Warner Bros Secures Commercial Control of Superman

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Warner Bros Secures Commercial Control of Superman

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday January 13, 2013 @05:55AM from the faster-than-a-speeding-cease-and-desist dept.

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."

43 of 196 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-13 06:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Then all this arguing would've been for nothing.
1. Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits by cdecoro · 2013-01-13 06:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits by just_a_monkey · 2013-01-13 06:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Fans could not be sure that the movie that they were going to see was the "official" Superman
  The... The horror!
  
  --
  How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
3. Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits by kwerle · 2013-01-13 06:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits by cpt+kangarooski · 2013-01-13 07:00 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
5. Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits by alexander_686 · 2013-01-13 07:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
6. Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits by hutsell · 2013-01-13 07:25 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
7. Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits by Austerity+Empowers · 2013-01-13 09:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
8. Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits by cpt+kangarooski · 2013-01-13 09:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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?
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
9. Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits by Truekaiser · 2013-01-13 09:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
10. Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits by Artifakt · 2013-01-13 10:10 · Score: 2
  
  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".
  
  --
  Who is John Cabal?
11. Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits by Aighearach · 2013-01-13 10:34 · Score: 2
  
  You were thinking escalator.
  Elevator is:
  Origin:
  1640–50; Late Latin levtor
  Good attempt, though. Just do it.
12. Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits by alexander_686 · 2013-01-13 11:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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)
13. Re:Just imagine if copyright had reasonable limits by kwerle · 2013-01-14 05:13 · Score: 2
  
  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.
Licensing by Cruciform · 2013-01-13 06:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Licensing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-13 06:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:Licensing by alexander_686 · 2013-01-13 12:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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 by geek · 2013-01-13 06:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

How is Superman not public domain by now? He first showed up in 1938. That's over 70 years ago. This is ridiculous.
1. Re:Public domain by Jetra · 2013-01-13 06:10 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Same reason Mickey Mouse isn't public domain yet. Copyright gets an extension when it nears the end.
2. Re:Public domain by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-01-13 06:12 · Score: 2
  
  Trademarks don't expire.
  Can you imagine the chaos if they did?
3. Re:Public domain by sourcerror · 2013-01-13 06:16 · Score: 2
  
  Authors death + 70 years.
4. Re:Public domain by hcs_$reboot · 2013-01-13 06:17 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.)
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
5. Re:Public domain by Blue+Stone · 2013-01-13 06:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  >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.
  
  --
  Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
6. Re:Public domain by luke923 · 2013-01-13 06:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Copyright law states that a copyright lasts up to 75 years after the author's death. Supes has got a while.
  
  --
  "Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two" -- RFC 1925
7. Re:Public domain by Nemyst · 2013-01-13 06:27 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  And at author's death + 69 years, a new law is passed to extend copyright to author's death + 140 years.
8. Re:Public domain by maxwell+demon · 2013-01-13 06:28 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
9. Re:Public domain by mabhatter654 · 2013-01-13 06:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
10. Re:Public domain by erroneus · 2013-01-13 07:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
11. Re:Public domain by fatphil · 2013-01-13 07:32 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
12. Re:Public domain by Ironhandx · 2013-01-13 08:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
13. Re:Public domain by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-13 08:44 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  "Man and Superman" was a play by George Bernard Shaw, written in 1903.
Meanwhile... by luke923 · 2013-01-13 06:19 · Score: 2

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

--
"Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two" -- RFC 1925
Did Warner pay? by maxwell+demon · 2013-01-13 06:21 · Score: 2

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.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Good by game+kid · 2013-01-13 06:26 · Score: 2

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

--
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Re:Written Agreements not mandatory? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-13 06:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Origionial Movie Idea by feedayeen · 2013-01-13 06:37 · Score: 4, Funny

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!
1. Re:Origionial Movie Idea by feedayeen · 2013-01-13 07:42 · Score: 2
  
  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.
2. Re:Origionial Movie Idea by Culture20 · 2013-01-13 07:49 · Score: 2
  
  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.
Cannot use TM as ersatz copyright by tepples · 2013-01-13 06:49 · Score: 2

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 by JDAustin · 2013-01-13 06:59 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
Grimly Amusing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-13 07:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

" ...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:Written Agreements not mandatory? by Mitreya · 2013-01-13 08:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Superman's real weakness. by Dutchmaan · 2013-01-13 10:04 · Score: 2

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