Superman's Pal: Peter Parker?
DISCLAMER: This article causes fits of unreasonable rage, and may not be suitable for hardcore Superman fans, reader discretion is advised.
“Marvel could own the copyright to Superman.” This is not breaking news, but simply a bold statement backed by personal speculation based on research concerning Superman‘s copyright and a recent court ruling. Also, with said speculations, I’m taking into account the recent purchase of Marvel Comics by Disney. This is me attempting to put pieces of a puzzle together and give my opinions of Superman’s fate following the year 2013.
This article is meant to provoke thought and discussion among fan’s as to Superman's long-term destiny. So, please continue reading with an open mind, and feel free to discuss the the following opinions and facts in the comment box below.
If you don’t think my assumptions are reasonable, then please ask yourself why DC Comics has recently created a New Krypton including a ton of characters with Superman’s powers who will remain the property of DC long after the results of a 2013 decision.
For more of a detailed opinion of DC's rights to the New Kryton, in relation to the loss of the Superman copyright, click here.
Also, keep in mind I’ve read a lot articles and info about these collective issues. I know this concerns a passionate subject matter that is close to many peoples hearts and the line between opinion and fact can easily become blurred. So, if I have erred in fact or you have additional info concerning this or previous cases concerning the Superman copyright, please include links to your resources, so that I can review them and include all credible information in further updates to this article.
(Deep breath) Whew! That being said, here we go.
In 2013, the license will expire for Time Warner’s (DC and Warner Bothers) reproduction rights of the Superman property. If the copyright renewal is successfully disputed by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster’s heirs (the families of the creators of Superman), they could obtain full rights to Superman.
Recent legal desicions and statements:
A recent ruling by District Court Judge, Stephen G. Larson, granted the Siegel family many aspects of the Superman copyright, including the basis of the Superman character, his costume, his alter-ego reporter Clark Kent, Lois Lane, the Daily Planet newspaper, and the Clark/Superman/Lois love triangle storyline. In addition, they gained ownership of everything from the planet Krypton, his parents Jor-L and Lora, the launching of the infant Kal-L into space by his parents, as Krypton is destroyed and young Superman’s crash landing on Earth.
Currently, they do not own rights to Superman’s ability to fly, vision powers, the term Kryptonite, Lex Luthor, Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, and “expanded origins,” but this could change in 2013 if DC unsuccessfully attempts to renew the full copyright, and Marc Toberoff (a lawer specializing in copyright law), who represents the creators’ families succeeds in returning the remainder of the Superman copyright to Shuster’s legal heirs.
Law.com profile of Marc Toberoff
For more articles about this Califonia District Court ruling from, click these links: Variety, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Newsorama, comicbookresources, Law.com
Possible Repercussions of the Siegel and Shuster estate regaining the 'full' copyright of Superman:
If the Superman copyright is fully restored to the Siegel/Shuster estates in 2013, Superman’s copyright could become available for purchase (the other option is for DC to continue producing Superman properties and cut royalty checks to the families for use of their character).
After the families reacquisition of Superman, it could mean a bidding war between Time Warner (parent company of DC Comics) and Disney (parent company of Marvel Comics) for the rights to reproduce and/or create new Superman comics and films under their respective ownerships.
Time Warner is a huge corporation, but Disney is bigger. Not only do they have more resources, but they’ve recently obtained Marvel Comics, which makes it a viable and profitable option to procure the copyrights of this timeless super hero.
Also, Time Warner has a history of messy legal battles with the creators’ families over Superman’s copyright. So, even if Time Warner manages to outbid Disney, The Siegel/Shuster estate may remain jaded by an unsavory history with DC and Time Warner, siding with Disney as a matter of principle.
It’s feasible that this could mean the end of Superman at DC Comics, and possibly a future home at Marvel Comics (a new subsidiary of Disney).
The expiration of DC Comics’ copyright to Superman (and the possible reacquisition of said property) would mark the end of many bitter legal battles with Jerry Siegel, Joel Shuster and their families, concerning the ownership and rights to Superman.
