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

[cdecoro]

No; the character would continue to be protected by trademark rights. The name "Superman", the S logo, etc. are all indicators that a particular work that bears them originate from the "actual" owner of the marks; i.e., they are trademarks. And trademark is indefinite, so long as they continue in use. But that is how it should be: not just every movie studio should be able to make a Superman movie, because this would undermine the "real"/canonical Superman line. Fans could not be sure that the movie that they were going to see was the "official" Superman; the protection of trademark is therefore important to provide information to the consumer.

Now, that said, I agree that copyright's derivative work protection should not continue to prevent similar stories, so long as there is no risk of customer confusion. If another studio wants to make a movie about "Superduperman," from the planet Argon, who flies around in his caped underwear while saving the world, they should have every right to do so -- even while the copyright for "Superman" still runs.

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

[mabhatter654]

Try calling something "Coca-Cola". But at the same time the old ads (like Santa Clause) are long out of copyright and all over the intenet. Just not for selling said fizzy beverage.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Anonymous Coward]

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

So what? I could not possibly care any less whether the last makeover of Batman was the "official" Batman or not.
It kicked ass, is what matters.

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

[cpt kangarooski]

No, the trademark would likely suffer genericide.

Trademarks are not a functional substitute for copyrights. If a work is in the public domain, anyone can make copies of it and can make derivative works based on it. (Of course, a character is not quite the same as the first work in which it appears -- aspects of the Superman character which were introduced later, such as the ability to fly, weakness to kryptonite, changes to the costume, etc. would not be available until the works introducing those things also hit the public domain)

A trademark only functions when it indicates that a marked good or service originates from a particular source. If anyone can now create Superman comics, movies, tv shows, etc., because Action Comics #1 is in the public domain, this means that the use of the Superman name or character isn't indicating a single source. Thus, the trademark dies.

A good example of this was Kellogg v. National Buscuit. The latter had invented and patented a cereal and sold it using the mark SHREDDED WHEAT. When the patent expired, Kellogg started making it too, and also called it SHREDDED WHEAT. The Supreme Court decided that since SHREDDED WHEAT merely described the product, anyone could use the name now that the patent had run out and anyone could make the product.

There might be an argument for a surviving trademark on the title of the comic, not restricting the use of the name for the character, but it would be fairly weak, IMO. The use of the character name as a trademark for wholly unrelated goods and services would still work -- PETER PAN for bus travel services and for peanut butter doesn't interfere with, or suffer interference from, the character of Peter Pan being in the public domain in the US. But a viable SUPERMAN brand for tax preparation services or auto parts is probably small comfort to Warner Bros.

And meanwhile, if the fans want to stick to a particular canon, they can just look for the brand of the publisher, which is how it's done for other public domain works. You can go buy a copy of Shakespeare as it was printed in the First Folio, you can go buy copies of the bad quartos, you can buy the edited versions made by Bowdler, etc. No one is harmed by there being more choice, as all you have to do is ignore the ones you don't like. A trademark on Shakespeare is not necessary.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[alexander_686]

Yes, the horror – just imagine a dark superman played by Nicolas Cage:

http://thepopcultist.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/how-producer-jon-peters-and-a-giant-spider-nearly-ruined-superman/

Now – on a more serious note – I like seeing big budget movies based on comics, which only makes economic sense if they can sell the “official” trademarked merchandise.

On the other hand I don’t like our culture perpetually controlled by large corporations. Honestly, I am a bit more offended that Marvel / DC has a joint trademark on “super heroes”. Still trying to pick my way though this.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[pla]

But that is how it should be: not just every movie studio should be able to make a Cinderella movie

FTFY.

Yes, trademarks also need to expire (not claiming they legally do, but they must, eventually). Fortunately, on that front, We The People can influence policy, simply by using them "wrong": Every time you xerox a document, you ride an elevator, you wipe snot with a kleenex, you photoshop a picture - You help speed the demise of a trademark via genericization.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[hutsell]

Then all this arguing would've been for nothing.

Imagine there are no corporations, it's easy if you try; no copyright hell below us, above us only sky. Imagine -- people only being people, living for today. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one; I hope some day everyone will join us, and the world will be as one.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[tragedy]

For me, the only reason to worry about whether it's the "official" character or not is to determine if the story fits within the canon or not. The thing is, we're living in a post-continuity world as far as characters like Superman are concerned. Every incarnation in every medium stands alone. The continuity in the comics is bjorked to Krypton and back and the editors have no qualms about retconning and re-retconning and rebooting and re-inventing and re-imagining.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Daniel Dvorkin]

How long should this last? Should the heirs of Thomas Malory have veto power over every retelling of the King Arthur story, to make sure that it conforms to the "official" and "canonical" version?

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.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[kwerle]

Good point.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[cpt kangarooski]

Why do you think that big budget superhero movies are only economically viable if one source controls both the copyright on the characters and story used in the movie as well as for all merchandise featuring those characters, etc?

It certainly isn't true for big budget fairy tale movies. The last one Disney did was based on Rapunzel, had a budget of $260 million, and the main character and basic plot are in the public domain. And I'm sure that there were plenty of people trying to free ride on it by putting out toys and things based on the fairy tale. Yet they seem to have survived.

And also, why must we have big budget movies anyway? And if we must, why must they rely on such excessive copyrights to be made? Are there no alternatives?

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Truekaiser]

Disney is the prime example of abuse of copyright.
they take stories from the public domain, make them into movies that only have a little semblance to the original. then try to sue the crap out of anyone who uses the same public domain work to make their own version.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[ultranova]

And also, why must we have big budget movies anyway?

It's difficult to make superhero movies without special effects, which require lots of skilled labour and expensive equipment.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Artifakt]

Why get speculative when there's a real example? DC and Marvel agreed years ago to let each other use terms such as superpowers, superhuman, etc. but litigate if any other competitor did. For an example of what this really already led to, read any of many ABC comics where you will find "science heroes" with "science powers".

