|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jul 11, 2012 12:52:32 GMT -5
not sure if we had one for this- but it keeps popping up on various nerdblogs and i wanted to reintroduce it. there is ZERO doubt that many of the cosmetic and thematic changes in NEW52 are motivated by this and we already lamented that MOS is motivated by it. time and time again i see posts like this: whatever DC and Warner say, sadly it's legally impossible to have a sequel of Man of Steel or Superman in a JLA movie:
www.slashfilm.com/warner-bros-has-lost-krypton-will-lose-superman-in-2013/
"And the race is on to get a new Superman film in flight by 2011, as WB/DC is set to lose the complete rights to the man of steel in 2013."
". And to make matters worse, copyright law will give the Siegel family full ownership of Superman in 2013. This is the date that matters, because after 2013, the Siegels could bring the property to other movie and television studios. So if Warner Bros wants to produce a new Superman movie before they are forced to pay major bucks for the rights, they will need to go into production by 2011."
The article is very clear, after 2013, it will be the end for Superman and DC (the conflict is too big between the Heirs and Warner)...it's a justice decision, so I don't see how Warner can make a project like that without to have legally the character Superman. and now, in a review for ACTION no. 11 : "Superman's New Secret Identity"
Superman battles a villain known as Metalek but the fight does a great deal of damage to the neighborhood. The Man of Steel rallies the people that live there to rebuild and in short order they have better housing than they had before. Superman rushes off to his new identity as Johnny Clark; firefighter. He saves some people and a cat from a burning house and spends a little time at the firehouse before visiting George Taylor in the hospital. Later he calls on Batman and talks about his regrets in giving up the Clark Kent identity.are we seeing the groundwork here for DC's altered version of "A" superman in the event that the estate gets the classic version ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2012 13:15:38 GMT -5
Holy fucking shit, for real?!
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Jul 11, 2012 13:28:15 GMT -5
Would be a giant pisser if MOS turns out to be brilliant and WB are then immediately forced to give up the character.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jul 11, 2012 16:39:27 GMT -5
well, this thing has been brewing for years, and that evil evil despicable shit toberoff is mainly responsible for mukking up what would have been a big settlement a few years ago.
i HAVE to think that there WILL be NEW superman in media AFTER 2013-
-it's too much $$ for it not to happen.
but what will it look like?
DC is already shedding as much siegal-created elements as they can get away with, and MOS was greenlit because a previous settlement had promised revenue to the estate for what would have been SR II.
so maybe (this is just my speculation here) PART of WB's having MOS be an origin is so that THIS series starts out with a lot of familiar elements (IE daily planet, lois lane, etc) in the event that future film won't have a clark-kent-reporter, or a daily planet.
if amy adams is too old to be a peer a cavil-aged kent, then maybe she won;t even BE in the sequel.
aside from nerds nitpicking 99% of movie goers are going to instantly recognize cavill as superman when they trailers and TV spots. the audience is EXPECTING certain things.
on one hand i will be aghast and sheck-shocked if toberoff prevails and becomes the effective "owner" of ACTION no 1 and tries to have that model licensed. it would be morbidly fascinating to see if anyone ever wanted to try since they'd still have to use WB as a distributor for films (right?) but who's to say superman couldnt be leased out to other comics publishers?
if it were to happen we would definitely have a HUGELY different superman for WB/DC in the wake.
no secret identity or revolving identities.
no clark as reporter.
no lois lane.
i could see a post 2013 superman that relied entirely on fantasy elements and was grounded entirely differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Jul 11, 2012 17:15:27 GMT -5
Totally untrue and/or misunderstood.
First of all, the Action issue takes place in the past, and it's been well established by the other Superman books that Clark Kent is still in the picture in the "present."
2nd of all, the estates ALWAYS LOSE these cases. File under: Jack Kirby. The best case scenario for the Siegel estate is a settlement, which WB will stall until the last possible second because it sets a HUGE precedent. Let's say, for example, they settle out of court for a million bucks (just an example), that means that other creators will be able to bring suit against Marvel or DC. When it comes down to it, Warner has deeper pockets and can prolong this lawsuit indefinitely, while the Siegel estate does not. Just because "the clock is ticking" means nothing, as when a suit is still "pending" no judgment can be awarded. The Siegels may be able to do something with the character in the interim, but they won't be able to stop WB from continuing on with Superman as/is.
