that's the nature of media.  People would be attracted to works that are works of quality because its good.  You have characters like Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, King Aurthur, and the entire works of William Shakespeare in the public domain.  Sometimes they get used well, sometimes not.  Why would a public domain Superman be any different?  Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes was excellent IMO.  Data as Sherlock Holmes with Moriarty taking over the Enterprise in TNG, maybe not so much.  It all depends on who handles the property.

[JKCarrier]

people will abuse things people love in perverse and demeaning ways because they can.

Sounds like DC's current editorial policy. 

[Tomato]

people will abuse things people love in perverse and demeaning ways because they can.

Sounds like DC's current editorial policy. 

No, more like Marvel's. Brand New Day anyone?

[Spe-Dog]

Sadly, I could see that.  Quesada would have Lois make a deal with Mephisto or Neron and then poof, Clark is eating wheatcakes on Ma Kent's couch wishing he could land a steady job at the Daily Planet but in the meantime will entertain himself at Luthor's coming home party since he's been in "Europe" for 10 years.  Oh...anger...rising...pulse....quickening....

[Green Hornet]

If DC lost the rights to use Superman it does not mean they would lose the rights to supporting characters or Villains of Superman.  So Say Marvel pick up rights to Superman.  They would not be able to use Lex, or any of Superman's villains.  Also they would not have Supergirl, Lois, Jimmy, or any supporting characters.  So it would be a totaly different Superman.

[The Hitman]

Actually, I think the'd lose any IP of Seigal and Shuster, so any character created by them would be gone.

[stumpy]

I could be wrong, but I don't know that they would lose every character that S&S came up with, because at some point they were employed under different terms than the arrangement by which Action Comics #1 was put together. But, they might lose the characters that S&S introduced in that first issue, which was a story S&S wrote and sold to DC before they worked there. That would include Lois and maybe some other aspects of the character.


BTW, I agree that a public domain Superman would have some unsavory stories written about the character. But, there are already plenty such stories out there, so the IP protection doesn't really stop that. And, the more important reality is that I don't have to read any of them.

[BlueBard]

Actually, I think the'd lose any IP of Seigal and Shuster, so any character created by them would be gone.

True, but a lot of Superman lore that's evolved over time would also be off limits outside of DC/Warner for some time to come.  At least from a copyright standpoint. 

Say the S&S estate pulls the license for Superman and the original characters away from DC.  What do they get?  A world without Batman and the JLA... No Darkseid or Doomsday and probably a lot of other villains in Superman's Rogues' Gallery gone... None of the other content specifically created by DC...  Can't reference any specific storylines that came later...

Besides which, I'd think they really need the backing of a company like DC to keep Superman as a viable Trademark.  That's what keeps the merchandising flowing, and that's where the really big money is.  I bet the S&S estates wouldn't have legal rights to the same "S" shield that we're all familiar with.

It would be a disaster for all of the parties concerned from a money-making perspective unless they find a way to preserve ALL of the I.P. one way or the other.

I also read that the rule changes don't affect copyright laws as applied outside the US, so the same shenanigans with I.P. won't play worldwide.  Eventually the original I.P. will HAVE to enter into the public domain, even if we don't see it in our lifetimes. 

BTW... I generally agree with Stumpy on the merits and flaws of copyright law.

[The Hitman]

I could be wrong, but I don't know that they would lose every character that S&S came up with, because at some point they were employed under different terms than the arrangement by which Action Comics #1 was put together. But, they might lose the characters that S&S introduced in that first issue, which was a story S&S wrote and sold to DC before they worked there. That would include Lois and maybe some other aspects of the character.

Right. Sorry, I'm at work, and I couldn't elaborate in my earlier post, but that's what I meant.

On that same note, going with what BB said, His powers would be reverted to their "original state," meaning no flight (originally he jumped), no eyebeams of any kind, no super- duper speeds (only as fast as a speeding bullet), and less strength (I don't need to explain, youalls know what I mean).

[marhawkman]

This is lame and reeks of greed.