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[ultranova]

But that is how it should be: not just every movie studio should be able to make a Superman movie, because this would undermine the "real"/canonical Superman line.

There is no canonical Superman line. Even the movies have rebooted the whole mess several times. Furthermore, Sturgeon's Law also works in reverse, so any fandom with large enough following will produce works far surpassing their source material; why not let them?

The real problem with modern copyright law is that seeks to block derived works, yet truly great works are the result of evolution: someone takes an existing work into a new and interesting direction, injecting ideas and possibly crossing it over with other works. The best such works then survive to serve as the building blocks of the next generation of works. Copyright would disrupt this process, leaving culture crippled and older works dead. The Internet thankfully gets around part of it, but imagine if the chain and ball was removed from cultural progress's feet?

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Aighearach]

You were thinking escalator.

Elevator is:
Origin:
1640–50; Late Latin levtor

Good attempt, though. Just do it.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[pla]

Ah, good catch, thanks for the correction. Yes, escalator. :)

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[alexander_686]

Find the parent of a young girl and ask them about Disney’s “Princess” line and how much they spend on it. Disney’s plan is to make ½ the profit on the lunch boxes, theme parks, dolls, etc.

As to the substitutes – eh. GoBots vs. Transformers. Amazon’s Fire vs. Apple IPad min. Little kids demand the “real” thing – not the generic.

And yes, Disney tries to move public domain stuff into the private domain – and that is one of the things I struggle with. Disney’s Rapunzel has some very specific new and creative points in term of story lines, music, visual style that I am o.k. being covered by IP.

Which is why I said I am still trying to sort things out. Disney et. al. are aggressive and have expensive lawyers – so that is going to deter some people – in particular smaller outfits. But in response to TrueKaiser - it did not stop 2 big budget Snow White films coming out last year.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[TheGratefulNet]

really? computers are expensive? not these days, they are not. and you can take as long as you want to render. you don't 'lose money' if you take a while to make a movie. especially if the compute power costs very little.

soon, we won't even need real actors or real scenes.

in 10 yrs or less, garage shops can make decent quality movies. and I can't wait until the big companies get pushed OUT of the biz!

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[alexander_686]

First, computers are expensive – or at least the rendering farms that ILM and Pixar uses. Second – and more importantly - CGI is expensive not because of the computers, but because of skilled artists.

And when we no longer need real actors – what do we have? Films generated by optimized algorithms – never having been touched by human hands?

I think it is going to be a very long time before computers supplement humans and garages can push out the majors. Look, I am amazed at what small indies can do now. Monsters is a great example – made for 800k http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1470827/ Small shops can do an excellent level of quality if they narrowly focus their work.

Let’s say you wanted to do your own version of LotR can you tell computer to drop in 10,000 Orcs? Maybe – if you were going to use the generic Orc. But you probably wouldn’t want to do that – too much like paint by numbers – it would have the look and feel of the dozens of other fan flicks out there. And that is just one detail of thousands.

Blockbusters are going to want to fashion their own unique style which for the foreseeable future will take a lot of talented (and very expensive artists)

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Cosgrach]

Oh happy day!

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[hairyfeet]

Well I'm of 2 minds on this. On the one hand yes copyrights are stupid and a waste now, they should go back to the original terms set forth by the founding fathers. if you can't make money off an idea in 25 years you suck at business and somebody else needs to have a shot at it.

That said the "Zombie Tu Pac" thing has me kinda disturbed. Originally I thought "25 years and that it" but imagine if this tech continues to get better, how would say the family of Monroe like it if they put a digital her in a gangbang or torture porn like A Serbian Film? While I'm all for copyrights ending in a decent period of time I think likenesses should be a different story as it will soon be possible to completely obliterate someone's legacy by cranking out new schlock using a digital version of them and if they are dead they can't even fight back.

So as long as a person's likeness is considered trademark and not copyright and is protected from being exploited by tech I'd be happy to support copyrights going back to the original 25 years.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Mantrid42]

you don't 'lose money' if you take a while to make a movie.

This isn't even remotely close to true. Movies can live or die by current trends. It's hard enough to predict what people are going to want in a year, let alone X amount of time it takes to render effects on an old PC.

soon, we won't even need real actors or real scenes.

This is a nightmarish fantasy. I want to connect emotionally with the people in the movie. Even in some explosion-filled Michael Bay movie, I'd rather root for a flesh-and-blood generic action guy than some sort of simulation.

While it can make for interesting experiments, one thing we shouldn't automate is artistic endeavors.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, I certainly never said that Disney doesn't do merchandizing -- they're pros at it. Just that they don't seem to be dissuaded from even starting just because they'll have some competition from small fry.

Nor did I say that the substitutes were better, or even on par. GoBots sucked by the way. I even remember that at one point, they had toy robots that turned into rocks of all the stupid things.

My point is simply that absolute control isn't necessary to make money, even big money. So perhaps we could stand to have less of it over all.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, while it is getting cheaper and easier all the time (there is fan-made stuff on YouTube that would've been beyond the abilities and budgets of special effects houses in the recent past), the real key, IMO is in what sort of movie you want to make.

If you absolutely must have a couple of guys throwing buildings at each other, it could get pricey, that's true. OTOH, if you're careful to write the script with an eye toward the budget, and yet can still produce a good story, you could probably do well. But⦠studios want blockbusters and the genre lends itself toward mindless spectacle, so no one seems to try much.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[cpt kangarooski]

There is actually a separate right of publicity, which is what you're thinking of. Depending on your jurisdiction, it may not survive our death (since harming your reputation once you've died doesn't harm you), or in places where there tend to be lobbies of famous people's relatives, it could last a lot longer.

