new posts in all blogs
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: The Legal View, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 26 - 33 of 33
How to use this Page
You are viewing the most recent posts tagged with the words: The Legal View in the JacketFlap blog reader. What is a tag? Think of a tag as a keyword or category label. Tags can both help you find posts on JacketFlap.com as well as provide an easy way for you to "remember" and classify posts for later recall. Try adding a tag yourself by clicking "Add a tag" below a post's header. Scroll down through the list of Recent Posts in the left column and click on a post title that sounds interesting. You can view all posts from a specific blog by clicking the Blog name in the right column, or you can click a 'More Posts from this Blog' link in any individual post.
By Jeff Trexler
Other comic news sites are reporting a bombshell development in DC’s legal fight to hold onto the Superman copyright: on Monday, the company filed a court document asserting that the Shuster estate had actually sold its share of the Superman copyright back to DC in 1992 and affirmed this sale in subsequent correspondence.
This was indeed a stunning piece of news — back in 2009, when DC first made this argument. Click below for an explanation of why DC brought it up again in a court filing on Monday.In 2009, DC Comics filed the hotly disputed lawsuit in which it is attempting to get the Superman copyright termination claims thrown out of court on the basis of misconduct by Siegel & Shuster heir lawyer Marc Toberoff. One of the arguments made in the 2009 complaint: the Shuster estate has no legal grounds for filing a termination claim, inasmuch as the estate signed an agreement in 1992 selling all of its copyright interests, including any termination right, to DC in exchange for a pension for Joe Shuster’s sister. The 2009 complaint went to assert that the Shuster estate affirmed this agreement in correspondence after the Siegel heirs filed their own termination claim.
The 1992 agreement and the related argument have been discussed by any number of writers since DC first made the claim, including me here at The Beat, and has been the subject of many court filings over the past three years. DC brought it up again on Monday as part of a standard legal move in a case such as this. Its July 16 filing wasn’t a Perry Mason-esque unveiling of surprising new facts. Rather, it was a routine motion for summary judgment.
In a motion for summary judgment, a party is asking the judge to make a ruling based on the existing case record without going forward with a trial. The factual predicate for such a decision is supposed to be the case’s undisputed facts. That’s why you see the abbreviation “SUF” throughout the most recent filing — it’s a reference to the “Statement of Undisputed Facts” proposed by DC. The summary judgment filing, the proposed SUF and the attached exhibits collect all of the material favorable to DC in order to persuade the judge to make a final judgment in its favor regarding the claims initially filed in the 2009 complaint (as amended somewhat a year later).
This isn’t to say the summary judgment filing is unimportant — to the contrary, it could lead to the end of the case or at least provide the basis of an appeal, as we have already seen following the district court’s historic 2008 summary judgment giving the Siegel heirs half of the Superman copyright. However, what this filing does not do is add unexpected arguments and facts. The whole point of a summary judgment filing is to say there’s nothing new left to discuss.
Attorney Marc Toberoff
by Jeff Trexler
In my last post, we looked at the attorney-client privilege question addressed by yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling in favor of DC. But does a clear victory for DC in a this rather technical legal issue signal a greater loss for the Siegel and Shuster heirs?
As a preamble: here’s my comment from last time to bring you up to speed:
@Paul O’Brien My next post goes into some of the key legal implications of this letter. It does indeed go beyond the bare fact of an apparent conflict–WB argues that due to the transfer of future Superman copyright interests to a joint venture with Pacific, the court has specific legal grounds to nullify the termination and everything else since the Shuster estate’s 1992 agreement with DC and the terms (allegedly) agreed upon between DC and the Siegel heirs.As discussed in my recent posts here at The Beat, Warner Brothers (WB) has made the heirs’ lawyer, Marc Toberoff, a prime target in its attempt to foil the heirs’ termination of the transfer of the Superman copyright back in 1938. The not so hidden subtext: the WB’s argument was not frivolous–there is indeed a substantial chance that Toberoff’s alleged conflict of interest, along with the surprisingly weak brief filed in the Siegel appeal, could undo the Siegel heirs’ half-ownership of the Superman copyright.
