03.02.10 By: John Gholson
Warner Brothers is facing the very real concept that after 2013, Superman, arguably the most globally recognizable character in their library, will not be theirs to exploit any longer. Courts awarded the estate of Jerry Siegel, the writer who quietly kicked off the entire superhero genre in 1938, the rights to key elements of Superman and his origin. The battle is still ongoing, as Warners recently replaced their lawyers as they move forward to determine if there's any retro-active money owed to the Siegel or Shuster (Joe Shuster, Superman's original artist) estates.
Which side of the argument do you fall on? Clearly, Superman would never have existed without Siegel and Shuster, and the character has produced massive revenue in comics, toys, television, books, apparel, and film, with that money going directly into corporate pockets -- not the pockets of the creators (or their heirs). The argument is that Siegel and Shuster were clearly work-for-hire and that they knew the deal going in -- anything they created for DC Comics belonged to DC Comics. They've been given some monetary compensation over the years, as a "thank you" from the company, but technically DC (and their parent company Warner Brothers) owes them nothing.
Or do they? Do you think DC has been fair to the estates of Siegel and Shuster or should the rights to a creation always belong to the creator? The fall-out from this case could very well change comics forever. At the very least, Warners will have to pay out licensing fees to continue to use Superman as usual, but it could also create a situation where every comic artist and writer starts banging on the doors of their employers, looking for their deserved piece of the pie.
Vote in our poll after the jump.
Filed under: Discussion Posts
Tags: dc comics, DcComics, Jerry Siegel, JerrySiegel, Joe Shuster, JoeShuster, superman, warner bros, WarnerBros
wonderboy199212at 3-03-2010
I think that DC comics should continue to make profit for "SUPERMAN" because they advertised and promoted the character, but I also believe the original creators should make just as much if not more because they dreamt up and pitched the for "SUPERMAN".
JoeCat 3-03-2010
DC/Warner should pay a regular stipend to the families of the creators, and despite the fact that I do believe in creators rights, one has to realize they did do this as "work for Hire", the characters are only worth what they are because the company spent time and money promoting them and publishing them over the years.
There were many characters created around that time period that today are forgotten and worthless because the companies that published them were folded or bought out or because they stopped promoting them.
The charter of Superman struck a unique chord and because of that (as is also the case with other characters like Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantren, The Flash, as well as Marvels Captain America,Sub-Mariner and Human Torch etc etc)DC was able to keep the character in the public eye through to modern times and continue to profit.
The creators definately deserve some credit and a part of the financial success, but they did know the work they did was owned by the company and were ok with the compensation they received. Further would the character even be around today if others like Curt Swan and John Byrne hadnt continued to create amazing images and stories to keep the character going.
Creating it a great thing but it doesnt guarantee success. I dont see the creators of the Vision or Miss Masque asking for the rights to their characters.
My point is that while they created a great hero in the Superman character they were not the only ones responsible for what growth the character made later that kept it going thus making it worth something. Many others had a piece of that and the company pushed it in every conceivable way and format to keep the ball rolling.
Had they kept the rights from the beginning would the character have became what it did and would the character still be here today? Neither creator had the money to self publish it and promote it. Likely they would have long ago moved on to new characters and it would have been forgotten or sold to a company willing to do something with it.
Also remember at the time they had tried to sell the strip several times before they sold it to DC. They were lucky in DC wanting to take a chance on the character and publish. As much as they wanted to get the Superman character out in print they couldnt do it with out the support of a publisher.
To sum it up they should be honered and paid a regular check but the company that kept and preserved the charaters should continue to own the rights. Only reason this is happening is because the law changed and once again allowed the family to cash in.
Bill.W.grat 3-05-2010
I sort of like the idea of Warner Bros losing control of Superman. It's like Disney losing control of Mickey. It would be cool for whoever gets control of the property to shake things up and shop it around to other publishers/filmmakers. It's not that I hate what Warners has done with Supes. I just think it could only increase Superman's popularity if the estate rented him out to someone else. Plus, comic artists/creators deserve credit for their work.