Personally, I favor the ends-at-death side. People may have a right to their own reputations, for good or ill, but no one should control the reputation of another person.

The world might not be particularly better off after the recent "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" movie ("Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter" is clearly still the greatest vampire hunter story ever told) but we are much better off that some obscure descendant can't march in and shut it down.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[cpt kangarooski]

Superman goes commando? Well, I mean, I guess no one is going to tell him he can't, but it seems distasteful.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[ikaruga]

But that is how it should be: not just every movie studio should be able to make a Superman movie, because this would undermine the "real"/canonical Superman line.

Does that really matters? I'm more of a japanese manga guy, but according to my limited knowledge about american comics, superman is 70+ years old already, has been rebooted several times, has multiple writers, multiple artists, multiple timelines, movies, video games, cartoons. I seriously have no idea what is cannon in the Superman world. Considering everything that is officially by DC/WarnerBros release doesn't feel right. That would be like considering (the majority of the) Dragon Ball Z movies cannon, which they obviously aren't.
Superman is just one example, the US seems to love those really old comic characters with multiple plot lines, reboots, adaptations etc. I tried to keep up with X-men during high-school but no, there is just too much convoluted stuff by too many people.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[CAIMLAS]

So should I then also be able to make a Superman movie, with the Superman logo, the Superman soundtrack (you know, the one composed by John Williams for the 'original' 1980s Superman), and so on? Where does the line get drawn?

I see it as being able to use another company's trademark - their logo or name of a product. If they're not using it anymore, it's fair game. If they are using it, it's strictly forbidden, as is anything which might be easily mistaken. End of story.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[SydShamino]

http://pic.epicfail.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/toy-fail-specialman.jpg

?

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Maxo-Texas]

I know! Because superman canon is stable and hasn't changed a half dozen times since the character was created.

Same for Batman. These are the same characters they've always been.

Except for the reboots.

And the re-envisionings.

And the reimaginings.

And the reinterpretations.

It's funny... if you want to make a story about "Snow White" or "Cinderella" or "Jack and the Beanstalk" or Vampires or Dracula or Oberon or Titania ....

You are free to. Because copyright has been perverted by immortal corporations.

It has to change. These characters need to be released to the public domain so others can use them to tell interesting stories. That's explicitly why copyright was created in the first place.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Mike Frett]

It "kicked ass" for you. The fact that it is your opinion should be clearly stated next time and not generalized. Capisce?

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[hairyfeet]

Weeellll...The problem I have is while Abe Lincoln Vamp Hunter made Lincoln out to be cool, you could destroy a person's previous rep REAL quick by just filling the channel with Schlock. How many of the kids today have seen any of Monroe's work? Now imagine the new digital Monroe becomes a queen of the gangbang movie? A Zombie Elvis forced to sing with Marilyn Manson, even though Elvis never cursed in his movies or songs?

There needs to be some sort of standards or a long enough time limit that the majority will no longer be known artists but historical figures, otherwise once this tech gets cheap (and it will) you'll have scummy producers getting "star power" by ruining the reps of the dead who can't even fight back. To me its just a little too close to grave robbing, like digging up their bodies to stick them in a sideshow. Imagine how Brandon Lee's kid would feel to see a digital daddy, complete with bullet holes and decay, being the "lead" in a zombified Crow remake.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Lord Bitman]

Imagine if Trademark Law were limited to ensuring that producers of goods and services could be easily identified and distinguished and that such laws had no bearing on the distribution of creative works so long as such distinction were honestly made.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Scarletdown]

Yes, trademarks also need to expire (not claiming they legally do, but they must, eventually). Fortunately, on that front, We The People can influence policy, simply by using them "wrong": Every time you xerox a document, you ride an elevator, you wipe snot with a kleenex, you photoshop a picture - You help speed the demise of a trademark via genericization.

Don't forget googling a subject, no matter what search engine you use.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Scarletdown]

Weeellll...The problem I have is while Abe Lincoln Vamp Hunter made Lincoln out to be cool, you could destroy a person's previous rep REAL quick by just filling the channel with Schlock.

What is really puzzling to me is why they went with Lincoln? I thought Teddy Roosevelt was the Chuck Norris of U.S. Presidents.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Legion303]

"Letâ(TM)s say you wanted to do your own version of LotR can you tell computer to drop in 10,000 Orcs?"

If you had an $800K budget, you could probably afford to spend $18K of that on Massive, just like Peter Jackson did for LotR.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[N!k0N]

Weeellll...The problem I have is while Abe Lincoln Vamp Hunter made Lincoln out to be cool, you could destroy a person's previous rep REAL quick by just filling the channel with Schlock.

What is really puzzling to me is why they went with Lincoln? I thought Teddy Roosevelt was the Chuck Norris of U.S. Presidents.

Pretty much... but he makes Chuck Norris look like ... well, not Chuck Norris. He _GOT SHOT_ before giving a speech, spoke for ~90 minutes and only then went to get medical attention (or the 1912 equivalent).

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Gr8Apes]

And for an example of how truly bad that can be, look at "Immortal".

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Half-pint HAL]

But that is how it should be: not just every movie studio should be able to make a Superman movie, because this would undermine the "real"/canonical Superman line. Fans could not be sure that the movie that they were going to see was the "official" Superman; the protection of trademark is therefore important to provide information to the consumer.

But which real/canonical Superman line? Every long-running comic series has been rebooted or retconned innumerable times, and Superman has hit the big screen in several different "continuities", including the Fleischer cartoons, the Christopher Reeve films, and the current lot. Then there's the radio, the TV series, several TV cartoon serieses.

There isn't a single canonical Superman.

