Superman Action Comics

This week, Warner Bros has lost Krypton. Last year a Federal judge decided that Time Warner was no longer the sole proprietor of Superman, and that the heirs of Jerome Siegel (of Siegel and Shuster) are entitled to a share of the US copyright to the character. This week a court ruled again, giving the Siegel family a larger share of the intellectual copyright. And the race is on to get a new Superman film in flight by 2011, as WB/DC is set to lose the complete rights to the man of steel in 2013.

Superman first appeared in Action Comics No. 1, which was published in 1938, and sold to DC Comics by Siegel and co-creator Joel Schuster. DC Comics owns everything after that as it has been deemed a work-for-hire relationship. The court had awarded the Siegel family with many aspects of the Superman copyright, including the basis of the Superman character, his costume, his alter-ego reporter Clark Kent, Lois Lane, the Daily Planet newspaper, and the Clark/Superman and Lois love triangle storyline.

But the ruling did not give the family the full Superman copyright because DC Comics owns some of the important elements identified with the character, including his ability to fly, vision powers, the term Kryptonite, Lex Luthor, Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, and “expanded origins.”

The court battle is ongoing, and on Wednesday, Judge Stephen Larson awarded the Siegel family rights to more additional works, including the first two weeks of the daily Superman newspaper comicstrips, as well as the early Action Comics and Superman comicbooks. What this means is that the Siegels now control depictions of Superman’s origin story. Everything from the planet Krypton, his parents Jor-L and Lora, the launching of the infant Kal-L into space by his parents as Krypton is destroyed and young Superman’s crash landing on Earth.

The whole court case is really to determine how much money Warner Bros. and DC owe the Siegel Family from profits they collected from Superman since 1999. And to make matters worse, copyright law will give the Siegel family full ownership of Superman in 2013. This is the date that matters, because after 2013, the Siegels could bring the property to other movie and television studios. So if Warner Bros wants to produce a new Superman movie before they are forced to pay major bucks for the rights, they will need to go into production by 2011.

source: Variety

  • joe
    First!!!
  • Michael_C
    You're an idiot.
  • willywonkanobi
    Greed greed greed. The families are out of line here. They sold the rights fare and square a long time ago. Them's the breaks. Now they are ripping apart their relatives' creations piece by piece.

    Sad day.
  • vva
    Please.. the families are greedy? Oh, the poor, multi-billion dollar corporation. What will they ever do?
  • willywonkanobi
    yeah it was really greedy of them to give Siegel and Shuster lifetime pensions of $20,000 per year and health care benefits for free from 1975 until their deaths. They didn't have to do that out of legal obligation. They owned the rights solely, but they still took care of the creators.

    You can say that they are an "evil corporation" all you want. But they went above and beyond as far as I am concerned and they still got screwed out of what they bought fair and square.
  • dashiel
    wow $20K a year... what is that, the net receipts for superman's opening weekend in utah. warner bros. has literally made hundreds of millions of dollars from their creation, and while they may have sold it to d.c. i doubt they had much choice in the matter. the 'work for hire' situation was and is a disgusting practice.

    having had the "pleasure" of working for movie studios in the past, including warner bros. i can happily say no financial penalty that befalls them is unjust. their ability to screw both the creators and the audience is amazing.
  • Itri12
    The creators? These people are not the creators, they are the family of the creators. They have earned nothing. Nothing.
  • dashiel
    if your dad worked for company x for twenty years and then after his passing you found out he had been under compensated illegally, you would be entitled to file a law suit on his behalf. being dead doesn't make a transgressors improper actions any less illegal.
  • zebrat
    well played, dashiel. i agree completely.
  • pat
    umm in 1975 $20k was a ton of money
  • Cacike
    Siegel ad Shuster weren't given anything for free. No corporation gives anything for free.
    The family is just exercising their rights. If the courts agree that they have a right to the property, then that's the way it is. Their not stealing from this multi-bilion dollar corporation. Please!
  • Guest
    "They didn't have to do that out of legal obligation. They owned the rights solely, but they still took care of the creators."

    It's called "bad press." And the equation is...

    How little can we spend
    ------------------------------ = $20,000 per year and health benefits
    Deflection of bad press
  • Octoberist
    Before anyone says "Hopefully Marvel will get Superman", remember that they too are in the same boat as DC: They would have to pay fees to the family.

