Print

[boox909]

  "Superman Rights Return to Creator's Estate" 

http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/03/siegel-estate-r.html

[Aussie500]

No only a share of the copyright was restored to the  estate of Jerry Siegel, DC still own most of Superman.

[boox909]

No only a share of the copyright was restored to the  estate of Jerry Siegel, DC still own most of Superman.

I did read the article before posting the link -- just wanted to give people a teaser to encourage them to read the piece because it is interesting news and contains dire implications for the publishers like DC and Marvel and for us, hopeful implications regarding the future of Golden Age Comics publications.

If I were DC and Marvel, I would begin rushing everything to dvd or create an honest download system of some sort before the copyright on the comics expires.

However, depending on which Congress is in session (think 2013) DC and Marvel could simply send in some lobbyist to push their special interests.

I would love hear what other folks on the forum think about these issues.

B.

[John C]

Actually, by the current laws, anything still under copyright from the Golden Age won't expire for ninety-five years, so for a 1936 issue of Detective Comics, that's not until 2031.

The 2013 number represents the copyright term extension of twenty years.  When the CTEA went into effect, somebody at least had the foresight to not give everything away to monopolistic companies, and allowed windows when the copyright could be reclaimed by the original owner from whoever bought it.  The Siegel's grabbed the 1998-9 window (which I admit I don't understand--it's longer than the original term plus renewal), while the Shuster kid is looking at the non-extended expiration date of seventy-five years.

So Time/Warner isn't looking at any expiration for twenty-odd years, which means I wouldn't expect them to "evolve" anytime soon, except on characters who might also be reclaimed by their creators.  I don't think that would include Batman (who was reclaimed and resold by Bob Kane in the '60s), Wonder Woman (licensed until bought outright in the '80s, I believe), or even Captain Marvel (in the public domain), though, and most other DC Golden Agers are too obscure to bother.  On the Marvel side, I do remember hearing rumors about Captain America and the Simon estate, though.  That could be fun, given how poorly Cap has been treated over the years.

Oh, plus, that's only the original copyright, basically including content from Superman's first few appearances.  DC would own everything since (under the reigns of Weisinger, Schwartz, Byrne, et al), plus they keep the trademarks.  If the Siegels decide not to play with Warner, I honestly wish them luck shopping the superbeing appearing in Action Comics #1 who they can't call Superman or Clark Kent.

As for Warner's part, my non-lawyer eye sees three obvious choices:  They could pay licensing fees, which I'm sure they'd be willing to do as long as the lawyers don't push too hard--they did, after all, pay annuities to Siegel and Shuster for years.  They could also sleaze their way out by claiming that very little remains of the original creation, and just agree to forego reprinting Action Comics.  Or, they could take a similar character (Wildstorm's Mr. Majestic comes to mind), change him into the trademarked outfit, and send him to the Daily Planet.  Clark and Lois vanish inexplicably, and the comics come out as scheduled, sadly without anybody noticing much of a difference.

[boox909]

Fantastic thoughts and analysis Jcolag!

I was hoping that you would bring your insights to the thread.

B. 

[boox909]

Follow up with Intellectual property attorney and frequent Comic-Con speaker Brendan McFeely.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=13528


B.

[John C]

I'm thinking out loud, here, so feel free to ignore me, but a couple of outstanding questions come to mind.

First, I have to wonder about the trademarks.  Do the Siegels have any rights to use the names Superman, Clark Kent, Krypton, et al?  They're all trademarked by DC, and rightly so:  Some kid asking his mother for "a Superman comic" doesn't mean "a comic based on the character published in Action Comics #1 but published by Dark Horse."  Superman is the guy in the cartoons, in the Justice League and teaming up with Batman.

Second, I wonder (I should probably check--I'm sure it's online somewhere) if the judgement was only about the Superman story in Action Comics #1, and if so, why?  I'm fairly certain Siegel and Shuster sold a much longer run of comic strips (including that story after cutting and pasting), which eventually became all of Superman #1 a while later.  That obviously includes much more of Superman's world.

Third, to what extent would the Siegels have legal standing to pursue later Superman stories?  Do they need to return to the courts every year to claim the next batch of copyrights if they want them?  Is that possible once Jerry began drawing a paycheck?

