|
SEQUENTIAL CULTURE #30 10 Aug 04 |
Superman’s Copyright: The
Never-Ending Battle? |
|
|
JULIAN DARIUS |
|
Siegel, Shuster, and their heirs have been trying periodically to
regain the rights to Superman since 1947. |
With
the current focus on the rights to Superman, it is worth taking a moment to
discuss the history of the Superman copyright. Just as Superman the character led the way for modern comic
book hero, Superman’s copyright has been long in dispute and has led the way
for other such legal battles. In
point of fact, Siegel, Shuster, and their heirs have been trying periodically
to regain the rights to Superman since 1947. Siegel
and Shuster In 1938, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster signed away all rights to Superman, which
they had created together as teenagers, to National Periodicals (later DC)
for a purported $130. Because Siegel
and Shuster had created the character independently, their work did not
qualify as work-for-hire; rather, they sold the copyright outright. The character quickly became wildly
successful, receiving a radio drama and movie serial. In 1947, with the duo receiving less work
from DC, Siegel and Shuster sued the company to regain the rights to their
most famous creation. The judge sided with DC, but he
strangely assigned the rights to Superboy, then only recently introduced in More
Fun Comics, to Siegel and Shuster -- on the grounds that Superboy was a
separate character. The duo
reportedly sold Superboy back to DC for $100,000, but DC removed the
creators’ credits from their characters.
Time passed, and in 1966 Siegel again tried to regain the rights to
Superman -- and again failed. Again
time passed, and both Siegel and Shuster reportedly became destitute. It all started to change in 1975, when
Siegel issued a press release vehemently attacking DC and Jack Liebowitz, the DC employee to whom the two teenagers brought
their Superman, and outlining
the pair’s mistreatment at their hands. DC was gearing up for the much-celebrated 1978 Superman movie
and certainly didn’t want this kind of scandal surrounding the
character. Legendary comics artist
Neal Adams led a campaign to help Siegel and Shuster, and DC not only
restored the creators’ credits for Superman but put the two on a pension. It was the attention given at
this time to the plight of Siegel and Shuster that created the mythic status
of their story in the then-fledgling American comics community. The story was no longer the corporate
version, but one in which two teenagers created one of the most powerful
fictional icons in the world. Except
that they sold the rights to the evil corporation in order to see
publication. Cue montage of years of
destitution and depression. This
myth, inscribed deeply in the American comics community (not to mention being
an example in every law school class on copyright law), influenced Michael
Chabon’s Pulitzer Prize-winning The Adventures of Cavalier and Clay. It is equally seen in Rich Veitch’s
neglected classic The Maximortal. |
|
Joe Shuster died in 1992. Jerry Siegel died in 1996. |
Joe Shuster died
in 1992. Jerry Siegel died in
1996. For what it’s worth, both
received tributes in DC publications at the time. Revoking
the Copyright, Part One In 1998, Joanne Siegel
(Jerome’s widow) and Laura Siegel Larson (his daughter) filed the papers
necessary to terminate Jerome’s assignment of copyright to DC. As copyright law had extended the length
of copyrights, it had also provided a means for creators to terminate their
transfer of copyright -- a means of not forcing people who signed under
state-of-the-law X to abide by state-of-the-law Y. Thus, 56 years after the transfer of
copyright, creators have a five-year window of time to file for that
transfer’s termination. This
allows the present copyright holders all they could have received
under the old law, while still allowing the original holders to
prevent their transferred copyright from being extended without
compensation. The Siegels’
revocation, were it to be legally upheld, would have taken effect sometime in
1999 -- and would have applied to 50% of the rights to the character. The
story took on a life of its own as people began sorting out the complex
issues involved. It soon became clear
that Shuster had left no children and had no heirs to file similar papers,
leaving DC indisputably with Shuster’s half.
DC had also trademarked many aspects of Superman’s appearance, and
these would not transfer back with the copyright. The
story also lead to widespread speculation, particularly on the internet. Many pondered the result of splitting the
rights 50 / 50: would that leave both
co-owners to freely produce Superman material, or would both have to agree on
any Superman material? Some wondered
whether the Siegels would set up a rival company to produce alternate stories
starring Superman. DC’s revisions to
Superman over the years led some to wonder whether the Siegels should really
have a hand in guiding the present Superman.
