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

[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

[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

[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

[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)

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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: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.

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.