A brief History of DC’s fight for Superman copyrights:
1938: Siegel and Shuster sell Superman to National Allied Publications (which would eventually become DC Comics), in return for a $130 and a contract for $75,000 a year.
1947: Siegel and Shuster attempt to renegotiate their original deal with DC Comics, and sue for their contract to be made void and for the complete re-establishment of ownership of Superman.
1948: After only a year of litigation, a New York court rules that the original contract should be upheld.
1973: Siegel and Shuster launch another suit in hopes of reclaiming ownership of Superman, The pair loses the battle, both in district and appeals courts.
1976: The Superman copyright term is extended in DC Comics’ favor for an additional 19 years. However, a clause is added to allow the creators to eventually reclaim their rights to the character. This meant the copyright on Superman could be reclaimed by Joel Shuster and Jerry Segal between the years of 1994 and 1999.
1992: Joe Shuster dies.
1996: Jerry Segal dies.
1998: DC Comics’ copyright is extended yet again for an additional 15 years.
1999: Jerry Siegel’s widow and daughter file for a copyright termination notice for DC Comics’ right to Superman, but fail.
2004: A legal heir to Joe Shuster files notice of his intent to reclaim Shuster's half of the copyright to Superman by 2013.
2006: Jerry Siegel’s widow and daughter file for a copyright termination notice for the Superboy character, and win.
2007: The same court reverses the 2006 decision, and returns Superboy’s copyright to DC Comics.
2008: Legal Defense for the Siegel/ Shuster estate announces that DC Comics will loose its copyrights to Superman in 2013.
Timeline composed from the 'copyright issues' section of the Superman Wikipedia page
Other resources for this timeline: Les Daniels' Superman: The Complete History, and Michael Deans' An Extraordinarily Marketable Man: The Ongoing Struggle for Ownership of Superman and Superboy
After losing a case against Warner Brothers, which would have awarded Siegel and Shuster’s family a portion of the residuals from previous Superman film and TV profits, Marc Toberoff, (the lawyer representing the family), speculated:
"To put this in further perspective, the [loss of this case] pales in comparison to the fact that in 2013, the Siegels‘, along with the estate of Joe Shuster, will own the entire original copyright to Superman, and neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros. will be able to exploit any new Superman works without a license from the Siegel and Shuster [families]."
Possible Conclusion
In other words, Superman could again be owned by its original creator’s families and would essentially be a ‘free agent‘ as of 2013. And considering this will be the end of 75 years of exhausting legal battles that have created bad blood between the creators, their families, DC comics and Warner Brothers, it could be the perfect opportunity for all parties to escape an uncomfortable situation and start anew.
With Superman’s exodus to Disney’s Marvel, the Seigal/ Shuster families could finally leave the painful battles with Time Warner’s DC behind them.
Not only does Disney have the means to obtain Superman, they now have a comics division (Marvel) that could capitalize on such a purchase. So, It’s not that crazy to assume that Superman could be a Marvel property in less than 5 years.
In the long term, Disney’s purchase of Superman is far from what I would consider the ideal situation. I would actually like to see the Siegel and Shuster families regain full rights and launch an independent comic company and produce Superman as a creator-owned property. That would be a fitting end for a character whose home belongs, not in the hands of major corporations, but in the hearts of fans.
This presents an opportunity for much discussion concerning Superman and his future, and as always, all thoughts and opinions are welcome in the comments below.
Other related blogs and articles:
Warner Bros Has Lost Krypton; Will Lose Superman in 2013
Come 2013, will Superman be dead for good?
DC Comic to lose Superman movie rights in 2013
The Final Fate Of SUPERMAN: Lawsuit Settled In Favor Of Creators Heirs – DC And Warner Brothers Will Lose All Rights In 2013
The REAL death of Superman
What if Disney-Marvel buys Superman
Disney Corporation purchases Marvel Comics
Disney/ Marvel merger will make huge impact on comic world
Comments
Unlikely. While it's true that DC will lose the copyright on superman they will continue to hold the copyright on the "superman who can fly" (original could only jump), lex luthor, Kryptonite, Lois Lane and basically anything not in Action Comics 1. As a result Superman is of only limited value to anyone who isn’t DC.