Today’s Ninth Circuit opinion gave a clear signal that Toberoff’s conflict of interest, allegedly proven in the documents due to be entered into evidence in the District Court, could be fatal to the both the Siegels’ and Shusters’ claims. Perhaps the most telling passage in regard to the Superman dispute is the third paragraph of the panel’s opinion:
To pursue these goals, Toberoff created a joint venture between the Heirs and an entity he owned. Toberoff served as both a business advisor and an attorney for that venture. The ethical and professional concerns raised by Toberoff’s actions will likely occur to many readers, but they are not before this court.
When a court goes out of its way to note that many people would find behavior in a closely related case to be problematic, what they say may not be binding but it can be most revealing. In this passing observation, the court indicates that by having a substantial financial interest in the outcome of the heirs’ respective cases, Toberoff might be tempted to put personal gain over the best interest of his clients–a serious ethical breach.
Another couple passages pertinent to the Siegel case come in the opinion’s closing legal analysis. While addressing the core doctrinal points, the panel gives not so subtle jabs at the competence and character of Toberoff’s representation.
First, the panel notes that Toberoff might have been able to preserve attorney-client privilege in key parts of the disputed documents if he had made certain basic court filings–filings that he had failed to make.
Then, in response to Toberoff’s argument that he may have turned over without his clients’ knowledge or direction, the court does not stop by noting the presumption that the heirs consented to actions on their behalf. The judges also return to Toberoff’s evident conflict-of-interest in a telling footnote:
There i
by Jeff Trexler
Last year a federal court in New York denied the Kirby heirs’ attempt to claim the copyright in Spider-Man and other Marvel properties. Why, then, is their lawyer betting the future of the Siegel lawsuit on the same losing arguments?
Over the past few years, Marc Toberoff has become public enemy #1 for corporate copyright holders. His lower court victory in the Siegel case was a legal landmark, not least of all because it could inspire other writers and artists to sue to regain their own creations. This is a prime consideration in DC’s decision to make Toberoff the central target of recent court filings–taking Toberoff off the board could also complicate a Shuster estate lawsuit and dissuade other creators from filing new claims.
Given the high stakes, Toberoff’s appellate brief takes a rather interesting approach. As DC notes in its most recent filing, Toberoff’s filing does not appeal certain core rulings pertinent to the Siegel interest in the property, such as DC’s retention of foreign rights and the copyright in the promotional ads. This arguably means that Toberoff has waived the right to challenge these rulings, handing DC a decided victory in key aspects of the case. Instead, Toberoff stakes the entire appeal on the issue of whether Siegel’s work from 1938 to 1943 was truly work-for-hire.
The limited span of this claim–the focus on Superman & Action comics (plus Superman newspaper strips) up to five years from the publication of Action Comics #1–reflects a five-year termination window by Section 304 of the 1976 Copyright Act. Citing this provision, the lower court held that the Siegel’s right to terminate grants of copyright was limited to a five-year period from April 16, 1938 through April 16, 1943, which includes Action Comics 1-61, Superman 1-23 and the Superman strips prepared for or published by the McClure syndicate through April 16, 1943.
However, the lower court ruling did not automatically give the Siegels actually all of the material within the five-year window. The emphasis on work-for-hire in Toberoff’s appellate brief reflects the lower court’s determination that the Siegel heirs could reclaim only a small portion. In two major rulings in 2008 and 2009, the lower court found that the Siegel heirs could terminate the transfer of copyright in Action Comics #1, #4, select pages of Superman #1 and the first two weeks of newspaper strips–in short, the only material prepared prior to the sale of Superman to DC. Under the terms of Siegel’s 1938 employment contract and its subsequent revision, the remaining material was work-for-hire–and because DC was the corporate author, there was no copyright transfer for the Siegel heirs to terminate.
