Everyone else has talked about it, so why can't I?
In case you haven't heard, the family of Jerry Siegel have won a victory against DC/Time Warner. The judgment came down that they are now co-owners of the Superman story in Action Comics #1.
What does this mean (outside of the strictly obvious)? We're not really sure. Explanations are all over the Internet. It seems every website has a comic book reading lawyer they can call on to try an explain it. Here's one here.
The decision, being the definition of legalese, is up for interpretation. Does DC owe the Siegel family money for all Superman appearances since that date, since every Superman story from 1938 to now was derived from that story? Or, since the powers and costume have changed considerably since then, can DC use this as an out? Does this mean Superman with have to cease publication? This will most definitely be settled in the courts for decades to come.
This uncertainty has cause the comic fans of the internet, as skittish bunch to begin with, to lash out. Fears that other creators will follow suit, the above will act as a precident and they will win, the pie will be cut to thin. It won't be cost effective to publish comics anymore. The comic industry will dry up. There ill be no more comics. A plague of frogs will be upon us. The rivers will run red. Dogs and cats will live together. The world will end.
Val over at Occasional Superheroine has done the research and has theorized the negitivity falls, mostly, into 4 basic categories:
1) The Siegels are "greedy"
2) It was Siegel & Schuster's own fault for losing the rights
3) Time Warner is being victimized
4) The Siegels are "stealing" Superman
I'm going to go through these, one by one, to prove that it just isn't that simple.
1) The Siegels are "greedy": Let's be honest. The Siegels are suing for financial gain. I don't think they were reading the Superman titles for the last 70 years and saying that "Gosh, DC has totally ruined the character! Something must be done! We must get him back!"
But the Siegel's wanting a cut of the money generated from a character their husband/father created from whole cloth is not necessary being greedy. DC/Warners has made hundreds of billions of dollars off of Superman since 1938. Yes, hundreds of billions, if you count all form the character has appeared in (TV, Movies, Merchandise). What DC paid the Siegels over the many agreements that they had over the years was a pittance in comparison to what they earned. .
But I do think there was a bit of bitterness involved too. While executives at National/DC/Warners spent the decades having six martini lunches with the profits Superman generated, the Siegels were pinching pennies and were darn close to poverty. If DC was just a little more generous earlier, this all might have been avoided.
2) It was Siegel & Schuster's own fault for losing the rights: I believe this to be at least partially true. but with midigating circumstances.
Consider the time when Siegel and Shuster first sold the rights over to National, back in 1938. The country was still reeling from the Great Depression. Both men were only 24. It could be safe to say that both were young and naive and were either in desperate financial straits or close enough to people who were not to pass up what was then a sizable amount of money.
Of course, when they first sold the rights to DC, they had no idea how big Superman was to become. When they found out, they sued DC for the rights in 1947 and 1973. They lost both times, although they got the rights for Superboy back in 1947. The promptly sold them back to DC and in the agreement made a statement stating they'd never contest the rights again. In 1973, they said that was just for the length of a copyright. After losing, they raged a public relations war which made DC give them a pension (anywhere from $20,000 to $35,000 a year) and health benefits.
Changes to copyright law made this recent attempt successful. But the fact remains that on more than one occasion they have sold the rights to DC for their characters, and made statements that DC owned the characters.
I guess the argument could be made that DC took advantage of the pair. But look at the deal Bob Kane made with the company when he created Batman. He sold all the rights over, but garnered the credit as sole creator (even though Bill Finger had a great deal to do with the creation) and made quite a bit of money for himself. He, like Siegel and Shuster, was 24 when he created Batman. So, they could have possibly negotiated a similar deal for themselves.
3) Time Warner is being victimized: I find it hard to believe that an multi-national, multi-billion dollar company can ever be victimized. The most I would give them that they were on the business end of a potentially unfair change in the copyright law. Trust me, if the Siegels didn't have a lawyer who knew how much the property was worth, and, therefore, know how much could possibly be coming to their firm, then Time Warner would have employed endless legal tactics to prolong the proceedings so the Siegel's could have possibly run out of money.
4) The Siegels are "stealing" Superman: No one doubts that Jerry Siegel co-created Superman. So, I guess this might refer to the fact it is his wife and daughter suing instead of him (Siegel died in 1996). Perhaps they think that Jerry wouldn't approve if he was alive (although, history shows us differently).
Or maybe they think Jerry's heirs should not be the ones to benefit because they had little or nothing to do with creating Superman. True, that does seem unfair. Siegel's daughter wasn't even born when Action Comics #1 came out. But if Jerry Siegel had a bigger piece of the pie before they died, surely they would have benefited from that.
So, this is not a case of black and white. And all this discussion might be moot. Of course DC will appeal. This case might take years and the Supreme Court to settle. Everyone getting so upset now might end up finding out that they have nothing to be upset about.
No comments:
Post a Comment