Now, that said, I agree that copyright's derivative work protection should not continue to prevent similar stories, so long as there is no risk of customer confusion. If another studio wants to make a movie about "Superduperman," from the planet Argon, who flies around in his caped underwear while saving the world, they should have every right to do so -- even while the copyright for "Superman" still runs.

I don't quite agree with you there. I think the trademark law here is very odd, because you're allowed to use the trademark in place in the existing work... but not as marketing. That's very odd indeed. If I'm allowed to print the books about Tarzan, Lord of the Jungle, why am I not allowed to use the name Tarzan? It's, as I said, very odd indeed.

In fact, lots of countries specifically disallow trademarking literary characters, which is why it's so important to copyright holders to get the character name in the title, or to reissue film serieses in a boxed set with the lead character in the name.

So for example, Paramount probably now have exclusive film copyright on the title "Jack Reacher". Lee Child may be able to license novels to other studios further down the line, and they'll still feature Jack Reacher as a character, but "Jack Reacher" wouldn't be part of the title. Consider also Never Say Never Again which was produced under the screen rights to the novel "Thunderball". But the producers didn't have the rights to the "James Bond" franchise, so it wasn't a "Bond film". But the name's on the poster... as a character name only: "Sean Connery is James Bond in..."

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[TheRaven64]

Because Lincoln was president during the US Civil War, which is intrinsically cool because it's the only war in the entire history of the USA where the side that won did not have overt assistance from the French.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Half-pint HAL]

Historical fiction has always played on real people, and some of it has been recent. We've got loads of "inspired by true events" and "real life crime" films that paint certain people as right b*st*rds and whitewash others as really good guys.

Too much control of image would ban whole genres or film -- are we misrepresenting Bonnie and/or Clyde in the film? Did The Untouchables misrepresent Al Capone? etc etc ad nauseum.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[hairyfeet]

There is kinda a big difference between doing a retelling of Bonnie and Clyde and say making a zombie Elvis dance like a monkey so some sleazy producer can wrong a few more pennies out of the property. Don't say they won't either because Elvis' old backup band was using a digital Elvis to "tour" with him, really sleazy IMHO.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[dywolf]

trademark != copyright

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[kwerle]

So should I then also be able to make a Superman movie, with the Superman logo,

I was going to say "Yes. Those things are old.", but it turns out the original authors died in the early-mid 90's. I figure the shorter of 75 years or (author's life + 20) is pretty reasonable. That'd be up in this year! Go for it - you're not likely to be done filming before June (1st pub date).

the Superman soundtrack (you know, the one composed by John Williams for the 'original' 1980s Superman),

I should think that soundtrack was written by someone fairly recently, so no.

and so on? Where does the line get drawn?.

Semi-arbitrarily at some date from original publication and/or author's life, just like it does now.

I see it as being able to use another company's trademark - their logo or name of a product. If they're not using it anymore, it's fair game. If they are using it, it's strictly forbidden, as is anything which might be easily mistaken. End of story.

And I disagree, because what happens is some company buys a copyright and then "uses it" indefinitely. And then the copyright never expires. And I don't think that fits with

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

And I don't think that benefits society as a whole. What happens with the model you describe is that one company ends up owning and controlling everything because they have an eternal monopoly on those characters. Which is exactly what is happening with Disney - because they are banking on copyright being extended indefinitely. Which is exactly what's been happening.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Half-pint HAL]

Is it "sleazy" that they sell his records in MP3 format and his films on DVD? Surely this is just another way of packaging his archive material that's proven to be attractive to his fans?

(Although I'm reminded of an old TV sketch where the Beatles recorded a backing track for and released a previously unheard John Lennon recording... "Hi, this is John and Yoko, we can't get to the phone right now....)

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[danudwary]

Careful. The Superman "S" shield was different on first publication than it is today. Also, underpants-over-tights is not the "real" Superman's costume anymore. Why do you think they changed Superman's costume last year? Why do you think the movie costume is quite a bit different from tradition?

IANAL, but it seems like soon you probably could make a Superman movie based on Action Comics #1. However, it better not mention Krypton or Kryptonite, and don't use any of the well-known supporting characters outside of Lois Lane and Ma and Pa Kent. Oh, and that Superman can't fly, no super-speed, no heat vision, etc.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[kwerle]

I'm not a lawyer, either. But the questions are moot - since copyright will continue to get extended until congress comes to its senses. I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[chrismcb]

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

I'm still trying to figure out if the last Spiderman I saw was the "offical" Spiderman (err "official" Amazing Spiderman)

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[chrismcb]

We don't NEED big budget movies, but we seem to appreciate them. And the movies themselves need "excessive" copyrights, otherwise they wouldn't make enough money to make another.
The movies don't need to be based on "excessive" copyrights. Otherwise why would they have wasted 400 million on John Carter, or why make moves that are almost identical to a movie another company is also producing that happens from time to time.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[DirtyLiar]

Right. Because, look how fan-fiction has ruined everything.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[hairyfeet]

The difference you seem to be glossing over is the man chose to make those recordings whereas stitching some old footage together to make the monkey dance so his old backup group can try to recapture the days they were getting big checks is...well its fucking sleazy.

Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits

[Half-pint HAL]

Did the man choose to allow those recordings to be released as singles? (Consider some groups vetoed any moves to break up their albums for sale as tracks.) So we already accept "cutting up" of his recorded words. Did you howl and scream at the remix of "A Little Less Conversation" that he did explicitly approve of? Again, cutting up his works. The videos they used were videos he chose to make under a contract that had provisions that effectively permitted such use.

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:Licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

Licensing out is for CORPORATIONS, not puny serfs. Corporations are people, IS life itself, not people. People die easily and do not matter in the long run.
The same laws that protected and ensured prosperity to INDIANS, now apply to us all.
God help us all.