Finally, aside from Captain America, what other Golden Age properties might there be that'd fall under these provisions?  From a spectator's seat, it can be entertaining to guess who might be commercially viable to the point where DC or Marvel risk losing the long-held property and watch them react.  From the perspective of this site or similar projects, if there's somebody less commercially viable, it might be worth locating the heirs and taking up a legal fund collection.  After all, a family who wants grandpa to get his due might be quite willing to go to court and then donate the reclaimed copyright to the public domain.  I believe the Crimson Avenger, Johnny Thunder, and the Whip were all created by non-staffers, for example, and the Spectre was another Siegel creation.

As I said, random thoughts as I read McFeely's comments.  If anybody spots answers, I'd be interested in hearing them, though.

[narfstar]

While I applaud the creators getting more of their share, retroactive laws scare me. 

[John C]

Unless I'm misreading something, there's nothing retroactive about the laws.  In 1976, Congress extended copyrights.  In 1996 (I think), Congress extended them again, but noted that extensions might be unfair to the creator, and so allowed the extension years as times when an author can reclaim a sold copyright.

In context, Siegel and Shuster sold the rights to Superman for $130, with the understanding that National would only hold those rights for a maximum of fifty-six years.  Therefore, nearly doubling the term changes the contract without consulting either party, which obviously isn't fair.  In fact, it's probably designed that way specifically to AVOID retroactive laws.

So, in 1998 (the second such window available to the Siegels), they started the procedings to reclaim the copyright.  Ten years later, they have won the 1998 case.  Therefore, they have to be awarded royalties starting from the window in 1999, because that's what they've been suing for.

If Shuster's estate sues (probably starting in 2012), whenever they win, their royalties will start counting from 2013.

This is, thankfully, nothing like the European weirdness where every copyright term extension retroactively applies to everything, placing everything BACK under copyright after they've fallen into the public domain.  We'll have that going forward, but won't see it for another sixty years or so, since none of the new Life+70 stuff will expire until then.

Again, at least that's my layman's understanding of the matter.  Anybody who really needs to know for sure should check with someone with a legal background.

[JonTheScanner]

It's true that S&S sold the rights to the company which has become DC with the understanding that the rights would only last so long.  But it was also with the understanding that afterwards the story would then fall into the public domain -- not that they would get any right back. 

A standard contract a writer signs simply sells the copyright.  There never was any standard provision that rights would ever return to the creator.

[John C]

I don't think the public domain argument applies, though, unless you want to take it up with Congress or the Supreme Court to rescind the term extension.

I mean, I agree with you, for what it's worth, but my point is that copyright is the authority to control the use of an intellectual property for a certain amount of time.  If that length of time increases during the term of a contract, then the rights during that extension most fairly rest with the original owner.

While I don't actually expect it to happen (unless, as I mentioned earlier, people seek out potential claimants who otherwise wouldn't care and offer to pay their bills), it's possible that some enlightened family can get the rights and release them to the public domain.  It's worth pointing out that no publisher is going to do that with any investment, by any means.

[narfstar]

Thanks jcolag now I understand and agree.  I do think it was wrong for congress to extend copyrights primarily because of Bono and the other who were writing books that are basically worthless to start with but people buy them.  Chances are they will not see reproduction withing the original 28 years let alone 99years from now.

[octal]

Interesting topic. I just started reading "Men Of Tomorrow" by Gerard Jones. I haven't gotten to the creation of Superman yet but so far it's a good read. The book offers a lot of detail and historical perspective along with the expected anecdotes.

BTW, if anyone is interested in the book, Bud Plant has it on clearance right now - $8.50 for the hardcover.

octal

[Fenway]

Finally, aside from Captain America, what other Golden Age properties might there be that'd fall under these provisions?  From a spectator's seat, it can be entertaining to guess who might be commercially viable to the point where DC or Marvel risk losing the long-held property and watch them react.  From the perspective of this site or similar projects, if there's somebody less commercially viable, it might be worth locating the heirs and taking up a legal fund collection.  After all, a family who wants grandpa to get his due might be quite willing to go to court and then donate the reclaimed copyright to the public domain.  I believe the Crimson Avenger, Johnny Thunder, and the Whip were all created by non-staffers, for example, and the Spectre was another Siegel creation.

