Judge Says Seigels Now Own Half Of Superman

[Elwell]

http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=13526

[kev ferrara]

Thanks, TE.

That last paragraph is a doozy; Superman might end up as a character in the public domain, like Zeus or Tesla? I just can't see the lawyers allowing it. Especially since the most instantaneous response would probably be our four-color friend appearing in a blue movie.

[Elwell]

No matter what happens with the current cases, unless copyrights are extended again the early issues of Action Comics, and by extension the concept of the Superman character, will start to enter the public domain on 2033. That would mean Clark Kent, Lois Lane, the original costume with the triangle "S", etc. Time Warner would still control the trademark, so marketing that Superman porno would be a little tricky, but not impossible.

[Mirana]

Ah, I'm sure Time Warner will just take their cues from Disney and their death grip on Mickey Mouse before they let Sup go.

[Elwell]

The point is, by 2033 it may well not be theirs to let go or not.

[Mirana]

Mick is 79 yrs old, but still owned by Disney because they lobbied for the copyright extension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act), and then made all their characters trademarks to get around public domain.

[Elwell]

I assume that you assume that I already know that ;).
And trademark law has nothing to do with "getting around the public domain" (although is can certainly be used for that). Trademarks are a totally different class of IP than copyrights, governed by different regulations and administered by different bodies.

Furthermore, the irony of the Seigel case is that the very laws that extended the copyright terms (to the presumptive benefit of corporations like TW) are being used by the creators to reclaim the rights.

[Mirana]

Well, I'd hope you know! 'Cause I was probably about 16 when that happened and I remember... ;) I was just clarifying what my point was. Just b/c trademarks are different things, doesn't mean DC wouldn't use a trademark on Sup to keep him from being used by others.

[Elwell]

Termination: When the copyright term was extended, a provision was included that allowed for creators who had transferred rights to terminate the transfer at the date when the original copyright would have expired.

[kingshaj]

its my hope that by 2033 sup will be as irrelevant as mickey
and that we past remake-paradime by then. and not end up remaking the rumored films of 2010 like superman versus batman or batman versus alien

[Elwell]

Just b/c trademarks are different things, doesn't mean DC wouldn't use a trademark on Sup to keep him from being used by others.
An example of this is how the Burroughs estate has used the Tarzan trademark to keep control of films etc. featuring the character even though most of the original books are out of copyright. However, just because this puts restrictions on how the character is used doesn't mean it can't be done at all.
Another interesting thing about this case is that it only applies to the material included in Action #1, since the finding was based on the rights to that material having been transferred rather than having been done as WFH. So, theoretically, if the decision weathers appeal and the Seigels were to license a non-DC Superman property, it couldn't include flying, x-ray vision, Metropolis, the Daily Planet, the S-shield logo, kryptonite, etc etc.

[0kelvin]

So, theoretically, if the decision weathers appeal and the Seigels were to license a non-DC Superman property, it couldn't include flying, x-ray vision, Metropolis, the Daily Planet, the S-shield logo, kryptonite, etc etc.
Huh, Superman without baggage. That would probably be the most interesting thing to happen to the character in a very long time.


Eric

[Mirana]

Action Comics Sup was pretty badass. A lot darker and a lot less caring on whether he dropped a criminal or two so I've heard. :D

[Elwell]

CBR has a really good FAQ about the case:http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/03/30/superman-copyright-faq/