Re:Licensing

[alexander_686]

If you want to see what happens when you do that all you have to do is jump across the pond to England. IIRC, the copyright defaults to creator. Each time a new writer introduces a new character rights get muddled. Terry Nation was for year able to keep Dalek’s off of Doctor Who until he got his fair share. This makes shared universe difficult. One can’t just grab a minor character in the Hulk – like Wolverine - and transfer them to the X-Men under a different writer.

And I am not saying your idea is a bad one – just that it would impacts. You just don’t see the big universe with multiple creators over there.

Neil Gaiman has done some good writing on the copyright dispute with Miracle Man. Check out his blog.

Public domain

[geek]

How is Superman not public domain by now? He first showed up in 1938. That's over 70 years ago. This is ridiculous.

Re:Public domain

[Jetra]

Same reason Mickey Mouse isn't public domain yet. Copyright gets an extension when it nears the end.

Re:Public domain

[Anonymous Coward]

Is he older than Steamboat Willie? That is the dividing line between being in the public domain already and never being there.

Re:Public domain

[the eric conspiracy]

Trademarks don't expire.

Can you imagine the chaos if they did?

Re:Public domain

[sourcerror]

Authors death + 70 years.

Re:Public domain

[hcs_$reboot]

Not always true

Once a brand name passes into such common usage that no one regards it as a proper noun anymore, its trademark can be ruled invalid, and anyone can capitalize on all the marketing you've put into it. (That's what happened to "Escalator": The company that owned the name let it become synonymous with moving staircases, and lost the trademark.)

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

[luke923]

Copyright law states that a copyright lasts up to 75 years after the author's death. Supes has got a while.

Re:Public domain

[Nemyst]

And at author's death + 69 years, a new law is passed to extend copyright to author's death + 140 years.

Re:Public domain

[maxwell demon]

Also, trademarks expire if they are no longer used by the owner.

However, for Superman, both don't apply: "Superman" refers only to that specific superhero and is not used as generic name of superheroes, and obviously the trademark "Superman" is still in use.

Re:Public domain

[mabhatter654]

Mickey Mouse will never be public domain... The Mouse is used all over Disney every day as a trademark.

The specific WORKS would be public domain... So copy them all day, post on the Internets. Trying to make NEW works would be difficult because Disney is still using that character.

Re:Public domain

[IgnitusBoyone]

Even if superman was public domain that would only allow you to reprint the various stories already published. Writing new superman stories as long as DC is still publishing and actively protecting its trade marks is not possible with out licensing. This is different then Connan becoming public domain, because as far as I know no new cannon works had come out since the films and the trademarks were long left unprotected. (I'll go make sure of that now..)

Re:Public domain

[IgnitusBoyone]

Nope, I'm apparently wrong. Dark Horse makes a line of comics that has been under publication. Its possible though that they never licensed it, but if they did from wiki comes this information

"The name Conan and the names of Robert E. Howard's other principal characters are claimed as trademarked by Paradox Entertainment of Stockholm, Sweden, through its US subsidiary Paradox Entertainment Inc.[citation needed] Paradox copyrights stories written by other authors under license from Conan Properties Inc.[citation needed]"

Given the lack of citation I do not know if its correct or not.

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:Public domain

[Jetra]

Is there even a difference between trademark and copyright? Both seem to go hand-in-hand.

Re:Public domain

[fatphil]

Superman wasn't even novel coinage anyway. It's equivalent to Uebermensch, which was in German decades earlier, at least by the time of Nietzsche, who used it.

Re:Public domain

[WillyWanker]

Because corporate-owned copyrights last for 95-120 years after creation/publication, which puts Superman in the public domain in 2033 at the very earliest and 2058 at the latest, provided copyright extension isn't granted again (which it surely will be by the end of the decade due to Disney). If his copyright was still owned by Shuster and Siegel it would continue for 70 years after their deaths, which were 1992 and 1996 respectively, putting his entry into PD in 2066.

And yes, it's fucking retarded.

Re:Public domain

[Sarten-X]

Because copyright terms have changed over the years. For a work published in 1938 whose copyright was renewed (as was necessary then, and we'll assume occurred), it doesn't enter public domain until 95 years later: 2033.

This would only apply to the character itself (which may also be a trademark, which falls under different rules), and the first stories about that character. More recent stories and characters would have even later expiration dates.

Re:Public domain

[the eric conspiracy]

This is why you see companies sending out letters and even suing people who use their trademarks.

For example McDonald's vs. Clan McDonald.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-02-02/news/9702020275_1_ronald-mcdonald-mcdonald-s-restaurants-scot

However that isn't really 'expiring'. It's losing the trademark for other reasons.

Re:Public domain

[Ironhandx]

Nothing of Mickey Mouse is in the public domain. The common joke is that copyright length is MIckey Mouse's birthday + 1.

No work from after 1923 will enter the public domain until 2019 unless its creator specifically puts it there.

Its complete fucking horse shit and that particular amendment should be unanimously voted off the books.

Unfortunately there are far too many politicians in the pockets of the big conglomerates such as disney for that to ever happen.

If copyright law had stayed as it was we'd have things right up into the 50's entering the public domain now.

Re:Public domain

[Anonymous Coward]

"Man and Superman" was a play by George Bernard Shaw, written in 1903.

Re:Public domain

[skegg]

Unfortunately there are far too many politicians in the pockets of the big conglomerates

Sad but true.

Re:Public domain

[macbeth66]

Why not put in for a prtition at whitehouse.org? I understand they are all the rage.

Re:Public domain

[fredprado]

That is not true. Trademark laws do not apply in this case. Once copyright ended anyone could make new stories of Mickey Mouse or Superman. It is a moot point anyways, because they will never let copyright expire...