Most felt, ultimately, that the move was really a negotiating tactic
with AOL / Time-Warner, owner of DC Comics, in a bid for more money. Indeed, negotiations between the Siegels
and AOL / Time-Warner have reportedly been ongoing ever since. |
|
It was a frenzy: some
websites actually maintained lists of characters, showing their creation date,
window to file, and who might be eligible to file. |
The
Siegels got the ball rolling. For a
time, there was a great deal of press coverage of creators’ rights being
rescinded. The legal windows to
rescind transfer of copyright for Golden Age characters were opening and
closing -- with each one, it seemed, getting coverage. It was a frenzy: some websites actually maintained lists of characters, showing
their creation date, window to file, and who might be eligible to file. Legal papers were filed for several such
characters, each time receiving press coverage. But it all died down, more in a whimper than with a bang. Revoking
the Copyright, Part Two What
we are now experiencing, in terms of comics press suddenly covering the
Superman copyright dispute, comes equally out of the blue. Among others, Heidi Macdonald’s “The Beat”
-- a blog on comiccon.com -- was instrumental in promoting the story
this time around. |
|
With Shuster’s half also gone, DC would be left with not 50% but exactly
0%. |
The
reason for this new flurry of press coverage is not news in that case but
rather a couple other filings.
In November 2002, the Siegels filed separate paperwork to terminate
the transfer of Superboy’s copyright, effective November 2004. Although Shuster left no children, he
nonetheless left an executor: Mark
Peary, son of Shuster’s sister, who has filed paperwork to terminate the
assignment of Shuster’s portion of Superman’s copyright, effective October
2013. The date corresponds to another
window, caused by another legal extension of the duration of copyright, in
which creators may revoke copyright transfers -- this one beginning after 75
years. With Shuster’s half also gone,
DC would be left with not 50% but exactly 0%. It
doesn’t help that this time, not unlike the late 1970s, there’s a
high-profile Superman movie in the works that no one wants to see scuttled. This
time around, the separate issue of Superboy’s copyright, stemming from its
legal separation in 1947 from Superman’s copyright, has led to the most
speculation. Many have pointed out
that Smallville, the successful TV show on the WB network, is based
more on Superboy than Superman. DC’s
shifting continuity, as always, complicates matters: the present Superboy isn’t Superman as a
boy at all, but rather a new character whose relationship to the old could be
disputed. If
DC were to lose completely the copyright to Superman, as it may well in 2013,
the company would lose all aspects created by Siegel and Schuster but not
trademarked aspects or derivative characters created later -- with Superboy
being a special and separate case.
Clark Kent and Lois Lane may well disappear from the DC Universe, but
DC might retain Superman and / or Metropolis in some version. |
|
This time around, Superboy’s copyright has led to the most
speculation. |
This
time around, the separate issue of Superboy’s copyright, stemming from its
legal separation in 1947 from Superman’s copyright, has led to the most
speculation. Many have pointed out
that Smallville, the successful TV show on the WB network, is based
more on Superboy than Superman. DC’s
shifting continuity, as always, complicates matters: the present Superboy isn’t Superman as a
boy at all, but rather a new character whose relationship to the old could be
disputed. If
DC were to lose completely the copyright to Superman, as it may well in 2013,
the company would lose all aspects created by Siegel and Schuster but not
trademarked aspects or derivative characters created later -- with Superboy
being a special and separate case.
Clark Kent and Lois Lane may well disappear from the DC Universe, but
DC might retain Superman and / or Metropolis in some version. |
|
Read every Sequential Culture on
Sequart.com! Read about the author on our About page. Julian Darius can be reached at julian@sequart.com. Discuss this column online on Sequart.com’s messageboards. |
Note to Readers The
next Sequential Culture will appear when completed. This column was delayed while its writer
worked to program Sequart.com’s new design.
Please keep visiting and tell a friend! |
|
WEBMASTERS: |
To link to Sequential Culture itself, link to http://www.sequart.com/SequentialCulture.htm
-- it will always feature the newest issue. To link to this particular column, link to http://www.sequart.com/SequentialCulture30.htm. |
|
PUBLISHERS: |
Please cite quotations by website and author (e.g. “—Julian
Darius, Sequart.com”). |