To persuade the appellate court otherwise, Toberoff attacked primarily on two fronts. One was to assert that Jerry Siegel wrote the material in Action #2-6 prior to his employment agreement with DC, which made him its original co-owner and transferor. Toberoff exploits the six month gap between the sale of Superman in March, 1938 and the employment agreement signed in September. His appellate brief also cites a paragraph that Siegel wrote pitchi
By Jeff Trexler
DC’s latest filing in the Siegel case made headlines because of the company’s request for a trial. But was that really a surprise? In today’s post, we’ll look at what the filing reveals about DC’s not-so-secret war — and how the final fate of Superman may be determined by Facebook and the Winklevoss twins.As I explain in my recent podcast interviews with The Superman Homepage, the latest Time Warner brief isn’t a substantial change in legal strategy. Seeking a trial was central to DC’s cross-appeal to the Ninth Circuit from the outset.
The reason: the lower court district court key points were decided via summary judgment, a ruling without a trial. In filing its appeal last year, Time Warner took the position that summary judgment was inappropriate, inasmuch as material facts remain in dispute. DC’s appellate brief is the standard way all parties to an appeal explain their positions to the court, and it had long been scheduled to drop last Friday.
The brief and trial request may not have been a surprise, but they do help to highlight how DC has sought to reframe the case since Hollywood super-attorney Daniel Petrocelli replaced the company’s previous outside counsel. From the brief’s initial argument to its close, DC seeks to redefine the real conflict. This isn’t a mega-corporation versus two deserving heirs–rather, DC is targeting predatory businessmen who use the law as cover for victimizing their clients.
Here DC’s legal team rips a virtual page from the playbook used by Facebook in defending itself against the Winklevoss twins, who claimed that Mark Zuckerberg had stolen their online platform. In the Facebook case, the Winklevoss twins repudiated a summary agreement of terms before a long-form agreement was finalized. The Ninth Circuit, however, ruled that the summary term sheet was enforceable, thereby bringing this lengthy litigation to an end.
Directly citing the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in the Facebook case, DC begins its brief by asking the court to enforce the settlement term sheet agreed upon by DC and the Siegels before Marc Toberoff and Hollywood agent Ari Emanuel persuaded the heirs to fire their original lawyer. If the one-page term sheet in the Facebook case was enforceable, DC argues, surely the six-page term sheet in the Siegel case was a sufficient expression of the agreed-upon material terms. Time Warner also echoes the language of the court’s ruling — for example, TW’s assertion that “This long-running dispute should be brought to an end” is a direct callback to the conclusion of the Ninth Circuit’s Facebook opinion: “At some point, litigation must come to an end.”
Perhaps most important, though, is DC’s determination to present itself as the white hat in the case. The fact that Time Warner begins its federal appellate brief with a state-law argument for enforcing that term sheet is most deliberate – TW wants to counter the sympathy for the Siegel family that was a more than evident factor in the 2008 decision that gave them half of Action Comics #1. It’s not the big bad corporation vs. the noble impoverished creator and his family – to the contrary, the
By Jeff Trexler
DC Comics recently prevailed in arguing that the Batmobile is subject to copyright. But was the issue ever really in doubt? Below the jump, we’ll take a closer look at how copyright protects comic book designs — and how Time Warner almost put all of DC’s superheroes in the public domain.
The case that has received so much attention is DC Comics v. Mark Towle, in which DC is suing to stop Towle’s Gotham Garage from selling unlicensed replicas of the 1966 Batmobile. According to the Hollywood Reporter and any number of media outlets that have followed in its wake, the copyrightability of the Batmobile and other comic book designs is an unresolved and highly controverted question.
Could the Batman uniform, the Batcave and other designs based on comic books actually be in the public domain?
The Batmobile Case
The short answer is no. Far from being an unprecedented milestone, the recent ruling in the Towle case was a slam dunk—-that is to say, the defendant’s argument was easy to dismiss because the legal principles at stake are so well established.
DC’s copyright claim on the Batmobile – like the typical comic book design case – primarily rests on the issue of derivative works. DC owns the copyright in the Batman character and related Batman material, thus giving it the exclusive right to license works based on the Batman universe.