Re:Public domain

[Anonymous Coward]

I've said (for a long time) that copyright should run 1 generation: 20 years. Patents likewise are good for 20 years. If they are sold, each time they are sold the remaining time is cut in half. No extensions. The works a creator creates are covered for the generation of the inventor. Subsequent generations should not be burdened or have their creative additions suspended by the works of people who lived long before. Each generation should be allowed to bring their additions and improvements to the art.

Re:Public domain

[sjames]

Just imagine if any tablet containing acetylsalicylic acid could be called Aspirin! (OH WAIT!)

Re:Public domain

[Anonymous Coward]

Trademark requires you to show evidence that you are protecting it with legal actions if anyone tries to use it. Copyright has no requirement for the owner to protect it to retain it.

Re:Public domain

[crossmr]

"A superman" is not the same as "superman"
and there are lawyers who cost much more than your or I who could spend all day in court talking about that.

Re:Public domain

[Charliemopps]

The truly ironic part is that most big media houses, especially disney, owe their success and fortunes to long dead authors. In Disneys case, they whole-sale ripped off the Brothers Grim. Then lobbied congress to get the laws changed so others could do the same to them. They're STILL ripping off the brothers grim to this day... but now they rename their movies so they're trademark-able... "Tangled" anyone?

Re:Public domain

[ChrisMaple]

The Superman Shield ("S") may be a trademark. If so, and the owner kept the mark in use, no image of Superman showing the shield could be legally used in a manner violating trademark protection.

Re:Public domain

[fredprado]

Maybe so, and even that is a stretch, but any slightly modified image should serve to replace it, if that were the case.

Re:Public domain

[Jason Levine]

Actually, the original copyright law was 14 years with a one-time 14 year extension. Had that stayed, we would be getting non-renewed works from 1999 and renewed works from 1985. Yes, Back to the Future would be entering Public Domain this year with the sequels following in 2017 and 2018. (It's a pretty safe assumption that they would have been renewed.) The complete, original Star Wars trilogy would have entered Public Domain a couple of years ago. (George could still release Original Trilogy Version 10: This Time Jar-Jar Shoots First, but Star Wars fans could have the originals in the Public Domain to play with.)

Re:Public domain

[fatphil]

Strange that you don't say that it translates more accurately to "overman", given the direct connection of the prefices.

What precise distinction were you trying to draw between "super-" and "supra-", in particular in the context of neologising by prefixing them to a word?

Re:Public domain

[operagost]

I believe that Aspirin was forced into the public domain (everywhere but Germany) by post-WWI treaty.

Re:Public domain

[sjames]

Yes, but where is the chaos? If trademarks going away after a while cause chaos, there should be some surrounding Aspirin. or any of these.

Re:Public domain

[chrismcb]

Mickey Mouse thinks your Superman is a youngster, and he wants you to get off his lawn.
Why isn't Mickey (err Mortimer) and Superman in public domain, money... And lots of it.

Re:Public domain

[chrismcb]

Trademarks DO expire. They have to be renewed. AND vigilantly defended.

Superman V plot teaser

[Anonymous Coward]

A band of rogues led by Wile E Coyote and Elmer Fudd attempt to wreak havoc in Gotham City, and only Superman can save it. Trouble is, Superman has not been seen for months, as Clark Kent struggles against banks trying to foreclose his condo while his pal Bugs Bunny provides comic relief.

Re:Superman V plot teaser

[Culture20]

I'm guessing you're not familiar with WB's DC Animated Universe. They do some passable superhero stories. WB created Harley Quinn, although they have done a bad job of creating new heroes for other shows they control: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loonatics_Unleashed

INCORPORATION == THEFT

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Copyright?
Crowbar.

Re:INCORPORATION == THEFT

[suso]

Crowbar?
heat vision

Re:INCORPORATION == THEFT

[gabereiser]

Crowbar? Cellophane S http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS9GJNETHsw

Written Agreements not mandatory?

[Drumhellar]

I thought contract law made written agreements mandatory for anything over a certain value. I seem to remember my high school teacher saying that (at least in California) that anything over $200 REQUIRED the contract be on paper. Am I mistaken? Of course, this particular suit was in Federal court, so that wouldn't apply.

Re:Written Agreements not mandatory?

[Anonymous Coward]

Contracts are only valid when they favour commercial interests. A while ago, there was a case in my region of a property developer pre-selling homes with a down payment. The market surged and so the developer went back to the buyers and told them they could pay more than the "guaranteed price" or they could have their deposit back. They sued, and the judge ruled that the developed didn't have to follow the contract.

Ultimately the moral of the story is, those with the gold make the rules.

Re:Written Agreements not mandatory?

[larry bagina]

A written contract is required for real estate or if the contract cannot be performed within 1 year.

Re:Written Agreements not mandatory?

[pwizard2]

I hope the buyers appealed. It sounds like that judge really fucked them over (or was crooked to begin with). Now that you've captured my interest, I can't help but wonder why the judge ruled that way.

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.

Re:Written Agreements not mandatory?

[PortHaven]

Sadly, it does tend to be the case. Our intellectual property rights laws and more so, court determinations. Almost ALWAYS favor corporations, the bigger the more favor.

Microsoft blatantly stole the "intellimouse" technology. Sure they lost in court and had to pay 1 million dollars to the inventing firm. But how many millions did Microsoft make from those mice?

Meanwhile...

[luke923]

...The Flash is feasting on some Road Runner he caught earlier in the day.

Did Warner pay?

[maxwell demon]

I guess when offering Warner their 50%, this was against compensation.

If Warner paid and the heirs accepted the money (or whatever the compensation consisted of), I don't see how they could then claim to still have any rights. If you want to keep something, don't sell it.

If they asked for compensation and Warner didn't pay anything, I can't see how they could own the rights.

And if the heirs didn't demand compensation for transferring their rights, well, they just pay the price for their stupidity.

Re:Did Warner pay?