As I said, random thoughts as I read McFeely's comments.  If anybody spots answers, I'd be interested in hearing them, though.

The Sub-Mariner could be subject to this law given that the character first appeared in Motion Picture Funnies Weekly and thus was clearly prepared prior to Marvel's obtaining the character. I don't know enough of the specifics to know whether any subsequent events may have taken Namor out of the category, though.

[John C]

The Sub-Mariner could be subject to this law given that the character first appeared in Motion Picture Funnies Weekly and thus was clearly prepared prior to Marvel's obtaining the character. I don't know enough of the specifics to know whether any subsequent events may have taken Namor out of the category, though.

Interesting point, and might be worth researching who owned Motion Picture Funnies Weekly.

Which brings up another question--what happens if an artist tries to reclaim the copyright from an organization that vanished with no remnants?  There are quite a few Golden Age publishers that folded right after renewing their books.  Many of their owners seem to have died without heirs.

Interesting topic. I just started reading "Men Of Tomorrow" by Gerard Jones. I haven't gotten to the creation of Superman yet but so far it's a good read. The book offers a lot of detail and historical perspective along with the expected anecdotes.

The book is well worth the time to read.  Once it gets past the Golden Age, though, it does get less interesting, partly because it's more recent and known, and partly because it starts to sound more like he's kissing up to people still alive than reporting.  I mean, he praises Image for launching the gritty art-directed books of today, which just seems bizarre to me.

Thanks jcolag now I understand and agree.  I do think it was wrong for congress to extend copyrights primarily because of Bono and the other who were writing books that are basically worthless to start with but people buy them.  Chances are they will not see reproduction withing the original 28 years let alone 99years from now.

And the worst part is, it's a double-edged sword!  If, in two hundred years, there's a surge of Bono-iana, how many copies of his drivel do you think people will be able to find after ninety-five years of tight protections?  There won't be a preservation effort, because none is allowed until it's too late.

Right now, we're in a similar situation, with vast tracts of movies, books, and comics rotting away where nobody has the authority to do anything with them.  By the time we're allowed, it's going to be very difficult.

Personally, I don't care how long copyright terms are (though I believe shorter is better for society and the author, in most cases), but I do wish Congress had kept renewals.  If a human can sign a piece of paper saying he's still enjoying the fruits of his (or his family's) art, fine.  Go right ahead.  But if the entire family has vanished without a trace and the book is out of print?  They really should consider the copyright abandoned and let us all move on.

Dropping renewals saves a company like Disney, what, a couple hundred bucks in legal fees every year?  Does that even help their bottom line?

Err...sorry.  I didn't notice the soapbox underfoot.

--John

[narfstar]

I could you could give some credit to the bootleg sites.  The scans are being made and preserved legal or not.

[octal]

The book is well worth the time to read.  Once it gets past the Golden Age, though, it does get less interesting, partly because it's more recent and known, and partly because it starts to sound more like he's kissing up to people still alive than reporting.  I mean, he praises Image for launching the gritty art-directed books of today, which just seems bizarre to me.

I probably won't be able to tell when he's BSing. There's so much I don't know about comics history, especially post mid-seventies. When I was last into comics, you still bought them off the circular racks or at newsstands. And at that time I was too young to appreciate what was going on behind the scenes.

[John C]

I could you could give some credit to the bootleg sites.  The scans are being made and preserved legal or not.

Well...hopefully.  A lot of us are quickly learning that home-burned DVDs aren't exactly "permanent storage," so it still remains to be seen what'll be left of today's efforts in thirty to a hundred years.

In a lot of cases, their hearts are probably in the right place, though, and that's a start.

And actually, there's another obscure provision in the CTEA that's relevant, here:  A library IS allowed to create a bootleg copy of anything that's otherwise impossible to purchase (usually for replacement).  Having a place where we know comics (to pick an obvious example we all care about) have been printed and stored on archival-quality paper wouldn't be such a bad thing.