The general rule governing a case such as this is that copyright protection of two-dimensional material extends to a three-dimensional adaptation. Thus, a court found artist Jeff Koons liable for infringing the copyright on a photograph of puppies when he made a sculpture expressly based on this picture.
However, there is an exception to this general rule. The existence of a two-dimensional copyrighted image does not automatically provide protection for a three-dimensional expression when the material in question is merely a useful article, such as clothing or the standard profile of a car.
That said, as the judge in the Towle case notes, the law has long recognized copyright protection for physically or conceptually separable of protectable design elements part of a useful article, including a car. Even if the essential car-ness is unprotected, distinct non-utilitarian features such as those found on the Batmobile are clearly copyrightable. As the contract authorizing the design and construction of the 1966 Batmobile indicates, the TV version incorporated distinctive design elements derived from copyrighted Batman material owned by DC Comics.
The Bat-costume and the Batcave
Similar principles apply to the copyrightability of Batman’s costume, designs based on equipment in the Batcave, and other adaptations of copyrighted superhero material. Attempting to sell an unlicensed Batman costume or a playset with copyrighted drawings or identifiable t
By Jeff Trexler
My last post explored how continuities between the cover image of Action Comics #1 and subsequent material could give DC a substantial part of the copyright in the original Superman. One question left unaddressed, however, was the issue of Clark Kent, not to mention other key elements of Superman’s character and mythos appearing in that historic first issue.
In this post, let’s take a quick look at that question and the role it could play in bringing this case to an end.
One aspect of the art of judging is knowing where your greatest strength lies–namely, your grasp of the law. By resting the future of the case on a matter of artistic interpretation, the judge left himself open to question in regard to his adeptness in both art and law. The notion that the Action #1 ad is wholly distinct from Action #1 is inconsistent with basic principles of literary and graphic analysis–in regard to design rhetoric and reader response, I’d argue that Grant Morrison’s analysis is far more credible, and far more consistent with disinterested critical analysis, than arbitrarily claiming that an ad has no connection to the material it represents. Judge Larson’s interpretation may serve the deeper interest of giving justice to the Siegels, but it left the ruling vulnerable to reversal and provided little impetus for an swift settlement.
In concluding that the black-and-white ad for Action #1 has no organic connection to the actual story or character appearing in the complete version of Action #1, Judge Larson echoed another storied case in copyright history–one that, in fact, was sharply criticized in Judge Posner’s opinion in the Gaiman v. McFarlane. In 1954, the Ninth Circuit issued a highly problematic ruling that found Sam Spade to be an uncopyrightable character. As Posner noted, it was a decision that had wafer thin support from a legal perspective–it was basically a clever way of enabling Dashiell Hammett to continue to use his character in novels despite Warner Brothers’ evident ownership of the copyright. Subsequent courts whittled away at this ruling to the point that now it is essentially void, but today the process for challenging such decisions is much faster–comprehensive electronic resources and pressures for standardization can provide an immediate check on judicial creativity.
Rather than risking a future reversal by arguing that a black-and-white copy of the cover to Action #1 has no legal connection to anything on the cover of the actual Action #1, I could imagine a more artful appellate three-judge panel approaching the problem more strategically. Let’s assume that our artful judges believe, with Judge Larson, that there is no way around the issue of the Siegels’ failure to include the ads in the termination notice–although, for the record, I should say that there may be a viable way around it. Faced with a legal technicality that seems to our judges to thwart the fundamental interests of justice in this case, they recognize a clear way to follow the relentless procedural rules of copyright termation while preserving the Siegels’ claim on the Superman character.
Namely, they determine that while the promo ads give core traits of Superman to DC, the Siegels own Clark Kent.
In contrast to both the black-and-white Superman and the equally problematic proposal to split the Superman
By Jeff Trexler
In March 2008, Grant Morrison’s homage to Siegel and Shuster appeared in comic shops on the very same day that the Siegel heirs recaptured half the original Superman copyright. Now Morrison is set to work his shaman’s magic once again in the September relaunch of Action #1–and this time, the Siegels could lose everything.
