The decision came down yesterday that the estate of Jerry Siegel has won the copyright to Superman – specifically, “all Superman material in Action Comics #1.” I’ve already seen in a few places people worrying about how this may BANKRUPT THE COMICS INDUSTRY BY SETTING A PRECEDENT!!!!one!!1! Or, more amusingly, the legion of retards commenting on the Newsarama blog getting indignant that the Siegel estate is trying to “destroy Superman” and that Siegel and Shuster’s estates are simply greedy bastards trying to steal money rightfully not theirs.
(Inevitably, whenever Newsrama posts a legal story, it gets a shitload of comments. Equally inevitably, the level of ignorance from people who think the law is just as simple to define as a Green Lantern power ring’s weakness is displayed in full force.)
Don’t worry. The implications are smaller than you think. The decision – which, incidentally, is really quite readable for non-lawyers – can be found here.
The core of the Siegel lawsuit is that Siegel and Shuster created Superman before they began working for DC. (He was originally intended for a comic strip, but they decided to sell him to DC for publication later.) Changes to the United States Copyright Act in the mid-70s gave creators one-time rights to request control of copyrighted works they sold in the years prior (on the basis that, given the change in copyright law – notably the extension for which works remained in private domain – they might have chosen not to sell). The Siegel case has been an example of this sort of attempted recursion.
The Superboy and Superman lawsuits over the past twenty-plus years have been (and this is personal opinion, having studied the case previously) basically one long case of DC Comics being moneygrubbing assholes, because on the merits of the case Siegel had this one in the bag (Shuster has a tougher case due to some contractual issues), and DC/Time-Warner have simply been fighting a stall game for as long as possible on the basis that the $1 billion (yes, billion) per year Superman franchise generated more money than it cost them to pay lawyers to stall.
In terms of implications for the comic industry as a whole – not much, because this isn’t a landmark decision or anything. Most of the major contentious or potentially contentious work-for-hire properties have been settled by contract or established in caselaw – Joe Simon on Captain America, Bill Kane on Batman, etc. (Maybe Steve Gerber’s estate can make a case for Howard the Duck, as I’ve heard he invented the concept independently of Marvel, but for most properties in comics it will generally be very hard to prove that the work was not created on a work-for-hire basis, if not contractually invalidated right from the get-go.)
In terms of the implications for Superman, they too are less than you think. Yes, the Siegel estates now control, to an extent, the copyright of Superman, but copyright for most of Superman’s fellow-concepts – such as Jimmy Olsen, Lex Luthor, Metropolis, The Daily Planet, et cetera – rest firmly in DC’s hands. (Copyright in this regard is a bitch to navigate – Superman’s copyright covers his relationships with the aforementioned, but not necessarily the aforementioned. Lois Lane, who unlike most of the Superman mythos first appeared in that fateful first issue of Action Comics, may fall to the Siegels.) More importantly, DC Comics completely controls and owns the trademarks for Superman – the big red S, the curvy-text Superman logo, the costume, and so forth. Siegel’s estate is not going to take Superman away from DC; it’s functionally impossible to do so until Big Blue passes into the public domain, which won’t be for about another twenty years (barring another corporate-inspired extension of private domain rights, of course).
The major point is that Siegel’s estate will now be owed back pay, I believe, on their rights as owners of the Superman copyright – the amount of which, of course, be contested by DC as well, and on reasonable grounds (namely the “look, we did all the work for all those years” argument, which is not invalid). Also note that DC retains exclusive control of Superman’s international copyright – the Siegel decision merely reflects domestic copyright.
However, DC will have to start forking over monies generated by Superman, most notably those from Smallville – prior to this decision, DC was holding out that Smallville was a show about a “young Superman” rather than “Superboy,” to evade paying the Siegels their share of profits from the show in the wake of the decision that put the rights to Superboy in the hands of the Siegels last year. The point, obviously, is now moot. Of course, they won’t fork over everything, because DC is responsible for producing the show and the Siegel estate doesn’t want to bother with that work. It’ll be a straight-up profit-sharing deal.
Of course, maybe DC will just change his costume. Then again, we know how well that worked out the last time they tried it.
