| Author |
|
Stephen Churay
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 March 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 8369
|
| Posted: 19 October 2012 at 12:44pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Because that wasn't the deal.
There's an old saying, "You take the King's shilling, you do the King's
bidding." The old deal was a crummy deal, but it was the only deal in
town (unless, like Eisner, you were prepared to incur all the risks of
striking out on your own, or, like that "money grubbing bastard" Bob
Kane you had a smart lawyer). And more importantly IT WAS NOT A
SECRET. Everybody knew what they were getting into.
*****
I'm surprised to see you take this stance, considering that you're a
proponent of royalties from original artwork even when a royalty
agreement wasn't arranged before the original piece was sold.
======
There's a huge difference in the example your using Anthony. Seigel
and Shuster have no rights to the character. Therefore, if DC publishes
a JB's MAN OF STEEL trade, they get nothing. When DC publishes a
trade of SUPERMAN CHRONICLES which contains actual work by
Seigel and Shuster, they, or now there family, get paid. Neither S&S or
DC knew going into the original deal that Superman was going to be
one of most recognized characters on the globe. But, if you sign the
rights away to your character, it's not your character anymore.
Over the years DC has given them a better deal. Plus in the last 20
years, they've done a pretty good job of keep material that was written
and drawn by them in print. Do there heirs make a lot off of reprinted
material? Probably not. But, if you feel they deserve more money, go
out and by a set of the Superman Chronicles books.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4623
|
| Posted: 19 October 2012 at 1:36pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Stephen Churay wrote:
| Seigel and Shuster have no rights to the character. |
|
|
Not so. Under the terms of the 1976 copyright law it's arguable that they do have rights to the character.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Clifford Boudreaux
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2012
Posts: 443
|
| Posted: 19 October 2012 at 1:40pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
One of the things I sometimes find troubling is that the Constitution of the United States protects individuals from retroactive laws, but corporations have no such protection.
And the corporations petitioned for this particular law to be retroactively applied, because they didn't want their properties going into the public domain.
This isn't about creator rights, this is about the law. A law the companies in question wanted. Superman was not created in a work-for-hire environment, which is why the Siegels have successful claimed 50% of the character. Marvel did not include the ownership of original art in their contract with Kirby, and the new law said they could no longer assume ownership.
Which is why you don't see their PR departments going out and whining about it. Everyone knows they got an awesome deal.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133334
|
| Posted: 19 October 2012 at 2:07pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Which is why you don't see their PR departments going out and whining about it. Everyone knows they got an awesome deal. •• If by "they" you mean the corporations, yes and no. Superman turned out to be an astonishingly lucky break for National/DC, but how many other properties came even close? It's a whole lot like those radio ads for stock brokers, who basically promise the Moon, but who are sure to include a disclaimer warning that previous performance is not a guarantee of the same in future. National Periodicals had no idea what they were getting when they bought Superman. As noted, it was not until the seventh issue of ACTION COMICS that he was featured on the cover again. And after that, not until the tenth. If we look at other comics published at the same time, including those other issues of ACTION, we see plenty of characters who were being given the same boost as Superman, character who the publishers probably thought had the same chance of success. Perhaps more. This "superhero" thing was something new, after all. No one knew if Superman would, ah, fly. For every character that was successful, there were dozens that crashed and burned. For the publishers, in those days, the risks were the same for all of them -- and it was the publishers who took the risks. If Superman had failed, Seigel and Shuster would have continued with the other projects they'd been working on, and would work on in future. They literally had nothing to lose -- unless, ironically, the character turned out to be a success. (And, of course, S&S "lost" nothing, except by their own actions. The success of Superman could have put MORE money in their pockets, had the deal been different, but they did very well working on the newspaper strip. Which was where they both wanted to be, anyway!)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Clifford Boudreaux
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2012
Posts: 443
|
| Posted: 19 October 2012 at 4:27pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Which has nothing to do with the point I'm making. This isn't about creator rights, this is about the law. The law the corporations lobbied for and continue to lobby for.
The Copyright Extension Act was about preserving the vast majority of their soon-to-be-public-domain properties. The corporations, far from being penalized by a retroactive law, made out like bandits.
Yeah, DC had to renegotiate some deals, but seeing as the Copyright Extension Act was the mother of all renegotiated deals, that's only fair.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Lars Johansson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 June 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6113
|
| Posted: 19 October 2012 at 4:50pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
There are many errors with such a law. For example although copyright law is much stricter, in Sweden 50 years after an artist has died the works were in public domain. Then they decided to chage it to European Community standard, 70 years. So people who were sitting and waiting suddenly had to wait 20 more years. But they forgot all the shit that already had passed into the public domain according to the old law. Suddenly it was copyrighted again and all works based on that stuff was illegal. So my point is, if the copyright was 10 years, 100 years or whatever, you should not change it. Make new laws for new inventions and literuature, make it 10000000 years, but don't "extend" what is already agreed upon.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Ed Love
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2712
|
| Posted: 19 October 2012 at 5:04pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
In the US, the extension didn't affect things already in public domain. Even if it went into public domain just the previous year, it stayed there despite the extension.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Andrew W. Farago
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4079
|
| Posted: 19 October 2012 at 5:19pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Yeah, DC had to renegotiate some deals, but seeing as the Copyright Extension Act was the mother of all renegotiated deals, that's only fair.
Good point. Disney will never let Mickey Mouse lapse into the public domain, and they'll keep fighting that until doomsday. And if they've got Walt himself in cryogenic suspension, they can always defrost him when they've reached the limits of "life of the creator plus 75 years," too.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Clifford Boudreaux
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2012
Posts: 443
|
| Posted: 20 October 2012 at 7:37am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
In the US, the extension didn't affect things already in public domain. Even if it went into public domain just the previous year, it stayed there despite the extension.
In the effort to make a more uniform international copyright system, there are cases of non-U.S. works entering the public domain in America (while remaining an active copyright in their own country), then having their copyright renewed.
There are various public domain works that orchestras have been playing for years which they can no longer play since they're no longer public domain and they can't afford to license them.
This is because at one point you had to actively renew copyrights and many works lapsed due to clerical errors and now can be renewed if there's an active copyright somewhere. It's a Wonderful Life is a work that accidentally went into public domain, became a classic film when television stations aired the now free to play movie, then managed to come back to copyright protected status thanks to it being a derivative work whose parent property was still protected.
Night of the Living Dead, however, remains in the public domain because there's no active copyright for it to latch on to.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133334
|
| Posted: 20 October 2012 at 7:50am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Putting a time limit on copyrights has struck me all along as governments doing busy work. There is no reason, rationally, that a copyright should ever lapse.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Darren Ashmore
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 960
|
| Posted: 20 October 2012 at 9:12am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
So do we now assume that the Siegals & Shusters will be trying to reclaim the golden age Robotman, the Spectre and the Star Spangled Kid? Oh and don't forget Dr Occult.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133334
|
| Posted: 20 October 2012 at 9:13am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I wonder. When Marv Wolfman sued Marvel, the publicity was all about his attempting to gain the rights to Blade, but he was actually trying to claim ALL the characters he had "created" for Marvel.Including, as I noted at the time, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
