RareDevil said:
If I sell you my car, do I still own it?
That's essentially what Seigal/Shuster did, all those years ago.
DC Comics Lose Another Piece of Superman
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If I sell you my car, do I still own it?
That's essentially what Seigal/Shuster did, all those years ago.
Ultraman?! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jzMOkdMWgI]man-man said:
He's gonna need a lot of Kryptonite.
DC's legal team is a ***** tho, and Seigal Shuster got fucked in the ass over the contract. . .RightWingConspirator said:
it's only right for them to be able to claim intellectual property over the man, but DC owns the story lines.
Copyright was originally 14 years from date of publication with one renewal for a total of 28 possible years. It is now 70 years after death of creator or, if a corporation owns it, 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is earlier. I'm not sure your assumption is backed up by history [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act].Virgil said:
well technically if they want the superman from action comics number 1. thats earth 2 superman who was killed by super boy prime round infinite crisis... wait a moment... hey dc comics i think i found your loophole.. you just wont be able to bring back earth 2 supes...
and if they dont buy that and they take supes away from dc than siegal will ire the wrath of hundred of thousands of comic book fans
and if they dont buy that and they take supes away from dc than siegal will ire the wrath of hundred of thousands of comic book fans
I agree. I'm happy to see a copyright functioning properly.Virgil said:
I just wish the guy who originally made Tetris would have had one
.
Splitting the rights to Superman and his story/elements is plain stupid. Like someone else said, "Lex Luthor using Kryptonite on... Ultraman?" Superman, his personal villains, and anything pertaining to and created specificaaly for him needs to remain in teh same package. Why can't his creator and DC have joint rights to it? I don't understand. He's DC's icon and the creator's character, leaving it to only one is going to;
A) Piss off a lot of fans
B) Lose them more money than if they just worked together on it
C) Lose interest factor
D) Possibly f*** up some story aspects or just plain leave them out
A) Piss off a lot of fans
B) Lose them more money than if they just worked together on it
C) Lose interest factor
D) Possibly f*** up some story aspects or just plain leave them out
Considering the Watchmen were pretty much all ripoffs of Charlton characters, does he really deserve the rights?RightWingConspirator said:
I could write a deep, affecting story for Image starring Major Liberty, Shango, Steel Man, The Brute, Roach Man, and Dragonfly... would I deserve credit for "creating" those characters?
They could always go with the Smallville origin story.
That one's so convoluted and pop-dramatized it'll be irrecognizable to the original plot, much less make sense.
That one's so convoluted and pop-dramatized it'll be irrecognizable to the original plot, much less make sense.
Well you know what I wonder.... ?
How it is that fans are just not included in the calculations for these things at all.
What I mean is, fans have a tremendous amount of ownership in a franchise like Superman.
Lets say for example Superman never became popular. No one would be fighting over who owns the rights. So the actual debate is about income, not the character.
The income is provided by the fans, not Time Warner, or DC or the original artist and writer.
Fans have as much, if not more right to decide the fate of Superman as anyone does. These people and these companies put this character out there for us to embrace. We have embraced the character and loved it, just like the creators wanted us to. So now they are going to fight over this character's future without so much as a by your leave ?
So if it turned out that Superman could no longer wear the same outfit and had to have, say.... blond hair and makeup.... They would no doubt still expect us to provide the same enthusiastic support to movies, comics, merchandise etc....
Its rich..... thats all I can say...
Personally I think everyone should just ignore anything to do with Superman and demonstrate to these people who is actually in charge here.
How it is that fans are just not included in the calculations for these things at all.
What I mean is, fans have a tremendous amount of ownership in a franchise like Superman.
Lets say for example Superman never became popular. No one would be fighting over who owns the rights. So the actual debate is about income, not the character.
The income is provided by the fans, not Time Warner, or DC or the original artist and writer.
Fans have as much, if not more right to decide the fate of Superman as anyone does. These people and these companies put this character out there for us to embrace. We have embraced the character and loved it, just like the creators wanted us to. So now they are going to fight over this character's future without so much as a by your leave ?
So if it turned out that Superman could no longer wear the same outfit and had to have, say.... blond hair and makeup.... They would no doubt still expect us to provide the same enthusiastic support to movies, comics, merchandise etc....
Its rich..... thats all I can say...
Personally I think everyone should just ignore anything to do with Superman and demonstrate to these people who is actually in charge here.
Well, I think Superman is cool. It does bring up some interesting thoughts though on how the character has changed over the years. Like most comic book characters how good he is largely depends on the writer.
Generally speaking while more of a Marvel fan (much more) than DC, I feel that Superman is important to comics in general because on a lot of levels he represents an uncompromising force of good and justice. Something that you do not see much anymore. A lot of people go "gaga" about all the dark heroes, anti-heros, and the gritty spins added onto existing characters. However when you get down to it, that isn't novel anymore. It's become the stereotype, and frankly the "superhuman boyscout" of which Superman is the greatest, is needed to give them a degree of perspective.
What's more I think back in the Gen-13/Superman crossover, they addressed the issue of Superman being an overgrown boy scout rather eloquently. As Superman himself put it, "How can he be unfashionable, when I was never fashionable to begin with?". He went from being an ultra tacky/campy character mostly directed at little kids, or to capture the attention for a few seconds in a strip, to what he is today in gradual bursts. Sites like "Superdickery" make fun of how Superman has changed over the years, and the sheer depth of material (and outright stupidity) that has built up around the character.
