| Author |
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133563
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 9:16am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Corporations are "immortal".iii ...all the more reason they shouldn't have perpetual copyright anymore than an individual. •• Tell us, then the BENEFITS of DC, for example, losing the rights to Superman.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Erin Anna Leach
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 February 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 746
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 9:45am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Tell us, then the BENEFITS of DC, for example, losing the rights to Superman *** I can't think of a single benefit of something like that happening. Honestly, if say Superman had reverted back to Siegal and Shuster owning the character in say 1954, I doubt there would be Superman comic books today. There would be no Superman movies, cartoons, etc. The way I understand things is both families have been making a pretty good penny off of the character for years. I would advise them to be happy with what they got.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133563
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 9:52am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Perhaps it is naive on my part, but when it comes to things like this, I think the good of the many should outweigh the good of the few. And the many, in this case, are the consumers.Did some creators get screwed over? Probably. Are corporations making money they don't "deserve"? Possibly. But millions of people have been given pleasure and entertainment, and mostly without being aware of these behind-the-scenes goings on. Which is, really, how things should work. It's generally best NOT to know how the sausages are made.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Plunkert
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 July 2012
Posts: 536
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 11:40am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Tell us, then the BENEFITS of DC, for example, losing the rights to Superman.fl
iii
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. One's personal mileage will likely vary.
I wouldn't get Superman confused with a vaccine or a lightbulb but the same concept applies.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4649
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 12:08pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
It's Jerry SIEGEL, not Seigel or Siegal. We here at the John Bryne Forum should strive to get his name correct.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133563
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 12:13pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Tell us, then the BENEFITS of DC, for example, losing the rights to Superman.fliii 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?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Clifford Boudreaux
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2012
Posts: 443
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 12:18pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Tell us, then the BENEFITS of DC, for example, losing the rights to Superman
If we're talking about just Superman, then not much of anything beyond letting other people and companies having a swing at the character and the possibility of the consumer getting better comics/movies out of the deal. Going into the public domain hasn't hurt Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, Frankenstein, Dickens, Dracula, and every other classic published before 1922.
But in a wider context, the problem of the orphaned works is a by-product of the ever-increasing length of copyrights and unless they can come up with a solution, will become an argument against extending the copyrights further.
The question really should be "what advantage is there to DC continuing to own Superman?" since they're the ones asking for for the laws to be changed.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Plunkert
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 July 2012
Posts: 536
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 12:40pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
But in a wider context, the problem of the orphaned works is a by-product of the ever-increasing length of copyrights and unless they can come up with a solution, will become an argument against extending the copyrights further.
iiii
Publishers were attempting with Orphan works legislation to lift from current creators what would otherwise be protected by copyright law. Akin to finding and drinking a soda in the freezer that your coworker put in the fridge but neglected to put their name on.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133563
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 12:45pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Tell us, then the BENEFITS of DC, for example, losing the rights to Superman++ If we're talking about just Superman, then not much of anything beyond letting other people and companies having a swing at the character and the possibility of the consumer getting better comics/movies out of the deal. •• If Superman slipped into the public domain, I predict most of the product generated would be pornography.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Clifford Boudreaux
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2012
Posts: 443
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 12:52pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Publishers were attempting with Orphan works legislation to lift from current creators what would otherwise be protected by copyright law. Akin to finding and drinking a soda in the freezer that your coworker put in the fridge but neglected to put their name on.
Therein lies part of the problem. Almost any possible solution can be unfairly exploited.
The idea behind Google Books is a great one, but they're stepping on a lot of rights in the process. What's the balance between the public good and rights of the copyright holders.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Clifford Boudreaux
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2012
Posts: 443
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 12:54pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
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.
Edited by Clifford Boudreaux on 22 October 2012 at 12:56pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andrew Bitner
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7526
|
| Posted: 22 October 2012 at 12:54pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
If Superman entered the public domain, there would indeed be pornography. There would also probably be appearances in works that gather together many fictional or historic characters of approximately the same vintage (cf Kim Newman's Anno Dracula novels). But would a stand-alone Superman generate all that much interest from the fans, if he were the sole "known" commodity in his comic universe? Would Superman *by himself* have a large enough fanbase in this era of shrunken readership to make it worthwhile to publish Superman comics? Of course that question is beside the point. The real money is merchandising and movies. There IS money to be made in future Superman movies and the hundreds of tchotchkes made with the Superman S on them. The Siegels, naturally, want a chunk of that. 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."
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
