| Author |
|
Clifford Boudreaux
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2012
Posts: 443
|
| Posted: 18 October 2012 at 1:50pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Because that wasn't the deal.
And neither is Superman's copyright still being active. The corporations changed the rules so they could continue to make millions off of properties which were about to enter into the public domain. Disney and Warners have benefited beyond measure from the rules being changed.
The cost, Marvel had to give back some artwork they couldn't be bothered to take care of properly (much of it lost or stolen before they begrudgingly gave it back), and DC no longer fully owns Superman (although they continue to fight that one). The rules changed and it has benefited the corporations far more than anyone else.
Edited by Clifford Boudreaux on 18 October 2012 at 1:51pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brad Wilders
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 December 2008
Posts: 175
|
| Posted: 18 October 2012 at 2:06pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
For the Shuster heirs, it means they've exhausted their legal means to seek partial ownership of Superman. --- Not quite. The Shuster heirs will be able to appeal the court's decision to a three-judge panel to see if they agree with his conclusion. Failing that, they can seek Supreme Court review but that is very rarely granted. At that point, alll legal means will have been exhausted.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andrew W. Farago
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4079
|
| Posted: 18 October 2012 at 2:07pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
The resentment can't stem from just the money. After-all Eastman and Laird still get accolades for their achievments, and they've whored their creations out more than any other singular comic creator I can think of.
Eastman and Laird have always credited all of their assistants, and they retained their copyrights along the way. The Direct Market allowed them to have great distribution for their self-published comic book back in the 1980s, and that's an option that really wasn't available to Siegel and Shuster's generation, so I don't think they're really relevant here.
As far as something else taking Superman's place if Siegel and Shuster hadn't come along, that's possible, but they had the right idea in the right place at the right time. Take them out of the picture, and you don't have a successful character at National that inspires Bob Kane to create Batman so that he can strike while the iron is hot. Maybe we get another two or three years of pulp detectives and funny animals and Mutt & Jeff knockoffs. Maybe whatever fills the void left by Superman only catches on as much as Mandrake the Magician, and comic books never become hugely popular with kids. Who knows?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Andrew W. Farago
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4079
|
| Posted: 18 October 2012 at 2:17pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
How many of their uncredited assistants and ghosts did Siegel and Shuster "take care of"?
Bill Finger's a co-creator, though. Ghosts working for Siegel, Shuster and Kane fall more firmly in the work-for-hire camp (which is where DC placed Siegel and Shuster themselves), but Batman always should have had Bill Finger's name right there in the creator credits.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4565
|
| Posted: 18 October 2012 at 2:20pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
JB wrote:
| How many of their uncredited assistants and ghosts did Siegel and Shuster "take care of"? |
|
|
Perhaps the distinction is that Finger was more than an assistant, he was a co-creator of the character... he wrote the origin story, designed the costume, came up with the name "Bruce Wayne." He was responsible for pretty much everything except the name "Batman." Shuster may have started using ghosts early on, but he and Siegel created the character themselves, and produced the early Superman stories by themselves. People don't talk about Kane screwing over Jerry Robinson or George Roussos or Dick Sprang.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 15881
|
| Posted: 18 October 2012 at 2:21pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
DC, of course, didn't have any Kirby artwork locked away in their warehouses. Why not? BECAUSE THEY HAD DESTROYED IT! ------------------------------------------------------------ ------- Aaaaaaarggghhhh!!!!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Centofanti
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 212
|
| Posted: 18 October 2012 at 2:22pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
How many of their uncredited assistants and ghosts did Siegel and Shuster "take care of"?-----
Touche Chez.
That being said, Finger was a very special assisstant, who really deserved more than he got. I never got the feeling that, to use an example, Mark Evanier contributed anything on the level of "Batman should be Batman, and not Birdman."
Bill Finger did get screwed, and what stings to me, by someone who was supposed to his friend in addition to being an employer. (My understanding is that initially Bob Kane, not National, paid Finger.) I know these sorts of things happen all the time, but those instances get me irked too.
One can act legally and still be unethical.
My own position on pay-outs in regards to retroactive comic royalties is split down the middle. These were adults signing legal contracts. Are the companies obligated to pay these creators further compensation later, because intellectual properties became much, much, more valuble in the last quarter of the twentieth century? Of course not.
Should they though? That's also an easy one, too.
Spider-Man as a character is worth an incalculable amount of money. If guys who don't work in comics are getting rich from Spider-Man, I think Steve, Stan, Johnny, and many others deserve to be tossed some fiduciary love.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Lars Johansson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 June 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6113
|
| Posted: 18 October 2012 at 3:35pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
This is the Swedish version of the Phantom, still completely in continuity with Lee Falk's Phantom strip. If you don't think S&S did anything special with Superman, I disagree, even though colors and appearance almost completely match at a first sight. But I have to say that in either way, whether comic book super-heroes started with either the Phantom or Superman, when Batman appeared, to me that is a completely different story, since at that time such heroes already existed and I can't see anything "new" other than clever DC marketing in Detective Comics.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132644
|
| Posted: 18 October 2012 at 7:48pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
In a perfect world, everyone would get what they deserve. And that's a sword that cuts both ways!But it really should not be glossed over too quickly that Siegel and Shuster did very well, financially, from Superman. Their case is perhaps somewhat reflected in a line I have often borrowed, spoken by Montgomery Burns on THE SIMPSONS. "Yes, I have so much, but I would gladly trade it all, for more.". S&S went for more, and the courts decided, under the laws as they existed at the time, that they were not entitled to it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andrew W. Farago
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4079
|
| Posted: 19 October 2012 at 12:38am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I keep coming back to a story I heard about Jack Kirby, and how he got physically ill while taking one of his grandkids toy shopping and seeing all the characters he created being used to sell products and knowing that he wasn't getting a dime off of them, or even really getting credit for having created them.
That's such a sad and frustrating thing about the business side of comics, that a character you loved and put everything you had into can turn into something that eats you alive every time you see it. Superman becoming that for Siegel and Shuster and their heirs, the Marvel characters becoming that for Kirby, Blade becoming that for Marv Wolfman...and now you've potentially got that happening to Jim Starlin with Thanos.
I wish the companies could just figure out how much everyone is going to spend on lawyers over the course of several decades, write some "there will be no further litigation" contracts, settle up, and just give the families some sort of golden ticket that puts them on a permanent comp list for any comics or products featuring their characters (or their father's or grandfather's characters), VIP treatment for the premiere of any movies featuring those characters, VIP treatment at conventions, and something that allows everyone to feel good about the whole situation. Wouldn't it be great to see Jack Kirby's grandkids at the premiere of Avengers 2, knowing that they don't have to worry about their college funds or where their next meal's coming from?
Again, it's nothing that the companies have to do, but I wish they wouldn't be so corporate-minded about everything.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132644
|
| Posted: 19 October 2012 at 5:39am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be great to see Jack Kirby's grandkids at the premiere of Avengers 2, knowing that they don't have to worry about their college funds or where their next meal's coming from?•• Are you describing a situation that exists? Are the Kirby grandchildren starving? If not, GET OVER IT. Kirby ran his own company, Mainline, the same way as everybody else. No return of artwork, no credits, no royalties. If he thought the deal was bad, why didn't he change it when he had the chance?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert LaGuardia
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 November 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1296
|
| Posted: 19 October 2012 at 6:07am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
How many creators would want to be held financially responsible for a
character that fails to make a publisher a profit? Hindsight being what it
is its easy to forget that pretty much every new character or book is a
gamble taken by creator and publisher.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Topic Closed)