[maxwell demon]

I just noted that I was a bit ambiguous: In the second "If" sentence (i.e. the third paragraph"), the second "they" of course refers to Warner, not to the heirs.

Re:Did Warner pay?

[StormReaver]

And if the heirs didn't demand compensation for transferring their rights, well, they just pay the price for their stupidity.

I know it goes against Slashdot standards, but a lot of pointless, wasteful speculation could be avoided by all if people would read the stories before engaging their knee jerks.

Yes, all important questions are answered in the story.

Re:Did Warner pay?

[Leuf]

The important question TFA didn't answer for me is what happened in between the letter and a reasonable time period afterwards when the contract would have been finalized?

Re:Did Warner pay?

[chrismcb]

TFA are pretty slim, not a lot of meat to them. Apparently at one point, one of the families agreed to an annuity (plus some other benefits) I don't know if that was for the 50% or what it was for. But yes, it appears at least one family was being compensated. Probably not to the tune of the billion dollars the franchise is worth.

Up in the sky!

[phrostie]

Up in the sky!
it's a bird!
it's a plane!
No it's WarnerMan!

Making the world a safer place for Large Media Conglomerates everywhere!

Re:Good

[game kid]

Just as long as they're not "super heroes", or they'll have a whole different royalty problem.

Origionial Movie Idea

[feedayeen]

Authors death + 70 years.

Superman was invented 75 years ago in 1938, in 2013 a god awful movie comes out which must be stopped at all costs. Due to the Grandfather Paradox, we can not stop the creation of Superman; but if Superman falls into the Public Domain before the movie is released, Warner Bros will crease production immediately, knowing that they will never make money off of it. This gives our time traveling hero a short window of 5 years to track down and kill Jerome Siegel before it is too late.

This idea is not protected in any way, if somebody wants to make it into a movie, please do!

Re:Origionial Movie Idea

[erroneus]

Copyright protects individual works. The character may fall out of copyright, but the films and cartoons and the like will remain in copyright until they expire... if they are ever alloweed to. You predictions of chaos and lack of marketability are exagerated.

Re:Origionial Movie Idea

[feedayeen]

Copyright protects individual works. The character may fall out of copyright, but the films and cartoons and the like will remain in copyright until they expire... if they are ever alloweed to. You predictions of chaos and lack of marketability are exagerated.

This is Hollywood, we like our facts like we like our celebrities, plastic.

Re:Origionial Movie Idea

[WillyWanker]

He won't go into the public domain until at least 2033 at the earliest, movie or no movie.

Re:Origionial Movie Idea

[Culture20]

Due to the Grandfather Paradox, we can not stop the creation of Superman

But thank goodness we were able to go back in time and prevent the creation of the superhero named Grandfather Paradox. He was awful. Superman is a nice trade-off.

Re:Origionial Movie Idea

[Jason Levine]

But thank goodness we were able to go back in time and prevent the creation of the superhero named Grandfather Paradox. He was awful. Superman is a nice trade-off.

I agree. Every issue he defeated the bad guy the same way. Grandfather Paradox would strap a bomb to the villain and send him back in time so that, when the bomb exploded, it killed the villain's grandfather thus erasing the villain from history. His sidekick, Tachyon Lad, was annoying too.

Re:Siegel's heirs are not producing anything

[afxgrin]

I'd rather they do it than Warner Brothers. Please, multibillion dollar corporation vs. 1 family who makes money off grandpa's comic book. WB can fuck off and pay them to use it, it's likely a paltry amount compared to the investment of the movie itself.

Cannot use TM as ersatz copyright

[tepples]

There are limits to which a trademark can be used to extend copyright-like exclusive rights after the expiry of the copyright term in the United States. Dastar v. Fox .

Re:Siegel's heirs are not producing anything

[JDAustin]

DC Comics did pay them...several times over. This is the third time that the heirs went after DC (and Warners) and signed a "final" agreement. In fact, back in the mid or late 40's, DC paid both of them $50k each to settle.

On thing not mentioned here is the reason why this turned into a court case is the lawyer on Siegel's side. Had the Siegel's won, the lawyer would have actually become the controlling party of Superman, not the Siegel's.

Official? When? a generation ago?

[bussdriver]

Nearly all "official" stories suck big time. I'd rather we could choose from all the unofficial stories and hopefully decent ones would prosper. It is not like copyright is required to make megabucks -- look at how Disney made nearly all his success off the public domain.

I'm not a moron who wants to see "reboots" every decade (or less) because 1 studio figures it is easier than taking the risk on a "new" story (which itself is just new to film... and likely the screen writers will have fucked up the transfer plenty good.)

Grimly Amusing

[Anonymous Coward]

" ...the families of both creators have been paid in excess of $4m since 1978." So each "family" has received $2 million over the past 35 years? That comes out to a little over $57k a year. Meanwhile, movie grosses alone for the same time period were claimed to be $500 million. So the creators got less than 1% between the two of them, and we're not even talking merchandising. Fuck you, Warner Brothers.

Re:Grimly Amusing

[cdrguru]

The problem is for the families of the original creators that they evidently structured a deal based on getting paid right now rather than some kind of residuals deal. A residuals deal might have turned out badly - if the movies flopped - and wouldn't have been instant cash either. But, if the studio made $500 million they could have gotten a much bigger chunk.

Studios, and just about everyone else in the businss world, hates risk. Let's say you develop a game and want to sell it to EA and they want to buy it. They (internally and secretly) think they can make $50 million selling it. You want $1 million and know you can't sell it retail and get anything like that. EA could easily come back and offer you $50K up front with them assuming the risk that it might flop as a retail game. Now, if you are pretty confident you don't take that deal and say you want 10% from net profits for five years and nothing up front. If they take it, you get nothing right away and in six months the game starts selling. If you guessed right and EA does make $50 million selling the game you get $5 million in the end - but again, you get nothing up front. If the game flops, well, you were sharing the risk with EA and that's how the ball bounces.

