| Author |
|
Clifford Boudreaux
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2012
Posts: 443
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 1:02pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I would be glad to see a final reckoning on this; I feel it is long past due. And however much the Siegels and Shusters deserved for the Superman property, I have less sympathy for them every time they return to the spotlight and cry poverty for the cameras. These two guys knew the deal. It might have been a lousy deal, but they took it. Trying to squeeze a publisher for more is shabby, no matter how much it might seem to be "deserved."
Every time someone mentioned the treatment of these legends, people tend to point to the "legal right" of the companies to do so.
Well, the reverse is true. Everything the S&S Estates are doing right now is their legal right. When Springsteen and The Eagles do it, it will be their legal right.
Goose, meet gander. Gander, meet goose.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133563
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 1:02pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
If Superman slipped into the public domain, I predict most of the product generated would be pornography.++ You do know we already have that? They don't even come up with their own witty names anymore, they just call it "Superman: The XXX Parody". A completely work-safe trailer to one. But seeing as we're not sifting through mountains of Sherlock Holmes porn, I think we're safe. •• You're not thinking about the people who would be creating this stuff. They didn't grow up on Holmes. But a lot of them grew up on superhero comics. And, even when not doing out an out porn, they cannot resist forcing in "adult" themes where they do not belong.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Clifford Boudreaux
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2012
Posts: 443
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 1:11pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
You're not thinking about the people who would be creating this stuff. They didn't grow up on Holmes. But a lot of them grew up on superhero comics. And, even when not doing out an out porn, they cannot resist forcing in "adult" themes where they do not belong.
There's going to be some porn, there's going to some adult-oriented takes on it, but the money is always going to be going after the kids either in a PG cartoon or a PG-13 live-action movie.
And if the S&S Estates get him, he'll probably be less likely to have a bastard child in a movie.
Edited by Clifford Boudreaux on 22 October 2012 at 1:19pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Ed Love
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2712
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 1:23pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
In terms of public domain, DC won't ever LOSE Superman. Copyrights exist on every single issue, every single production. What DC would lose is some exclusivity, people would be able to make copies of what works are in the public domain and sell them. This can already be done with the Fleischer Superman cartoons. If copyright law got changed to being just 70 years from the time of creation, DC would still own all the trademarks associated and all the stories and creations from 1942 onward. You want to do Superman? Fine. But no kryptonite, Krypto, Superboy, Supergirl, Jimmy Olsen, Bizarro, Brainiac, Fortress of Solitude, heat-vision, x-ray vision, etc. And good luck with coming up with a name for your title. Can't use the word "Superman" on the cover. This situation actually already exists at DC for a score of characters: Dr. Occult, Uncle Sam, Phantom Lady, Human Bomb, The Ray, Black Condor, Kid Eternity, Captain Marvel (and rest of the Fawcett line), Captain Atom, Spirit, Blue Beetle, Plastic Man, Blackhawks. All characters who have most if not all of their early stories be in public domain.
Just as many of Disney's cartoons are based on public domain works. Doesn't keep them from making a ton of money off their versions of the characters while other companies likewise exploit the same source material. Thus we have multiple versions of Beauty and the Beast, the comicbook Fables and the tv show Once Upon a Time.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
David Plunkert
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 July 2012
Posts: 536
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 1:27pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Over time more or less the same benefits lesser or greater as other works that have entered the public domain by Shakespeare, Dumas, Shelley, Poe, Wells, Dickens, etc. •• And that would be? iii ....the great things and ideas that are occasionally adapted and used without payment. I don't think what is achieved by the public domain is quantifiable. Good or bad, its an ocean that every person and company has been free to swim in...including Warners. Fair to say we wouldn't be better off if the literary estates of Shakespeare, Dumas, Shelly, Poe, Wells, and Dickens were owned by Warner Brothers or some other conglomerate.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Clifford Boudreaux
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2012
Posts: 443
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 1:32pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
All characters who have most if not all of their early stories be in public domain.
That explains the odd Captain Marvel comics that show up for the Kindle.
I was initially excited that there were some Captain Marvel under the name "America's Greatest Comics", but there's only about eight issues... and not in color.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Clifford Boudreaux
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2012
Posts: 443
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 1:34pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Fair to say we wouldn't be better off if the literary estates of Shakespeare
Just imagine that law suits between the Shakespeare Estate and the de Vere Estate.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Rick Whiting
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 April 2004
Posts: 2217
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 2:15pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
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.
_____________________________
Speaking of the Wofman VS Marvel lawsuit, I recall reading an interview with Wolfman about Blade and the then upcoming 1st Blade movie in Cinescope magazine that was published about 4 months before the Blade movie came out. In the interview, Wolfman said that the ownership rights to Blade was never clearly established. This led me to immediately think that if the Blade movie is a hit, Wolfman was going to try to sue Marvel for ownership over Blade, which of course, did happen. I can't help wondering if Wolfman would have tried to sue Marvel if the Blade movie was a huge flop. If I had to hazard a guess, I don't think that he would have.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133563
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 4:45pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
And if the S&S Estates get him, he'll probably be less likely to have a bastard child in a movie. •• If I may assume my most cynical stance for a moment, the S&S estates are trying to gain rights to Superman for purely monetary reasons. At no point has anything ever been said about "protecting the integrity of the character" or anything of that ilk. If they gained full control, I would expect to see Superman being used in whatever ways generated the most money.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133563
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 4:46pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Fair to say we wouldn't be better off if the literary estates of Shakespeare++ Just imagine that law suits between the Shakespeare Estate and the de Vere Estate. •• The works of Shakespeare were "public domain" pretty much from the start. That's one of the reasons the Authorship Question is even able to exist.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Clifford Boudreaux
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2012
Posts: 443
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 4:52pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
I can't help wondering if Wolfman would have tried to sue Marvel if the Blade movie was a huge flop.
First rule of law suits, never sue if there's no money.
Remember when Fox waited to the last minute to sue Warner Brothers over the Watchmen movie. If they really wanted to exercise their option for the movie, they would have sued much earlier, but waiting until WB had everything in the bag, they were able to exercise their legal rights for maximum profit.
This is how multinational corporations operate and unsurprisingly the way people operate. We really can't hold companies to any kind of moral or ethical accounting in these matters and we can't hold individuals to them either.
Bill Finger was a work-for-hire employee of Bob Kane just like Jack Kirby was a work-for-hire employee of Marvel Comics. If you find Kane's business practices distasteful, you should find Marvel's distasteful, too... and vice versa.
There is nothing S&S are doing that Warner Brothers wouldn't do, only bigger, louder, and with more lawyers.
Edited by Clifford Boudreaux on 22 October 2012 at 5:03pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Clifford Boudreaux
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2012
Posts: 443
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 4:56pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
If I may assume my most cynical stance for a moment, the S&S estates are trying to gain rights to Superman for purely monetary reasons. At no point has anything ever been said about "protecting the integrity of the character" or anything of that ilk.
If they operate like any other Estate who controls a well-known property, they'll likely be pretty conservative in what they allow. It would be their only cash cow.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
