![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oh, wow. This will resonate with most of my f-list -- some...more than others:
After seventy years, Jerome Siegel’s heirs regain what he granted so long ago – the copyright in the Superman material that was published in Action Comics Vol. 1. What remains is an apportionment of profits, guided in some measure by the rulings contained in this Order, and a trial on whether to include the profits generated by DC Comics’ corporate sibling’s exploitation of the Superman copyright.
This is just the beginning -- there's plenty more to be litigated -- but it's a hell of a start. And that it does emerge the same week of Grant Morrison's simply breathtaking All Star Superman #10 (which you can see bits of here), it's just...fantastic.
After seventy years, Jerome Siegel’s heirs regain what he granted so long ago – the copyright in the Superman material that was published in Action Comics Vol. 1. What remains is an apportionment of profits, guided in some measure by the rulings contained in this Order, and a trial on whether to include the profits generated by DC Comics’ corporate sibling’s exploitation of the Superman copyright.
This is just the beginning -- there's plenty more to be litigated -- but it's a hell of a start. And that it does emerge the same week of Grant Morrison's simply breathtaking All Star Superman #10 (which you can see bits of here), it's just...fantastic.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Dude, I'm speechless. The implications...
From:
no subject
Not that I think all work-for-hire between 1935 and today will fall under the same legal status, but any that does -- well, this could be epic. I wonder if any of mes amis in law school have been following this...?
From:
no subject
But the works of Lee, Kirby and Ditko? Bob Kane?
I guess the big question is whether or not this will set a legitimate precedent. Considering the scope of it (it's Superman, for crying out loud), it just might.
The flipside? You thought comics were expensive now? What happens if Marvel and DC suddenly have to start shelling out 70 years worth of back profits?
From:
no subject
...are smaller than you think. 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 Superboy and Superman lawsuits over the past twenty-plus years have been basically one long case of DC Comics being moneygrubbing assholes, because on the merits of the case Siegel and Shuster had this one on the bag, 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 work-for-hire properties have been settled or established (Kirby and 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.
In terms of the implications for Superman, they too are less than you think. Yes, the Siegel and Shuster estates now control the copyright of Superman, but copyright for most of Superman's fellow-concepts - such as Lois Lane, 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.) 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.
The major point is that Siegel and Shuster's estate will now be owed back pay, I believe, on their rights as owners of the Superman copyright. That will, 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).
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 since 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.
...this really should have been a post on mgk.com, but fuck it...
From:
no subject
Aha. Rats. I was hoping for an earth-shattering possible invalidation or rethinking of work-for-hire in general. But a win for clan Siegel is still a big win.
Obviously, I haven't done much homework on this -- really, this issue hadn't even shown up on my radar, though the "Superboy" problem was pretty obvious from its ripple effect across all media. Any possibility that maybe it'll stop the legal team from requiring creators to play the young-Superman-shell-game with his nomenclature, if it's impossible to dodge that legal bullet anyway?
As ever, we appreciate being given, as it were, the dilly-o. My f-list is slowly approaching Global Frequency levels of smart-mobbiness.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I will have to tell my dad. Aunt Joanne should be pleased.
From:
no subject
Neil Gaiman does his take on this at his webpage. It is interesting. For one thing, it does open up Marvel's take on Superman if they so wanted.
It is pretty amazing. As far as All-Star Superman #10. I have just about given up on picking up any DC comics, but that is a title I pick it up. There was a lot of good stuff in Issue 10.
From:
no subject
http://syndicated.livejournal.com/officialgaiman/440309.html