Re: DC comics could almost certainly vastly increase the sales of their comics
- From: "plausible prose man" <Georgefhaley@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 5 Jun 2006 16:03:18 -0700
Michael S. Schiffer wrote:
Most comics and characters are done "work for hire", and the
company basically is "paying" for the character.
Yes. This is a way in which superhero comics differ from book
publishing.
To the extent book publishing is like comics, its done on a work for
hire or similar basis. That is, if you were contracted by whoever to
write a James Bond novel or a new Hardy Boys adventure, you'd all
rights to your work, unless they were just assumed to legally belong to
the publisher as a condition of your employment in the first place.
For every
Superman, there are ten Neon the Unknown's. For instance,
Wolverine was created by Len Wein for Hulk #181, however, that
character bears little resemblance to Hugh Jackman's character
in the X-Men films. So who exactly should own Wolverine?
Whatever the contracts say, pretty much. Which basically means
Marvel Comics, except that elements specific to the movies probably
belong to the movie production company and/or whoever they sold
rights (e.g., the right to produce images for toys or merchandise)
to.
Right, absent some contractual agreement otherwise that's the most
natural interpretation of the laws. A creator owns his original work.
Even Superman's originality is questionable.
Still, if you ever come out with your own stories about a strong man
in a cape who flies, be prepared to hear from Time Warner about it.
Bill Blackbeard
argued in court of behalf of Fawcett (during the Captain Marvel
trial of the fifties) that anything "super" thing Superman did,
Popeye did ten years earlier. Siegal has admitted that Superman
is really a re-working (read copyright violation) of Phillip
Wyeth's Gladiator from 1930.
Cite? I don't actually doubt that he got ideas from Wylie myself,
though some here will absolutely dispute it. But be that as it
may, everything I've read says that Siegel categorically denied it,
to the extent of denying having read _Gladiator_ at the time in
question. (Me, I wasn't there.)
So, who should own Superman?
Last I heard, that's still being wrangled, ownership split between
DC and the Siegel estate looked likely IIRC. Should doesn't really
enter into it, except to the limited extent that copyright law is
designed to reflect the Good rather than a compromise of
conflicting interests. My personal conception of the Good doesn't
involve copyrights that last life+70, so who gets to benefit from
that extended term is a distinctly secondary consideration.
While in general I oppose "copyright in perpetuity," I have to wonder
how those things apply to copyrights owned by corporations that never
die. Not to get into the surplus value of labor, who but Disney should
own Mickey Mouse, especially after the considerable effort and expense
Disney's gone to to develop that character as the instantly
recognizable and valuable character and brand it is.
That said, since the buyer and seller didn't know those years of
copyright would exist when they negotiated the original sale, it
seems reasonable to figure that those rights weren't paid for, and
to allow the creator to negotiate their sale separately.
The main reason Superman is viable as a character today is
thanks to Mort Wiesnger, Curt Swan, John Byrne, Julius Schwatrz,
Jim Shooter, Gardner Fox, Wayne Boring and the hundreds of other
creative people hired by DC Comics over the years, not Siegal
and Shuster exclusively.
True enough. And therefore?
It's probably a little wrongheaded, therefore, to act as though
National/DC, Warner Bros, Paramount, and whoever put the radio and TV
shows together didn't have quite a lot to do with developing the
superman character and his world.
Lots of people have ideas, not so many people or organizations have
the money and foresight and perseverance to turn those ideas into
commercially viable properties.
Copyright is simply getting more tangled as things go on. Let's
say I take a photo of Britney Spears and publish it in my
magazine. I own the copyright and need ask no one to publish,
even though I contributed nothing to the work that led to
Britney's fame. Now, if I paint a picture of Britney Spears and
put it on a T-shirt and sell it, I'm in violation of trademark
law because I'm using Britney's image. Go figure.
Now I hear that DC must share copyright in Superboy with the
Siegal estate, but not Superman, as they are "two different"
characters. Huh? Superboy is Superman with less hair on his
chest, what the hell is the difference.
Ask the judge who made that determination in the 40s. For that
matter, ask DC, which entered into a settlement agreement that
acknowledged the distinction rather than trying to appeal.
I'm surprised such a thing wasn't considered a more-or-less obvious
derivative work, but as you say there was a settlement.
Not that a court would
know this.
National was happy enough to live with legal technicalities when
they favored them (e.g., sticking contractual terms on the backs of
checks so that authors would have to agree to them to get paid,
asserting that Captain Marvel was obviously Superman while Superman
wasn't closer to any number of still-copyrighted works).
Captain Marvel, of course, was wildly popular, so its not really
surprising a company brought a lawsuit against a potential infringement
that was hurting their bottom line than something that was only a
bigger deal academically. Also, it is my understanding that during the
Fawcett lawsuits, it was revealed there was some behind the scenes talk
of "let's develop our own version of Superman," which would tend to be
prejudicial in any infringement case, even if what they eventually came
up with wasn't all that much like Superman after all.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: DC comics could almost certainly vastly increase the sales of their comics
- From: Michael S. Schiffer
- Re: DC comics could almost certainly vastly increase the sales of their comics
- References:
- DC comics could almost certainly vastly increase the sales of their comics
- From: barnett
- Re: DC comics could almost certainly vastly increase the sales of their comics
- From: plausible prose man
- Re: DC comics could almost certainly vastly increase the sales of their comics
- From: oryan
- Re: DC comics could almost certainly vastly increase the sales of their comics
- From: Michael S. Schiffer
- Re: DC comics could almost certainly vastly increase the sales of their comics
- From: oryan
- Re: DC comics could almost certainly vastly increase the sales of their comics
- From: Michael S. Schiffer
- DC comics could almost certainly vastly increase the sales of their comics
- Prev by Date: Re: The Reprecussions of a Gay Batwoman
- Next by Date: Re: The Reprecussions of a Gay Batwoman
- Previous by thread: Re: DC comics could almost certainly vastly increase the sales of their comics
- Next by thread: Re: DC comics could almost certainly vastly increase the sales of their comics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
