Warner Bros Secures Commercial Control of Superman

AliasMarlowe writes "Warner Bros have won an important legal victory over the heirs of one of the creators of Superman, giving it total commercial control of the superhero. An appeals panel unanimously ruled that Jerome Siegel's heirs must abide by a 2001 letter accepting Warner's offer for their 50% share of Superman. The letter was never formally turned into a contract, but the Judge considered that it represented an oral agreement, which was binding. Warner Brothers now owns 100% of the Superman franchise."

Comments

Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Anonymous Coward]

Then all this arguing would've been for nothing.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[just_a_monkey]

Fans could not be sure that the movie that they were going to see was the "official" Superman

The... The horror!

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[kwerle]

Disagree. After a reasonable time, it should pass into the public domain. Anyone should be able to make a superman movie, comic, etc.

Hell, look how many "reboots" comics and sci-fi have recently received. Anyone should be able to reboot (or stick to the original) after things pass into PD - and things should pass.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Austerity Empowers]

I agree for stories, movies, etc. But I'm not sure it's a bad thing for corporations to be able to trademark their name, a logo and a limited number of other things to distinguish themselves. If I want an Apple product, I do not want some taiwanese shitshop selling me their "Apple", I want an Apple.

Licensing

[Cruciform]

I think the most sensible thing for creators to do now is license rights, as opposed to sell. I'd rather copyright just go away after 20 years, opening up a whole new realm of fiction based on the original, but with the current system licensing seems better than someone getting the rights to your creation and then locking you out of it completely.
To a big company buying up the rights from the little guys isn't a huge expense in the scheme of things, while an artist or writer may find that the offer they are facing will keep a roof over their head for a year or two longer, putting them at a disadvantage at the bargaining table.

Re:Public domain

[Blue Stone]

>How is Superman not public domain by now?

'Important', wealthy people own copyrights. Those copyrights expire. When they're nearly up, they lobby the government to make sure they can keep making money. The government listens to them because they have money and can therefore 'spread it around' (the government is corrupt) which results in a policy of 'the needs of the wealthy outweigh the needs of the many'.

Copyright will never end on mickey Mouse until he becomes an unprofitable commodity. The powerful and wealthy will bribe the easily corrupted and you'll get the 'best democracy money can buy'.

I hope that's answered your question.

Re:Public domain

[erroneus]

I have heard many times "...a superman..." used in a context which does not have anything to do with the character Superman. Depending on the context, it is a part of the English language.

Re:Written Agreements not mandatory?

[Mitreya]

They sued, and the judge ruled that the developed didn't have to follow the contract.

Can you maybe site some sources? A news article?

A contract is a contract. It is possible that the purchase contract stated that a X% change in the market allows backing out of the contract. Or that the buyers get the "option" at the contractor's discretion. I am guessing that buyer got screwed over by the small print that they did not read.