Introducing non superman krytonians is something DC have played with from time to time over the decades and is likely unrelated to the copyright issue.
Let's keep Superman in the DC universe.
A non-flying creator owned Superman would suck beyond belief. It would suck almost as much as the script for Superman Returns!
Do not believe it.Writer of article needs to do some more research and learn how to spell and write.What qualifications does he have?
Even if the Shusters do hold the copyright, they still don't own the Superman trademark, so they would no company other than DC could have a comic titled "Superman" (DC is in the same boat with Captain Marvel whose many titles have used SHAZAM because DC doesn't own the Captain Marvel trademark).
The author of this piece is also incorrect as to what the Shusters actually own. They hold the copyright to the story elements of Action #1. That's it. They don't own the Daily Planet (it was the Daily Star in Action #1) and they don't even hold rights to Lois' last name (she was only called Lois in Action #1)
Without the ability to use the name "Superman" or the Superman Logo (the current version of which is owned wholely by DC), not to mention any story elements that were introduced after Action #1, the copyright to the story from Action Comics #1 is going to be of dubious value to anyone other than DC and everyone involved knows it. This is really about nothing more than a money grab.
Chris24601,
Are you saying that if Suster/ Siegel secure full rights to the character in 2013, that the trademark (or brand name for marketing and selling Superman commercially) will remain at DC?
Using the SHAZAM/ Captain Marvel example, could this mean a 'Superman title' that has nothing to do with Kal-El?(Enter New Krypton), and a new title at Marvel Comics that contains stories of Superman as we knew him, but with a different title. For example: Son of Jor-EL, or Adventures of Kal-EL.
Also, Good point on Lois and Planet.
sdgh,
DC recently lost copyright to early aspects of Superman, and are poised to lose the entire Superman copyright(other than trademarked logos) in 2013.
While, after a recent legal decision, DC currently maintains the aspects of flight, laser vision, Lex, ect, I have read nothing that indicates that these could not be lost when the copyright expires in 2013.
If you have resources that indicate that these additional aspects will undoubtedly be maintained by DC post-2013, please include them in future comments.
Ed Krieg,
If you don't believe that the facts are accurate, at least dispute them with reasonable doubt or, at least with resources to back such a statement.
If you don't believe that my assumptions are accurate, then that is your right, and as I stated in the article it's my opinion based on my personal research.
As far as spelling. I can't find any spelling errors, but that doesn't mean they're not there.
Whenever a commenter notes specific spelling errors, I correct them immediately. Also, if anyone notices any grammar or spelling flubs, I encourage you to note the specifics. I always appreciate when people point these out, because I don't always catch everything.
Superfan,
Nothing could be as bland and horrible as Superman Returns, so no worries there. Well, unless they base the next movie on Superman 3, but even that would be an improvement.
While many of your assumptions are correct, the 'Marvel owns Superman' aspect is wrong.
First off, if the creators' families win, they have the rights to Superman's origins, including Krypton, so DC couldn't use New Krypton either. Your assumption that DC has written this story-line to replace Superman forgets that Krypton itself is part of the suit, and you can't get around a Copyright by slapping 'new' in front of a name. Otherwise, look out for my 'New Spider-Man' title next year.
If the families win the Copyright, Superman would still be trademarked by DC, but DC would have to pay a hefty licencing fee to the families, as well as profit sharing. Its just about cash.
A little research also shows that while Disney is 'larger' than Time Warner, they make less money. In fiscal 2008, Disney made 36 billion to Time Warners 47 billion, and Time Warner's physical assets are worth almost double those of Disney's. If it came to the fight, money is that Warner Brothers will not lose or sell the divided aspects of their long established character.
pop_aristocrat,
Thanks for your input. All very good points.
Although, research concerning Disney's and Time Warner's 'net worth and market value' is what I used in reference to the respective companies sizes. In that respect, i have found no data to contradict the claim.