Related Articles
14 users responded in this post
As far as the trademark issue:
DC controls the trademark, but not the images constituting the trademark. Mixed copyright-trademark makes my head hurt, yes, but in short DC has the trademark right to signify source, endorsement, affiliation etc. with the S-shield and name (probably the color scheme of the jumpsuit and cape, too), but the composition of the shield itself is copyright-controlled. Jingles are a good metaphor for trying to understand this.
Of course, the real story here is the money. Said issue is very difficult, I barely know how to even approach it given the limitations of the decision (only as appearing in Action #1, but not in the promo therefor, and only Siegel’s share thereof, and only domestically, and probably including revenues from other Warner enterprises).
I liked the electric superman and the whole personality split of red and blue superman thing too. Mainly because light splits into three colors and I don’t think DC ever touched upon what happened to the Green Superman or what his personality would be.
Then again, I also like this steampunk Superman costume too.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetx/2147689277/
Although, to be honest. That chest design makes me want to scream COBRA!
I just have to say this: reading AC #1, I must agree with Lois’s initial assessment:
Clark Kent is a coward.
She’s got the facts wrong, but Clark not revealing himself to her (not like that, perv!) is an act of sheer cowardice.
As far as I’m concerned, as long as DC is enabled to continue publishing/reprinting Superman/Superboy content, the Siegel and Shuster estates can have all the money they can convince the courts to give them. I would just hate for this to turn into an issue like we have with Superboy right now, where neither side has enough rights to do anything with the character.
Here’s a legal question for you, Bird–assuming Superman enters into public domain in twenty years, to what extent can Marvel, Image, et al. publish their own Superman comics?
Hypothetically, if DC still has the trademark, other companies wouldn’t be able to make use of the character in advertising, on covers, etc. (similar to the current DC situation with Captain Marvel). The interiors would be fair game, I believe so long as they kept to whatever aspects of the character had fallen out of copyright (a villain created in 1973 wouldn’t be out of copyright in the manner that someone created in 1941 would).
Now, in reality, so long as companies like Disney and Time-Warner are sitting on copyrighted characters worth millions of dollars a year in steady merchandising revenue, copyrights won’t expire.
If Superman could get money off every crappy song that ever name-checked him, his costume would be made out of brazillion dollar bills. This is in way a criticism of THAT particular song, which I’ve always thought was very sweet. Just all the other songs.
It really is too bad they couldn’t find some guy whose name rhymed with “money” other than “Solomon Grundy.”
BillBob KaneJust letting you know I’ve included a link to your commentary at my own blog
http://pacioccosmind.blogspot.com/2008/03/good-start.html
BSD – DC *do* control the copyright of the S-shield, since it didn’t appear in that form til long after Action 1. I think it might be possible to make a legal argument that it’s derivative of the original Shuster shield, but I wouldn’t expect that to work…
My only statement on this is that yes, you’re absolutely right. DC is just in it for as much money as they can grab. So are Siegel and Shuster’s heirs. That’s a perfectly natural thing to have happen in this situation. There is a big pile of money on the table, and naturally, both sides are hiring lawyers and attempting to convince a judge that they deserve that money.
What I get irritated by is the idea that this is somehow a “moral issue” for the Siegel estate, like they’re finally reclaiming a family heritage that was stolen from them by heartless corporate suits. That might be the case for some people (I sincerely believe that Paul McCartney wants his song rights back for that reason, for example), but this really is just a case of Siegel’s heirs feeling they were underpaid, and wanting extra money. They’re not going to go out and try to publish Superman comics “the way Jerry would have done them”, they’re not going to start trying to exercise more control over the character’s public image (it’d be difficult to be more cautious with Superman than DC is already, anyway.) This is all about money to both sides. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is either foolish, or has a monetary stake in convincing people it’s a moral issue.
Again, I’m not saying that it’s bad for the Siegel estate to feel they were underpaid and that they want more money; certainly, the evidence seems to suggest they were. But a) the issue is the valuation of the property, not who “deserves” the rights, and b) that’s for a judge to decide, and I really don’t have to care who wins, because my caring won’t affect the outcome either way. ๐
It’s interesting that victories like this just don’t mean all that much until you put a dollar figure on it.
Didn’t Superboy get sent back to DC because the judge said, and I’m paraphrasing “any retard could come up with a young Superman”?
I’m coming to this party far, far too late, but would DC not wanting to say Smallville is about Superboy be in any way related to why, in the Legion of Super-Heroes cartoon, the young Clark Kent is explicitly addressed as Superman?