    But I think DC/WB will figure something out with the family and continue a partnership. The family afterall, has to do what's best for Superman..
  • willywonkanobi
    my worry is that the family doesn't give a $h*t about Superman
  • Travis McGee
    I have to agree with you. The family is out for money and doesn't give a sh*t what happens to the character, as long as they're getting their money. Honestly, the creators sold the rights to DC Comics. The original creators are dead. The property should stay with DC Comics. I might have a different opinion if it was the original creators involved in the lawsuit and not the family of them.
  • Oscar
    Yeah, WB and DC are definitely not interested in making the most money possible with Superman. They care so much about the SUPERMAN that they've done a bang up job with the terrible movies, tv shows (don't forget Superboy and Lois and Clark), energy containment suit Superman, etc, etc, etc
  • Mr. I'mnotworriedtoday
    Before it goes on into a debate on who is greedy would I like to say, that the family have a right to save the property of their fathers and mothers. I mean, that is what Tolkien did and a whole lot of different writers. It's fair, because it's about the property and the value that should be pertained.
    I don't think that "they take Superman away", and if they do they'll lose most of the value of that character. As for the comics, I don't think anyone has to worry. For the movies, it will mean more overview, not only by the cooperations, which could end up very interesting for the subsequent reboot.

    By the by, don't be the usual internet d-bags and harass the families. They might not have created the character, but someone they were very close with. You and me don't own the character at the least, so let's wait and see.
  • In the end, it wasn't Kryptonite that killed Superman....but family.
  • zebrat
    so, all of you know this family personally and they explained to you how they plan to take a greedy poo all over superman?
    or are you just talking shit cuz yr dc fanboys?
  • Reniassance_Man
    This is definitely some crazy shit. While the deal is very old, I have no doubt that the family is owed some recompense for the massive dough the Superman property has brought in.

    As for WB losing the Superman film rights...good riddance. It's been, what, six films (including Supergirl)? And only two of them are any good, with the most recent being absolute crap. As much as I love what WB has done with many properties, some other studio needs a chance with Superman.
  • Octoberist
    what happens if it went to FOx? HMMM? Stupid Fox.
  • Roland21
    You are stupid.
  • georgie porgie
    no, you are.
    (fascinating debate we're having!)
  • lobsterfancy
    It would take a lot of incompetence for ANY studio to make a movie any worse then Superman Returns, let alone Fox.
  • Sad news for those of us who actually like Superman. I guess this was bound to happen and I agree with whoever said the main fear should be that the family doesn't give a shit about the character or the origins.

    the year 2013 is going to be crazy because were going to get a terrible Superman movie after that year because at least DC/WB tried to do the story right. whoever gets it now, I pray not Fox, will undoubtedly ruin everything. It's going to be Jon Peters all over again.
  • Octoberist
    DC/WB will probably work things out.
  • Read: There is certainly no way that a company with a truckload of money can't get whatever the hell they want.
  • zebrat
    except love.
  • Well, that certainly gives them an excuse to cancel Smallville.
  • LOL! This fucking show sucks and they keep recycling the same shit. How many times have Chloe and Lana had super powers? How many times has Clark lost his power? I can't wait until they end this BS. I hope they end it without making him fly!
  • James
    So would WB have to pay the Siegels anything even if they have another Superman film in 2012?
  • MarkoP
    Are those men depicted above the people at Warner Bros panicking?
  • Batman. That is all.
  • WallEPlaysPong
    I laughed pretty hard at that.
  • charliesb
    Lol, me too.
  • i hope we see a good superman movie... i dislike all this copyright stuff, it really looks ridiculous, but i understand its purpose.
  • Pancakes
    Well, according to this article, good luck.
  • Travis McGee
    I hope that WB lets Singer make the sequel to Superman Returns before 2012 is over. A reboot of the franchise would be ridiculous, why reboot a character when they might not get another chance to make another film.
    Superman Returns was a good film. Those that didn't like it, don't understand the character. They just want to see Superman beat the crap out of someone/something. The story of Superman is extremely character driven, just like the film was.
  • Hectorus Rex
    I understand the character. I hated the movie. The movie wasn't character driven. The dude didn't have more than 5 lines. If anything, the writers didn't understand Superman, Lois and especially Lex. People are too nostalgic with the old Christopher Reeves movies. If we stuck to the old, we'd have a sequel to Batman & Robin instead of Batman Begins and Dark Knight. I'm all for a reboot. Just do it like Incredible Hulk. Everyone knows his origin so do it all within the opening credits and start the movie from a point where Supes is already established. First and foremost Superman is a comic book superhero so having him fight bad guys doesn't lessen the character. Bad writers and directors lessen the characters. Bryan Singer did what he could with teh bad writing...and still failed in my sole opinion.
  • icko
    yeah and like kevin smith pointed out "superman didn't punch anything"
  • The End
    I agree. The saddest part is no one realizes Superman's personality potential. Look at Kingdom Come. This guy is a God and has spent years fighting, that has got to do something to him. The reboots of Batman are incredible because it adds action and character. If I have to see another this is Superman's origin again I think I'll puke. I've been a fan and reader for over ten years, I know the character and Singer sucked it up again. The biggest pissed off point - Superman's kid? Really. Come on. That's your twist and your climatic point. And I am still waiting to see a real evil, ruthless dark Luthor. He is still a pansy.
  • tapzepol
    Sorry, DC fanboys, but it looks like you can kiss your hopes of a Justice League movie with "the big three" good bye. No schadenfreude here, guys. Just sincere condolences.
  • .......Wait....who's the third? Supes and Batman, I get....but....