Flight, laser vision, Lex, etc were produced as work for hire. Thus DC holds the copyright for 95 years after publication so they should start to drift into the public domain in 2033 assuming that copyright is not further extended.
Even if Siegel and Shuster get the entire copyright in 2013, the trademarks and international copyrights stay with DC permanently.
Marvel couldn't buy the Superman as we know him right now, but rather the original from 1938.
I'm a very big Superman fan (btw didn't read all of your actical just enough to get an idea.) I hope Mavel/Disney NEVER owns the rights to Superman.(nothing against Marvel but Superman belongs with DC plan and simple.)
This is real what if territory. Let's recap 3 things:
1. DC has essentially lost the contents of Action Comics #1, specifically the characters of Superman, Clark Kent and Lois Lane - as they are depicted in that issue. All other Superman-related copyrights are owned by DC, characters/concepts like Lex Luthor, Jimmy Olsen, the Fortress of Solitude, the Daily Planet, Supergirl, Brainiac, Zod, Ma and Pa Kent, etc.
2. DC owns **all** the international copyrights related to Superman, and those are not going to expire anytime soon. Whoever attempts to wrestle away the US copyright is working on US soil alone, without DC.
3. DC owns all the Superman trademarks. Including his current costume, logo, the all-important S-shield, and so on for related characters.
In short, without DC's copyrights and trademarks, Superman isn't all that valuable. The most sensible thing is for DC to pony up for exclusive management of the Siegel's 50% ownership.
As the judge has said many times.
Remember that hit movie called "The Dark Knight"? The name Batman wasn't in the title and people still knew it was a Batman movie. A comic or movie could be made without using the trademarked word "Superman" and people would know Superman starred in it. It would still have good value.
The fine points of the legal issues aside, this is a provocative article; a fun 'what-if' that obviously stirs the pot. Looking forward to your next one.
can you imagine the apocalyptic world that would usher in if it happened? dc already sells less than marvel. if they lost the big s, which is the most iconic character ever created dc would positively puke!
this is the weirdest bit i've heard all day.
I can already imagine a glittery-mickey-moused version of Superman airing on Disney Saturday mornings.
This reminds me of what happened with Rom at Marvel. Rom is owned by a toy company & the relaunch of the series had all of the characters except the lead character who was always referred to as "the great one."
yay!DC comics stole the character by paying a small sum that they at the time knew to be deficient.they deserve to loose superman, and everything else they publish,and mutilate.they destroyed the character by making him way too overpowered.and therefore boring.international trademarks only matter in the foreign market,and they don't sell well there, only in America do they really sell at all. plenty of heroes leap instead of fly, like the hulk,wonder-man,Thor leaps and is pulled by his hammer, and on hulk bullets do at first, make bruises on his body.they sell well. so trademarks don't matter,anyone,if paid enough can re-design an "s"logo/symbol that looks cool.the original copyright matters most. and i for one hope the heirs who are the rightful copyright holders start their own company,and use derivatives of other heroes which yes is legal.both Warner and DC deserve the mess they made for themselves.we don't need or want an overpowered hero.we want a hero that thinks,and then acts.
I can see Superman being split between DC Comics, the Siegel estate, and the Shuster estate. As David said, without trademarks and international copyrights, no other comics publisher would want to publish Superman. Only DC can pull this off and they have done well with Superman for 70 years under their care.
Also, not too many people know about this, but this Superman copyright legal issue can also affect other characters who look similar to him such as Captain Marvel, Mon-El, Majestic, and Tom Strong among others. Should the estates hold the full copyright of Superman, they can send a cease-and-desist letter on those characters.
The Marvle Universe Needs Superman Get Rid Of Thor Eleves ,Frost, Giants,Whitches,Dark Eleves Thor Is A CopyCat Of Superman AnyWay & All Of You Saying Superman Wouldnt Be Bought By Marvle/Disney Well Think Again Disney Bought Marvle In Other Words Disney Got Tons Of More Money Know Than Warner Bros./DC Comics Does And Fanasty Doesnt Belong In The Marvle Universe
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!