So you can have some guaranteed money or you can have a share in the risk. Sharing the risk gets you more money, sometimes a lot more money.

Based on the history of Superman - some flops, some big money - I'd say the creators negotiated badly and wanted the studio to take all the risk. What they got was a tiny cut but it was probably all up front and no risk at all. They should have had more confidence in their product and what the studio was going to do with it. Of course, they might have ended up with nothing that way - so maybe at that time getting a sure thing seemed the better choice.

Re:Grimly Amusing

[iluvcapra]

If the tables were turned we'd just be saying "Fuck you, Schusters!" It'd be tough to justify paying these people hundreds of millions of dollars for something their dead grandfather created, and to which they'd contributed no work or creative input to in decades.

We have an historical example of a media franchise owned solely by the original creator, it's called Star Wars, and the results have been rather mixed.

Re:Siegel's heirs are not producing anything

[flimflammer]

On thing not mentioned here is the reason why this turned into a court case is the lawyer on Siegel's side. Had the Siegel's won, the lawyer would have actually become the controlling party of Superman, not the Siegel's.

Wait, what? Why was it set up that way?

Re:Copyright

[flimflammer]

Come on now, it's not that long. It's only Mickey Mouse's age + 1.

but who will protect us from the original owners?

[decora]

george lucas did to star wars, what your society has done with all of nature's gifts

where do you think they make apples?

[decora]

those 'taiwanese shit shops' are the same factories responsible for the innards of the macbook ibook itoilet idouche ietcetetc.

there was this thing called "Usenet"

[decora]

they would become our new 'masters of xyz universe'.

*shudder*

as opposed to what holding companies do?

[decora]

there are many many thousands of products, universes, concepts, etc, even houses and buildings, that go 'idle' because their 'owners' dont want to mess with them.... whether individuals or corporations.

Re:as opposed to what holding companies do?

[Artifakt]

Universes? Really?

Re:as opposed to what holding companies do?

[sh00z]

Universes? Really?

Yes, really. The milieus in which superhero stories take place are commonly called "universes." They started planet-crossing in the 1950's, so "world" isn't big enough.

Superman's real weakness.

[Dutchmaan]

If only Lex Luthor had made his chains from Copyright instead of Kryptonite!

Re:Superman's real weakness.

[Jason Levine]

Tomorrow's headline: Lex Luthor to purchase Warner Brothers for Undisclosed Sum.

Re:Siegel's heirs are not producing anything

[Culture20]

Probably because the siegels have no money to pay the lawyer (guessing you missed the mention of a 50K settlement).

Re: Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limit

[ultranova]

Or imagine if people didn't glom onto old characters constantly and instead looked for new and interesting characters and ideas.

Using an old character has the advantage of getting a setting with it. You don't need to setup the character and the world, you can simply take the defaults that come with Superman and then add your ideas and/or characters. It's simply more efficient than starting from scratch.

There's no reason a comic character from the 1930s should be relevant or profitable in the 2010s.

There are several, but one obvious one would be to help examine what, if anything, in the 1930s is worthy of preserving in the 2010s. Why has this character survived for 80 years and what has changed over the years? Why is Superman still relevant enough for this story to make it to the front page of Slashdot?

It's no crime to steal from a thief.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no crime to steal from a thief.

That's the truth of the DMCA.

The content cabal has nothing to do with protecting the creators of art, they are simply destructive rent seeking parasites and should be treated as such.

Re: Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limit

[sixsixtysix]

Or imagine if people didn't glom onto old characters constantly and instead looked for new and interesting characters and ideas.

like using a stronger-than-the-rest protagonist?

Money vs Inspiration

[zodwallopp]

Warner may be the only one who can make money on Superman but the character belongs to the fans.

Re:Good

[PortHaven]

Okay, but why do you require this of the heirs. But don't require it of the bulti-billion dollar corporations?

Re:Siegel's heirs are not producing anything

[PortHaven]

DC has made billions off of Superman, and they're complaining about paying $4 million.

I am of the opinion, that there should be a 2% rule. A perpetual 2% of profits to the creators and their heirs so long as the copyrights exist.

So let me get this straight...

[PortHaven]

First, off, I don't believe IP rights should not be owned by corporations.They're far too abused.

Second, sure some are griping about them making money off their grandparents creative works. While I think that's wrong, I think it's far less wrong than a mega corp making those profits.

Third, from what I understand of the article. This wasn't even a contract. It was a word of mouth discussion. Then DC/Warner Bros wrote a contract based on that, and claimed it was a done deed. The lawsuit sounded as if the heirs were complaining that they never even signed/agreed to the contract.

Four, the problem with selling of creative rights, is that it's too easy to rip off the individual owners. Wait for them to be in financial stress, and then !@#$% over.

Five, if these folks owned 50% of the rights, and billions were made. They've been pretty well !@#$% for the past few decades. Because $4 million is pittance compared to billions.

Six, the courts always seem to favor the bigger company. It's rather disgusting. And why I really don't give a darn about protecting copyrights. MPAA/RIAA spend millions advertising against piracy and media cloning. Their big argument is it hurts the artist. BS. All the pirating in the world has not hurt artists half as bad as the copyright cartels have.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[chrismcb]

First, off, I don't believe IP rights should not be owned by corporations.

So who owns them? And how will they now be abused by individuals? And who owns a copyright on something that 1000 people make? What problem will this solve (that won't also be a problem when corporations can't own IP)

Re:WB lost on the deal

[spidercoz]

4chan is leaking again

Re:Not quite true

[cpt kangarooski]

No, you can make a derivative of the Grimm's version too -- it just can't copy anything that Disney (or anyone else, where there's still a valid copyright) added to it.

Feel free to name the dwarves something different.