The above crossover also sort of made a point, part of the point of Superman is that he's the one thing you can rely on. Both in the comics, and I guess to some extent in real life as his boyscout mentality gives a very clear compass of right and wrong to a great extent. As odd as it might sound "what would Superman do?" can very much work like "What would Jesus Do" if you really think about it.
The point of Superman, and what is cool about him, is that when he's around, no matter how bad things get, he WILL win in the end. That's what Superman does (and despite what people think, stuff has gotten REALLY bad around Superman, despite how powerful he is). People like to talk about putting Superman in all of these morally ambigious situations, but really that isn't what the character is supposed to be about.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Superman means something beyond the comics. In the better part of a century I think he's transcended being "just a comic book character" to a global icon. Heck, I was reading that the Superman symbol is one of the most recognized symbols in the world, anyplace you go pretty much anyone can tell you at least the basics about him. One thing I read said that outside of the US (where it's even) more people (especially children) recognize the "S" symbol for Superman, than their own national flag.
-
Personally, I don't care who wins, but I hope that whatever happens they do NOT ruin the character. Truthfully this is bigger than the creators, and bigger than DC. They should get over it.
I look at the limbo comic series like "Grimjack" got stuck in (and that was never more than a cult classic) I dread what could happen to supes in a prolonged legal battle.
Generally speaking while more of a Marvel fan (much more) than DC, I feel that Superman is important to comics in general because on a lot of levels he represents an uncompromising force of good and justice. Something that you do not see much anymore. A lot of people go "gaga" about all the dark heroes, anti-heros, and the gritty spins added onto existing characters. However when you get down to it, that isn't novel anymore. It's become the stereotype, and frankly the "superhuman boyscout" of which Superman is the greatest, is needed to give them a degree of perspective.
What's more I think back in the Gen-13/Superman crossover, they addressed the issue of Superman being an overgrown boy scout rather eloquently. As Superman himself put it, "How can he be unfashionable, when I was never fashionable to begin with?". He went from being an ultra tacky/campy character mostly directed at little kids, or to capture the attention for a few seconds in a strip, to what he is today in gradual bursts. Sites like "Superdickery" make fun of how Superman has changed over the years, and the sheer depth of material (and outright stupidity) that has built up around the character.
The above crossover also sort of made a point, part of the point of Superman is that he's the one thing you can rely on. Both in the comics, and I guess to some extent in real life as his boyscout mentality gives a very clear compass of right and wrong to a great extent. As odd as it might sound "what would Superman do?" can very much work like "What would Jesus Do" if you really think about it.
The point of Superman, and what is cool about him, is that when he's around, no matter how bad things get, he WILL win in the end. That's what Superman does (and despite what people think, stuff has gotten REALLY bad around Superman, despite how powerful he is). People like to talk about putting Superman in all of these morally ambigious situations, but really that isn't what the character is supposed to be about.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Superman means something beyond the comics. In the better part of a century I think he's transcended being "just a comic book character" to a global icon. Heck, I was reading that the Superman symbol is one of the most recognized symbols in the world, anyplace you go pretty much anyone can tell you at least the basics about him. One thing I read said that outside of the US (where it's even) more people (especially children) recognize the "S" symbol for Superman, than their own national flag.
-
Personally, I don't care who wins, but I hope that whatever happens they do NOT ruin the character. Truthfully this is bigger than the creators, and bigger than DC. They should get over it.
I look at the limbo comic series like "Grimjack" got stuck in (and that was never more than a cult classic) I dread what could happen to supes in a prolonged legal battle.
Next article will read : DC Comics fights Jerry Siegel`s descendants in court over Superman`s cock. Judge says the descendents get to keep the left nut while DC comics can still hold on to the penis until 2010.
IT'S COPYRIGHT-ZILLA! Everyone get in the truck! D: But seriously, this is just as annoying as the patent wars being fought. First N and Sony are sued for wireless, then MS can't use WORD. Are people so lazy for new ideas that they have to claim infringment every day? Maybe I don't get the story, but my point stands.
Looks like they'll do a rewrite. Since DC now no longer hold any claim to the original story. It annoys me when people let money get in the way of something that makes people happy. For the love of God, he's only a character in a comic...Simriel said:
No and No.McMarbles said:
To be fair, Moore didn't "rip off" the Charlton characters...DC owned them by 1985 (or whenever Watchmen was written). Moore considered using Blue Beetle, The Question, Captain Atom, ect, for the series, but either he or DC decided that since some of them would be unusable after the end of the series, creating different versions of them, and giving them different names and backstories would be better.
My point is, unless you have a contract stating otherwise, you create a character for DC or Marvel, you don't own it, they do. You're going to have to sign a contract to that effect if you want to write for them. If you don't think it's right, moral, just, whatever, you don't work for them.
As for Seigel and Shuster, they reached a settlement with DC, they were satisfied with it, and it's wrong for their heirs to exploit legal loopholes to get more money. If they found items from Superman's early days that were not part of the settlement, they should try to hammer something out with DC. Otherwise, these lawsuits of theirs are just wrong.