Comic #1

Comic Fans Turn on Creator’s Rights

Monday, March 31st, 2008 at 2:28 pm by Jami

Superman 1938

Occasional Superheroine expressed a measure of surprise at the fan backlash to a federal court ruling that entitles the heirs of Jerry Siegel to a share of the domestic rights to Superman. The ruling leaves Warner Brothers the international rights to big blue. Superman was created by Jery Siegel and Joe Shuster in the 1930’s who sold the rights to the character to DC for $130. Shuster apparently left no heir so the court ruling would be between the Siegel heirs and DC Comics.

I always believed that as a comic geek, I was supposed to be firmly anti-”The Man.” Whenever someone was able to stick it to said Man, as a comic geek, I was always under the impression that I was to cheer loudly. Apparently not. A quick peek at the dreaded Newsarama boards indicates otherwise. I’m just as surprised as Val is about the backlash.

From a cursory glance, and that’s probably all one can stomach, Newsaramite outcry is hinged on the notion that the ruling means an end to Superman, not in the Doomsday “I-punch-you-til-you-die-in-the-streets-of-Metropolis-but-not-really” kind of end, and that DC comics is somehow being victimized. Clearly, few of these Newsaramites have ever worked in the comic industry. This is a historic moment for creators’ rights in a completely unregulated industry whose workers are continually exploited. Workers in other entertainment industries have unions to fight for higher wages, work protection, residuals. People who work in comics have Jack Squat. And comic companies exploit writers and artists on general practice. Let’s not get it twisted. DC is not the victim.

This could lead to a new era in creator’s rights. My hope is that the big two get the message and offer up bigger pieces of the pie as a preemptive measure against future lawsuits by creators or their heirs.

On a completely different note, check out the date on Action Comics #1. I’m not up on copyright laws, but isn’t the Superman copyright running out pretty soon anyway? Or has that been completely rewritten? I always thought that after seventy years, the work becomes public domain. It’d be really interesting to see what kind of weird stuff people would create with a public domain Superman. Bollywood Superman 2 is a no brainer. Maybe even a tokusatsu version of Supes! So dear readers, what would you do with a public domain Superman?

[Via Occasional Superheroine]

15 Responses to “Comic Fans Turn on Creator’s Rights”

  1. AvatarHamstadini
    1

    With a public domain Superman, I’d like to write a story on a place that now seems discarded: Coast City, post-Henshaw attack. I think it would be wonderful commentary to show how the lives of the citizens have changed, and how they have a mistrust of superheros in general, and of the big S in particular. It’d be hard for a fledgling superhero to gain a following there, that’s for sure…

  2. AvatarDevin
    2

    Normally you’d be correct about the copyright expiring, but Disney and the late Sonny Bono were able to push through a copyright extension act that kept tacking on 20 years to the expiration date of stuff published before 1978. So when the Mouse (created around the same time as Supes) gets renewed by lobbying congress, I believe Supes gets renewed. I think since the Bono Act was in 96 or 97, Disney won’t have to hijack another senator for thirteen years.

    Again, this is educated speculation because I’m taking a communication law course right now, but I don’t have my notes in front of me, but I know the Disney part is right, so I think it applies to all copyrights that people have kept renewing since the 30s.

  3. AvatarMarty
    3

    A public domain Supes?

    My brain goes immediately to the worst idea…

    Self-insertion fanslash.

    Both meanings.

  4. AvatarThemightysven
    4

    public domain is currently anything published before Jan 1 1923, this is int’l so even if the US keeps reduxing their limit, the int’l limit runs out at a firm time. so, Jan 1 2033 will be the magic number for Kal-el.
    the best hope would be for DC to go to the new faces of comic arts and offer them a new line of Tangent.

  5. AvatarJack T Robyn
    5

    While the original property was created in 1938, would the copyright expiration apply to derivative works that have been produced since, such as Lois Lane and Lex Luthor?

  6. AvatarKunoichi
    6

    I thought copyright was the life of the author plus seventy (or more, not sure how long Disney has made it now) years?

    U.S. copyright is such a fucked up system, and they act like it’s somehow international…even as they frequently ignore copyrights in other countries…

  7. AvatarTugboat
    7

    75 years after the death of the author.