    (*is a Marvel guy*)
  • Wonder Women
  • zebrat
    how many?
  • Name
    this is a tough one. on the one hand, dc bought the property on fair terms. think about it, superman could have been a complete flop, so at the time dc was taking a chance on an unknown property. granted, they probably still didn't pay much for it, but it paid off for them big time in the long run, and that's the risk you take when you sell something you've created. i imagine at the time siegel and shuster thought they were getting a good deal, since they had no idea how insanely popular the character would become. but the fact that the family is now suing to get the rights back stinks of "you owe us", when in reality they really don't owe anyone anything, since they already paid for it. i'm not saying dc didn't screw them over, but honestly, if they screwed anyone it certainly wasn't the descendants of the guys that created supes. dc was good enough to offer them something, which is more than most people get
  • Hectorius Rex
    Why is everyone concerned for the families involved? Sure, they finally get the money and rights they deserve but this potentially mean no more Superman at DC. Supes is very essential to the DCU. I don't care how much these families deserve. I care about what I personally want. Everyone does. Call me greedy, but c'mon, are you really that selfless that you hope other people's interests are more important to you than your own? How does this family getting Supes and shopping him around benefit comic fans in any way?

    In the end, I want Supes at DC. I couldn't care less about anything else.
  • This is an honest comment you posted, but otherwise a morally contemptible one.

    The whole purpose of copyright is (or was, originally) to compensate the creators (writers, artists) of works for a time before they pass into public domain, so as to encourage further works. Under current law it's been twisted to suit the needs of modern corporations, but that's the underlying purpose.

    Siegel and Shuster created a brilliant, timeless character who has generated *billions* in profits for people who had *nothing* to do with creating him. As a matter of basic justice, it seems only right that their heirs get a slice of that pie. And as a matter of *law*, since the original deal (under copyright as it existed then) long ago expired, the court is doing the right thing.

    And yes, I *do* care more about justice than I do about my own personal gratification. (So yes, you're greedy. And no, not everyone thinks like you.)

    But anyway, it's not as if there's any risk of the character going away. Nobody on either side in this case wants to put him on a shelf -- what would be the point of that? This is about nothing more than how the profits get distributed. WB/DC will work out a licensing deal with the S/S estates, and that will be that.
  • hshadows
    Eh, you make perfect sense lol. Yeah I know I'm greedy but not in a crazy ungrateful "gimme gimme gimme" type of way. Sure I WANT Supes to stay at DC but if he goes away then well...I'll have to accept that. That doesn't change my WANT but I'm not DEMANDING anything, right? But yeah, you made some solid points.
  • The End
    I am not sure why both can't win though. Why not get a settlement for the money. Has DCU really screwed over the vision of Superman? Stake your claim, get your due money and freakin leave up the story and the drive to the people who have honored him over decades. It's not like the truly have screwed him over...yet. Though they have made mistakes.
blog comments powered by Disqus