posted
I want DC to publish Superboy stories too, but I can't help but feel a tremendous amount of empathy to the Siegel family.
But FC, I think any amount of blame we put on poor Sonny needs to be shared with Cher. Once she put her little hand in his, ain't no mountain they couldn't climb.
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Eryk Davis Ester
Created from the Cosmic Legends of the Universe!
posted
Honestly, if it weren't for the fact that ownership of Superman wouldn't come with ownership of all of the trademarks, supporting cast, etc., of Superman, I would actually prefer to see DC lose control of Superman.
From: Liberty City | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How did all this start? It's not a new thing. I remember talks about "DC losing Superman" etc since the 90s. It even made the news here in Greece back then, along with the "Death" of Superman thing.
From: Somewhere in the Multiverse | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
while the creatr-rights advocate in me sees the logic of the Siegel suit, at the same time I can see this snowballing to the point where comics universes as we have known them could be completely unwoven.
I have mixed feelings, but not mixed enough to side with a corporate goliath over a creator.
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
These things always cause mixed emotions for me, too... I'm FOR the creators getting a share of what they created, really. But... well, she IS already getting paid $135,000 a year plus insurance.
How many years would a regular person have to work to equal that? A lot. I know I could darn sure live very nicely on $135,000 a year.
When does this cross the line from what's fair to plain old greed?
Eryk Davis Ester
Created from the Cosmic Legends of the Universe!
posted
quote:Originally posted by Kent Shakespeare: at the same time I can see this snowballing to the point where comics universes as we have known them could be completely unwoven.
Believing this to be a good thing, I have no problem siding with the creators...
From: Liberty City | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If this was a matter of Siegel and Shuster never having gotten compensation for their creation of Superman, that would be one thing. But they did get compensation and recognition, finally, even if the amount wasn't that great at first.
From what I read of this article, this isn't about creators' compensation. This is a lawyer setting up a lawsuit against a company, getting settlement money from them, and then going back to the company and demanding more money atop the settlement money if the company still wishes to publish that character/series.
I know that "double jeopardy" keeps a person from being put on trial twice for the same crime. But isn't this an attempt to do the same thing by making the company pay twice to keep publishing a character?
While I do feel some concern for the comics creators, I cannot support Marc Toberoff's tactics -- or truly respect those who would resort to them.
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kent Shakespeare: at the same time I can see this snowballing to the point where comics universes as we have known them could be completely unwoven.
Believing this to be a good thing, I have no problem siding with the creators...
Good point. The more I think on it, maybe it is time to shake things up in a mjaor way. I've long been tired of mega-x-overs and ridiculous amounts of continuity (i.e. the Hulk farts in his series; the FF hear it in theirs, and it stops traffic in Amazing Spider-Man). But I would miss some of the inter-linkages; things like a 40s-era JSA could become impossible if all the characters of that age reverted to creators.
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"When does this cross the line from what's fair to plain old greed? "
When corporate huckster lawyers get involved.
Don't get me wrong, Siegal and Shuster should have been treated much, much better. And i have absolutely no problem with them being treated better now, but the lawyer doesn't give a rats patootie about the clients he hunts up. And he doesn't give a tinkers damn about what fans will lose out on as long as his slimy lawyer hands get money.
Don't kid yourselfs. Its all about money for him. He, and the article, even says so.
-------------------- Damn you, you kids! Get off my lawn or I'm callin' tha cops!
posted
Like some of you, I can see both sides. Having designed stuff myself, and been paid copyright for that product, I do empathise with the creators. But the FAMILIES of the creator? That's taking it a bit far, especially if a settlement has already been reached. This case suggests nothing but greed and getting money any way you can. For something like Superman, the original intent has developed into something so much more. I'm not a huge Superman fan myself, but I can see how important he is, and a cas/argument like this belittles everything that has been achieved. Doomsday 'killing' Superman is one thing, but would you like to be the person responsible for ACTUALLY killing Superman and getting him pulled from publishing? I certainly wouldn't. But id that because I'm a comic book fan and value him and don't see him as a commodity?
I'd like to think that if I designed something that came to be THAT big and have that big an impact, that would be all the satisfaction I'd need. How COOL would it be able to say that you were a part of all that? So much better than simply being able to say that you have a bucket load of cash because you have a mean spirit.
From: Kent | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there's no question that Seigal and Schuster were shafted back in the day. And that was wrong. But Seigel is now dead. He co-created Superman, not his wife and daughter.
So this might be a simplistic view on my part but-why on earth should his widow and daughter get money for something they didn't create? Seigel was entitled to that money *not* them. Yeah, yeah, I know that's not how it works, legally.
But still, this would have much more moral authority (not that that means much legally!)if Seigel were still alive.
At this point, it looks like the widow has dollar signs in her eyes and is out to get as much money as she can get. Plain old human greed. It's ironic that she accuses DC of greed. Looks like she's trying to use the injustice her husband suffered for her own benefit.
Sorry if that offends anyone but that's how it looks to me.
-------------------- Fire in the disco! Fire in the Taco Bell! Fire in the disco! Fire in the gates of hell!!
From: England | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's probably some big article somewhere, detailing why Siegal and Shuster or any of the old time writers and artist should retain rights to a product created in the employ of another. Did DC "rent" Superman, the renege?
I don't know, which professions, where people employed for another retain rights to their creations as employees of that company. As an engineer, I know I certainly didn't.
If not for DC, would anyone have ever heard of Superman or would he have just been a sketch rotting in a closet somewhere?
What exactly is the line that was crossed by the "corporate huckster lawyers" and why would we presume that the lawyers representing the Siegals are anymore or less in this for less than honorable reasons?
From: East Toledo | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