    Anyone getting their panties in a bunch over some justice for artists finally happening (oh no!, the great big corporation is going to have to PAY people!) is a Yancy streeter.

  8. Avatarfiftywan
    8

    Kunoichi i right to a certain extent (depending on the type of work, it’s either life+70 or creation+120 or publication+95).

    More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

    Public domain is not for tomorrow…

  9. AvatarCharlie
    9

    Tip for artists who find themselves in a position like Jery Siegel and Joe Shuster (e.g., you created a work, you sold your interests in it, years later you wished you had it back):

    Section 203 of the Copyright act of 1976 allows authors to terminate the transfer after 35 years for any reason. This right cannot be transfered or waived by contract so the author always retains this right. So if you find yourself creating the next superman and give it away for peanuts before it becomes huge, 35 years after the transfer you can get it back.

  10. Avatarcoloquialist
    10

    Hrm. Yeah that mean old corporation. The Big money making enterprise really sucks! Stick it to them. Remove their ability to make money by any means possible. Decrease the margins so that they operate with FEWER people to produce their good. Lets then expect the same quality of good from the company and whine when it doesn’t happen.

    Frankly this seems sketchy to me. The creator SOLD the company the rights. At that point his rights are fully divested. How then do his heirs have any claim?

    If I sell my condo, can my kids demand a portion of any sale or rent income that the new owners recieve? That question sounds rediculous. So does the idea that the child of a creator (owner) who sold the entirety of a piece of intellectual property should be able to demand a portion of the income derived by the use of that intellectual property from that point forward. It is the same situation: just replace “intellectual property” with “real estate.”

    It does seem as if DC has gotten screwed on this point. Despite the assertion that the asset was obtained via shady business practice, a business has a right to make money. DC makes money by presenting new and old intellectual property (assets) in a published graphic medium. Here DC is being deprived of a portion of income from an asset that they should legally have without contest.

  11. Avatarcoloquialist
    11

    Also…
    A quick rundown on the ruling from someone in the intellectual property law arena.
    http://io9.com/373875/what-copyright-ruling-really-means-for-superman

  12. AvatarJami
    12
    Author Comment

    I fully expect that there will be some kind of big settlement check and that’ll be the last we’ll hear about this.

  13. AvatarKevin Bahrt
    13

    I fully agree with coloauialist. To use a different metaphor.

    Let us say that I am a genius programmer. (NOT SUPPORTING MICROSOFT!!!!!!!!!!!!) I have purchased the rights to a specific file classification system to use in an OS I am writing. I have purchased said system in the knowledge that it is now mine to do with as I please without having to worry about any crap about copyrights and who gets what, so to save myself some headache in the future I have paid said price so that I may freely use said filing system. I have written my OS, released it and driven all Windows products into the pavement destroying them forever, now the kids of the person who wrote said filing system are demanding a piece of my profit. I have purchased a piece of property and invested my own effort and modifications into said property ( I assume all the advertising DC did counts toward this) and now people whose only claim to this is that they were born are demanding money. How should I feel?

  14. AvatarKunoichi
    14

    But intellectual property isn’t the same as physical property. I can’t honestly think of anything else in the world quite like intellectual property, other than other forms of intellectual property than most people think of (a chef’s recipes come to mind, in which case “selling” the “rights” to his recipes does *not* preclude him from using those same recipes at another restaurant). The drastic difference between intellectual property and real estate is at a very basic level. Intellectual property is not like a house or a building, but like a public park, a museum, or a memorial. The entire point is to share it with as many people as possible. Not only that, the value of intellectual property is entirely subjective, *and* the supply of said property is theoretically limitless.

    Now, I, like Thomas Macaulay, do not think copyright should extend past the life of the author, and much prefer the way copyright is treated in Japan and with many webcomic artists - essentially, very open fair use rights.

  15. AvatarKevin Bahrt
    15

    That might be how intellectual property should work in the USA but if some kids can sue for their parents work, which was sold almost 60 years ago, then it seems to be treated as similar to physical property. This doesn’t even sound like they are to reclaim supes for ethical reasons, just sounds like a money grab from some greedy kids.

Close
E-mail It