Views: 572

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

...Okay , I HAVE revived my " The First Superman Story..." thread , which ( I think :-) !!! Well then , I would , wouldn't I ? ) might serve well for discussing the " first " Superman , the Superman of the earliest stories , perhaps streching it up to Pearl Harbor or so...I'm not putting a link up , as it is on THE SAME BOARD , YOU SILLY BLOOMIN' WANKERS! , ha ha hah hah , and I have some difficukties with my access/equipment/amount of computer time that makes that streching rhings a bit...
...Anyhow , I have had something of a philosophy that the Superman of the first few years might be said to be a different Superman - a different Man of Tomorrow from that " Kal-L Earth-2 Superman " that DC filled out the details on in the 70s , too - and who , along with his Lois , died in INFINITE CRISIS , properly , I believe - ( Or did DC reverse THAT ??!!??!!??? ).........I think the Superman of , oooohhhh...

...maybe 1938-41 , not only because of his differing origin(s) and level of poers , but his ( as demonstrated in the stories ) somewhat differing attitude and philosophy , might be said to be a different Superman...and there's a 21st Century mainstream-Superman-title story that suggests DC could think that , too !!!!!

  Okay , over to my " First Superman Story " line...

...That article appears to be claiming that , in 2013 , the S/S descendants will get 100% of Superman , inas thing are now standing , including comics rights .

  That true ?????

The way I read it, they'll get 100 percent of the Superman that existed before any "work for hire" was done for National, or whatever the company was called then. That is, the one described above.
I'm beginning to think that this judgement is a BIG factor in DC's new Action #1 and its revamping of Superman's costume and backstory. But we'll have to wait and see...

...BTW , is anyone aware that Malcolm Wheeler-Nicolson's children claim that Seigel and Schuster had sold Supeman to National/DC/whatever before the Leibowitzs?? took DC from their father , that he had just been , at that time , waiting for more finance to come along so that he could start an additional publication , and that they saw the original Superman strips ( Or , their proofs/for-publication copies . ) hanging around the family house many times ?

  This bears no relation to the lawsuit , just for some more background on the Super-background...

  Oh , and what was that early-times version of an early Superman newspaper strip proposal that involved only Seigel , no Schuster , another artist all together , that was more about a " Super-Baby " version of Superman ?

New developments: The court pretty much ruled against the Siegels on all counts: "O'Melveny Strikes Again in Superman Copyright Battle"

So far as the court is concerned, this never-ending battle is at its end.

CK's link has expired. The following link gives the info:

http://www.law360.com/articles/414921/how-they-won-it-o-melveny-res...

Anticipating this link also going away, to summarize the court found that Siegel's heirs had signed away rights in 2001; Shuster's heirs, in 1992. Their lawyer was found to be negligent in advising the clients to go against the agreements to bring the suits.


ClarkKent_DC said:

New developments: The court pretty much ruled against the Siegels on all counts: "O'Melveny Strikes Again in Superman Copyright Battle"

So far as the court is concerned, this never-ending battle is at its end.

Well, this saga has reached its end: The U.S. Supreme Court chose not to take up the Siegel family's appeal. From The Hollywood Reporter: "Supreme Court Denies Review of Superman Rights".

Arts Technica gives a quick rundown of the legal issues, and notes Chief Justice Roberts recused himself because he owns Time Warner stock: "Supreme Court Won't Hear Superman Heirs' Copyright Case".

Io9 is saying Jack Kirby's family likely made a smart move in reaching a settlement with Marvel mere days before the Siegels lost their last shot in the courts: "The Supreme Court Won't Hear the Superman Copyright Case"

I think we all knew they wouldn't take up the case. They avoid anything controversial.

Probably right about Jack's family. Marvel might have decided to tell them to get lost figuring the same thing would happen to their case if they appealed.

Perhaps the Siegel family could get the rights to The Reign of the Superman if they called him something else, but that character can't have much potential, even if he made that spaceship and got more of that gas before his powers wore off.

As for lawyers being negligent about advising their clients, I discovered that first hand when my parents were talked into an irrevocable trust by a lawyer that didn't bother to explain exactly what "irrevocable" was to them.

Ron M. said:

I think we all knew they wouldn't take up the case. They avoid anything controversial.

When the Supreme Court decides not to take a case they are implicitly saying that the lower court was correct. When they do take a case they are saying it might be right or it might not.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Welcome!

No flame wars. No trolls. But a lot of really smart people.The Captain Comics Round Table tries to be the friendliest and most accurate comics website on the Internet.

SOME ESSENTIALS:

RULES OF THE ROUND TABLE

MODERATORS

SMILIES FOLDER

TIPS ON USING THE BOARD

FOLLOW US:

OUR COLUMNISTS:

Groups

© 2022   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service