Morrison’s upcoming Supergods holds the key to understanding why. For an explanation and a sneak preview of Morrison’s new book, click below. A mysterious appeal, Joe Shuster’s super-swastika and the final crisis of the legal multiverse–this one has it all.
The landmark federal district court decisions awarding the Siegel heirs half of the copyright in early Superman material were indeed historic, but they were not the end of the story. An appeal of the Siegel’s recapture of the copyright is now on the docket of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, with briefing set for November through January.
The timing of this appeal is somewhat unusual, given the fact that a number of issues in the case remain unresolved. What may seem even more surprising is the party that called for an expedited review before all of the issues in the case were resolved: none other than the remaining Siegel heir, Laura Siegel Larson herself. The decision to move forward so quickly reflects a court strategy discussed in this case document, which provides the legal arguments for having the appellate court determine (a) whether the termination of copyright was indeed valid and (b) which Superman works the Siegels recaptured.
From the Siegel perspective, triggering an appeal on these select issues is a counterstrike to a revitalized DC offensive. The Siegel and Shuster heirs taken some serious PR and legal hits in the separate DC lawsuit challenging Toberoff’s financial interest in the disputed properties, and Toberoff’s argument for an appeal includes a direct reference to a desire to resolve certain issues raised in the case–in particular, arguments concerning the Shuster heir’s purported stake in Superman. Besides the fallout from this lawsuit, a prolonged and expensive war of attrition over the unresolved issues in apportioning profits also tends to the favor DC. Getting appellate validation for the Siegel termination claim would be a quick, high-profile way to shift momentum back to the heirs–ostensibly to increase DC’s incentive to settle, but perhaps also to renew Siegel Larson’s own commitment to a seemingly neverending courtroom battle.
Nonetheless, an outcome affirming the Siegel claim is not a slam-dunk. The court could reverse the 2008 ruling in regard the validity of and scope of termination, and it’s also possible that the Siegel
by Jeff Trexler
DC has cited its changes and additions to the Super-verse as grounds for reducing the Siegel heirs’s share of Superman material produced since 1999. A recent Variety article takes this even further, reporting thatNeil Gaiman’s success in winning co-ownership of Medieval Spawn provides legal precedent for giving DC complete ownership of the contemporary Superman, limiting the Siegels’ interest to the far less lucrative 1938 version of the character.
Does DC have strong legal grounds for splitting Superman between The Man of Tomorrow and The Man of Yesterday? Click below to see if Gaiman v. McFarlane is legal kryptonite for creators’ rights–or whether that’s just another misconceived retcon.
It would indeed be ironic if Neil Gaiman–who likened the Siegels’ landmark 2008 courtroom victory to his own–were to provide the basis for gutting the heirs’ financial stake in modern Superman material. But that’s not likely to happen. In fact, DC has a strong incentive not to rely on Gaiman as precedent for splitting Superman in two–namely, its arguments in the Superboy case.
Is Superboy Superman?
As I’ve noted previously, the most recent and resurrection of Superboy coincided with significant developments in the Siegel Superboy lawsuit. Perhaps, as some have argued, the events were completely unconnected, but one particularly salient aspect of the lawsuit appears to suggest otherwise: in 2005 DC did not merely lose co-ownership of Superboy. It lost the entire copyright.
This first Superboy termination ruling made the rather peculiar determination that Superboy and Superman were unrelated characters. Superboy was “not in reality Superman,” but was instead “a separate and distinct entity” created by Jerry Siegel apart from any Superman material. Pursuant to this finding, the Siegel heirs were able to reclaim the character, and the judge ordered a trial to determine whether any Time Warner projects violated the Siegels’ copyright.
DC’s ongoing exploitation of Superman became an immediate concern. The parties’ primary focus was Smallville, which DC steadfastly maintained had no connection to Superboy but was instead derived exclusively from Superman, as evidenced in part by the young Clark Kent’s not wearing the iconic Superman costume. The status of the character expressly named Superboy was a somewhat different matter–if DC had continued publishing comics with a character expressly named Superboy, there would have been a stronger basis for finding infringement.
