...So you just ran into this Aug. , 2009 , news story now , then ?????????
I had already seen , later on , that trying to sqee-ee-zzzzee some more pre-Siegel'd bucks out of the copyright for one last Warner'd payday was the reason Warners' had rushed the latest Superman movie into production , relatively few years after " Superman Returns " had , at the very least , financially underperformed...
If I inderstand this correctly, the Siegels have the rights of the 1938 Superman. So they can only license the character with his original power levels only. Or must they share the Man of Steel with DC/WB? Do they have any say in any portrayal? It seems a weak hand as far as seperately marketing "their" Superman.
I've tried to find that article, and it doesn't say quite what I think it did ("Hollywood Heist: How a Burglary May Impact the Future of 'Superman...). However, there are plenty other articles that support what I wrote above, on legal blogs.
Here's a summary from Variety: "Can Superman Be Split In Two?"
Here's an older (2008) article from an intellectual property lawyer's blog that gives more history: "Superman and a Super Copyright Battle"
And here's a roundup from TechDirt: http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?tag=marc+toberoff&edition=tech...
Hope this helps.
I would think an enterprising creative team would love to take on the stripped down, Siegel-Schuster Superman in a new series. Since he would be somewhat under-powered compared to many of the other heroes on the scene, this "new" Superman would work best as a stand alone character, as opposed to being shoe horned into an existing comic book universe. Dark Horse Comics? Jim Shooter? Just wondering ...
... or Walt Simonson.
And I like the idea of doing it as a period piece. Superman seems more workable set in a pre-WWll world. Have to wonder though, would modern readers buy into a 1930's setting?
...Just to start with some background here , I believe there's three " canon " versions of the Superman origin published in the 30s:
The version in Action #1 (June 1938) .
The version in the first weeks of the Superman newspaper strip (January 1939) .
The version in the first Superman issue (June 1939) .
...The newspaper strip version was drawn , finished , in 1936 , IIRC , and is the earliest surviving Siegel-Schuster story of Superman .
The versions of the the first Super-story are about , oh , 60% the same - But , the version in SUPERMAN #1 is , in to-day's language , " a director's cut " , the version S-S originally turned in to DC before DC decided that a faster start to the story was needed , with the ACTION COMICS #1 version the result of this .- The Super-Number One versdion starts with a two-page explanation - Remember , this was the very first time it was going to be published - of the origin , followed by a set-up for Superman seeking that newspaper job , revealing himself as Superman , and trying to see if a woman who is slated for the electric chair , for murder , is not guilty , as she claims she is .
He finds that a nightclub chantoozie is , in fact , the murdereress , and goes leaping off with her to save the innocent...which is where the Action #1 version of the story proper starts .
The Superman #1 version re-adds that part , six?? pages - And , brings back the longer version , explanation , of the origin .
A shorter , one-page , version of the origin is Action #1's origin , the two-page version of it was done first , but published later .
There is a line I started a ways back about the early Superman that could be profitably revived here , methinkseth !!!!! ( Hey - If we can have TWO lines about the upcoming DC revamping...)
Doc , it's okay that you made this mistake , it's a happy/random accident/event .
I think this version told me more , more clearly , about the precise legal power of that , particular , part of the lawsuit ( IIRC , the Sigels had already gotten the " Superboy " name/concept back . ) .