But that’s not the end of this legal story. In a subsequent motion for review, DC was able to get the court to vacate this ruling and nullify the Siegels’ complete ownership of the Superboy copyright. According to DC, any apparent differences between Superman and his adolescent self were merely trivial variations on Superman’s distinctive traits. The judge left the issue open for further briefing, but even the Siegels conceded that Superboy was at most a separately copyrighted derivative work adapted from pre-existing Superman material.
Just boycott DC, comics fans. They aren’t doing much worthwhile anyways, neither is Marvel. Just stories with hijacked characters battling other hijacked characters crowding the frames all the time….
Its like funding gangsters.
Just saying.
Comic books: A great AMERICAN art form — a very sad and pathetic american business.
Mamas, don’t let your babes grow up to work for comic book companies.
Thanks, I was wondering why people were acting like this was new, when the relevant bits all seemed like stuff I’d heard before. Sad to see people who should know better acting like this filing, produced by DC’s hired legal minds, is somehow proof that DC has an airtight case, as if they’d put in any counter evidence in their motion to dismiss.
Kind of funny to see DC giving any weight to promises they had from Shuster’s heirs not to contest the copyright. I’m sure lots of creators, starting with Shuster, could have told you what DC’s promises are worth, so why should DC expect anything better than they gave.
[...] Legal | In a motion for summary judgment filed Monday in the long-running legal battle for the rights to Superman, attorneys for Warner Bros. are revisiting their 2009 argument that the estate of Joe Shuster has no grounds to reclaim the artist’s share of the copyright to the Man of Steel. They point to a 1992 agreement in which the estate relinquished all claims in exchange for “more than $600,000 and other benefits,” which included DC Comics paying Shuster’s remaining debts follow his death earlier that year, and providing his sister Jean Seavy with a $25,000 annual pension. Daniel Best has the documents, while Jeff Trexler provides context, noting that the new filing “filing wasn’t a Perry Mason-esque unveiling of surprising new facts. Rather, it was a routine motion for summary judgment.” A hearing is scheduled for Aug. 20. [20th Century Danny Boy, The Beat] [...]
“Sad to see people who should know better acting like this filing, produced by DC’s hired legal minds, is somehow proof that DC has an airtight case”
I agree, Bob. I don’t understand why people all of a sudden started treating everything that comes out of the DC/Warner lawyers’ mouths as the gospel truth.
[...] How is this a "new twist"? The Legal View: “Breaking” old news in the Superman copyright case*|*The Beat [...]
Bob, It’s your typical corporation awe. Toberoff wins a summery judgment and that’s no big deal. He should have accepted the on the table “generous” settlement rather than go out and have the nerve to win a summery judgment.
Toberoff on the wrong end (Disney/Marvel sue Kirby heirs) of a summery judgment is just the opposite in the eyes of those people who worship at the feet of conglomerates. In the D/M vs Heirs case the thought is the summery judgment means Toberoff should just go home.
It’s the bleating of sheep.
Summary—s-u-m-m-a-r-y…
“typical corporation awe”—that’s a good one!
anyone who disagrees with you is a “sheep” incapable of thought.
who’s the monolithic thinker here?
>>>Just boycott DC, comics fans. They aren’t doing much worthwhile anyways, neither is Marvel. Just stories with hijacked characters battling other hijacked characters crowding the frames all the time….
Its like funding gangsters.
Just saying.>>>
LOL! You people crack me up. I bet you’re on the “poor poor Alan Moore” bandwagon as well. (Not to mention that Bane was created to f over Romney.) While it’s a shame that Siegel & Shuster and Bill Finger and, especially, Jack Kirby were not better rewarded for their efforts, these arguments always seem to take the position that if DC had never existed, that Siegel & Shuster would have somehow been SOOOOO much better off, because Superman would have miraculously made it out of their house and they would have been millionaires. Should they have been paid better? Absolutely! Bonuses? No doubt! Royalties? Sure! But that’s not the way it worked then and that’s a shame.
Don’t even get me going on poor poor Alan Moore… being paid handsomely by DC for years… those bastards keeping that book in print and promoting it and sending him royalties so he can live comfortably without having to work. DAMN I feel sorry for him every day, especially while I’m busting my ass at the office…
“these arguments always seem to take the position that if DC had never existed, that Siegel & Shuster would have somehow been SOOOOO much better off, because Superman would have miraculously made it out of their house and they would have been millionaires.”
No, the current lawsuit isn’t about that. It’s about a copyright law that allows the creators or their heirs to reclaim the copyright after a certain amount of time has passed. It’s not about whether the original deal was fair, or whether Superman would have been successful without DC.
>>>No, the current lawsuit isn’t about that. It’s about a copyright law that allows the creators or their heirs to reclaim the copyright after a certain amount of time has passed. It’s not about whether the original deal was fair, or whether Superman would have been successful without DC.
I understand that. Does any sane person think a multi-billion dollar corporation is just going to hand over copyrights worth millions to the descendants of the guys that got a lousy deal because it would be the right thing to do (some would say)? Judging by the comments I’ve seen on the case, apparently they do. A lot of them come from the angle that S&S were just plain screwed, not from the angle of copyright renewal and the law pertaining to it. And a lot come from the “oh fck DC let’s boycott them!!” mentality, which is just plain ridiculous.
While this filing doesn’t guarantee that DC has an airtight case, the Shuster Termination has always been the weak link in Toberoff’s chain simply because Joe Shuster died in 1992 without exercising his option to terminate and without leaving any heirs as defined by the copyright act.
While not air tight, the odds on this part of the legal battle are in DC’s favour not Toberoff and always have been.
Boycotting is not ridiculous, sorry to disagree….
It is tool consumers should use when they disagree with the ethics of a company, especially when its services are recreational. For example, I like Apples products but I won’t purchase more if what happens at FoxConn keeps happening. And if they are taking steps to address that then I notice…I wouldn’t buy Nike products for the same reason way back when. It looks like consumers succeeded in changed Nike’s ways.
Marvel and DC are blatantly trying to discredit creators who have a legitimate claim to share in the success in their characters. The big companies could legally twist things so it could accomodate their greed. Its especially sad since they have not had creators that could match the hold on the public imagination as the characters that came from a Ditko, Kirby , Siegel, Shuster and even Alan Moore. .
Bob Kane was an exception. His dad had the legal foresight to have his son’s rights protected and benefit comfortably from his unique creation. But most artists weren’t that lucky. Should they be exploited and discredited by a corporation loaded with lawyers to dig you in with one wrong move. A lot of people work hard but could they have created a Superman? Good enough to last 75 yrs or so? The closest original thing we’ve had since Watchmen in popularity has been Spawn or Walking Dead. Not stuff I follow but its clear the character Spawn is petering out after 20 yrs or the 90’s. Its not built to last like Superman for 70 plus years once the initial interest is gone. Superman has ideal values within his character and a mythic dimension his corporate caretakers could care less about. Spawn, well, isn’t he just a cool looking demon guy that people got bored of once the cool artists left. Or everybody duplicated in other books,
Siegel & Shuster had it all ready before they got to DC. They made a myth. And DC or Time Warner has been the only one benefiting. Regarding Alan Moore, he is probably doing fine even if DC are being gangsters about his creations. What if he wasn’t as well off, as in demand and talented as he is? Watchmen should be benefiting him when he needs it and rightly so. From what I browsed in the comics store, he still at another level from whats being done today. He’s an artist, not a corporate shill. And artists should have income from their works and fair protection in good times and in bad ones. When Avengers broke records, the head of Disney cashed in tons of stock and added a lot more to his 1% income while Kirby wasn’t even awarded a proper screen credit and no part of that success.
Everybody going along with corporations stepping on the artists seems troubling to me, they should have som defense. Its an industry where if 1/3 of the comic base speak up and don’t buy the crap books they are putting out now, you could change things pretty easily, maybe even better the art form. Superman and Spiderman mean nothing to them if it doesn’t make money. They need the comic fan base for their hero profit schemes to work…