Even in the unlikely event that others get the rights to the basics of the Superman character, the comics will remain unaffected, and the movies will continue. The current changes in Superman continuity have nothing whatsoever to do with this case. Removing the red trunks and yellow belt has no bearing on the copyright issues.
The "recognizable" Superman will continue well after 2013.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jul 11, 2012 17:25:31 GMT -5
val, i love you, but i am not certain.
toberoff has a had a couple upticks in his legal wrangling, and his ultimate goal is to be the defacto controller of a new entity that owns the original superman from action no 1.
IF that happens, then all bets are off.
also, i can not will not believe that DC has not handed down stipulations for new 52 as a way seed a version of superman should things go south.
uh-uh. they are hedging.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Jul 11, 2012 17:29:24 GMT -5
If the Kirbys couldn't win their case, the Siegels can't win theirs. WB (much like Marvel/Disney in the Kirby case) can stay in court on this FOREVER if they want to. And they will, as an outright loss would open them up to an endless amount of similar suits.
If this was news it would be reported elsewhere. Also, check the date on that article.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 12, 2012 2:17:39 GMT -5
Well.... Considering how damned LONG WB/DC has had the rights to make probably DOZENS of great Superman movies over the decades, (I'm including even before the Reeve films) and not just a few--- and SAT on those rights/ kept things spinning in development.... Can't say that WB/DC didn't kind of do it to themselves. Maybe it's better that the family gets all the rights and licenses them to Marvel/Disney.... at least (presumably) THEY wouldn't keep sitting on the rights for years on end, but get on with making a series of movies already! Will be interesting to see what happens next, but, yeah.... I agree--- if MOS is fantastic and not being able to see a sequel, it's sort of like falling head over heels for SR and not getting SR 2!  |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Jul 12, 2012 4:24:36 GMT -5
Yeah but I am sure noone is spiteful enough to want it to happen for that reason.
Plus if that DID happen, we'd be comforted to know the studio and fans wanted to press ahead, instead of realising what a mistake it was to release a bastard lovechild, not knowing where to take the character next, thus deciding a reboot is best for all
I think we all agree on the feelings re: 2 decades with no Supes Cinema outings but perhaps this isn't the thread for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by booshman on Jul 12, 2012 6:39:55 GMT -5
Why exactly do the the Siegels have any claim to the rights of Superman? If their relatives sold the character to DC back in the day, then surely that should be the end of it. Boo hoo if it turned out to be a big money spinner for WB. Also, where are the Schusters in all this? If the Siegels get full ownership, that doesn't sound fair to me, with him being the co-creator and all.
|
|
cypher85
New Member
Back off, man. I'm a scientist
Posts: 1,468
|
Post by cypher85 on Jul 12, 2012 7:38:53 GMT -5
Your posts are always so uplifting and positive, and not annoying at all. Your outlook and non-existent cynicism truly inspire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jul 12, 2012 10:24:01 GMT -5
Totally untrue and/or misunderstood. First of all, the Action issue takes place in the past, and it's been well established by the other Superman books that Clark Kent is still in the picture in the "present." ok, if i misunderstood the context of the recent issue of the comics then i stand corrected. but i do maintain that DC IS altering superman BECAUSE of this dispute. well, i understand that your involvement in the kirby museum (which we all admire you for) makes you sympathetic to that concept. i'm reminded of kevin mcclory, who was unable to produce a jams bond movie because EON and MGM had him tied up in court exhausting his revenue- even though on paper he has EVERY legal right to produce a james bond movie. biggest difference between the kirby estate and this is TOBEROFF. WB may have a bottomless pit of money, but t oberoff HAS managed to insert himself into the narrative, and while you are correct that the above article is older- superman homepage has been updating the case frequently and HE HAS made a few gains. ALL its going to take is for one judge to say " screw the big corp- it's yours" and it's done. sure, it could go all the way to SCOTUS but in the meantime either side could be under injunction. well i would dispute that they even ARE publishing a "familiar" superman ;D and make no mistake- i think toberoff is evil, and should he get ownership of ANY version of superman we'll wish for DC/WB at its worst to win. one of the more recent judge's rulings has determined that the "familiar" superman is "an aggregate" of siegal creation AND later DC creation. that said, i don;t think superman will necessarily disappear after 2013, and even if DC lost- they can still re-issue anything they have already published- what i'm saying that IT IS possible for TWO (or more) separate legal entities to own a version of the same trademark. i can think of several examples: "BIG BOY " ever heard of big boy? retro style hamburger joint with a chubby kid in checkered overalls as the trademark character? there are THREE DIFFERENT companies who have the legal right to use "big boy" as the trademark- BECAUSE original ownership was disputed and it was ruled that the character "belonged" to all parties even if said parties became different companies. so we have "big boy" and "frisch's big boy" and the third i can't recall - and they DIFFERENT companies- with a wide disparity in quality (they are either shit or very cool) and they ALL have "big boy". you see it in music groups too- i recall "bad company" and how the founder/lead singer left and they were still able to call themselves "bad company" - when the original lineup reunited paul rodgers insisted that only HE (and at least one other original member) could be billed as " Bad Company/ the 'original' Bad Company" while replacement singer and others can not be billed as "bad company" anymore- but CAN be billed as " so-and-so formerly of Bad Company". both can mention the name- but it has to be qualified. same with "jefferson airplane"/"jefferson starship"/"starship". some members are allowed to form a group at any time and call it "jefferson starship"- but the pop singer they had in the 80's will not be allowed to form a band and call it "jefferson airplane"- but he CAN be billed as " mickey thomas of starship". i guess what i'm saying is that in 2014 we MIGHT have two extant versions of the character from different legal handlers. (IE- EON produces " octupussy" as part of the bond series the same year mcclory produces " never say never again"
- BOTH were legitimate official jame bond movies. but certain elements were created by EON and not ian fleming so mcclory had limits on concept/music and so forth even though he had the right to make and own a james bond flick) |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jul 12, 2012 10:24:49 GMT -5
and, as an aside,i promise you all that i am NOT being needlessly dramatic or sensational- but it IS something some of us are keeping a sharp eye on.
|
|
|
|
Post by booshman on Jul 12, 2012 10:33:29 GMT -5
Your posts are always so uplifting and positive, and not annoying at all. Your outlook and non-existent cynicism truly inspire. Who is this aimed at? |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 12, 2012 12:23:03 GMT -5
Jor has a point. One difference between The Kirby case and the Siegel case is Kirby created most of his Marvel characters under a work for hire deal. Siegel and Shuster created Superman years before they sold it to DC's forerunner company and even shopped it around to other people. That might be one thing that puts so many elements of the character from Action Comics number 1 up in the air.
I doubt WB totally loses the rights. Something will probably be worked out even if its leasing the rights that they need.
Not that this would ever happen but it would be crazy to see The Siegels shop a version of Superman to Marvel and watch what happens.
|
|
cypher85
New Member
Back off, man. I'm a scientist
Posts: 1,468
|
Post by cypher85 on Jul 12, 2012 13:14:03 GMT -5
ATP, who removed his post, it was originally right after yours.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 12, 2012 15:19:28 GMT -5
Even if The Siegel estate won some rights there's no way they'd get a lot of stuff. I still think WB works something out but a few scenarios are possible. I agree with people who say they could see dueling versions of Superman released by different parties. But both versions would be very different and feel incomplete. Thats why I still think the two sides would need each other.
If the Siegel estate got rights to things that made their debut in Action Comics No. 1 I have doubts they'd get the rights to other classic Superman elements that appeared later such as characters like Jimmy Olsen and concepts like Kryptonite.
I could even see a situation where The Siegels get the rights to Clark Kent's name and occupation but WB keeps the rights to The Daily Planet name.
It'll be interesting to see how far some claims extend. Superboy has been a prime example of that in recent years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Jul 12, 2012 15:20:23 GMT -5
Jor has a point. One difference between The Kirby case and the Siegel case is Kirby created most of his Marvel characters under a work for hire deal. Siegel and Shuster created Superman years before they sold it to DC's forerunner company and even shopped it around to other people. That might be one thing that puts so many elements of the character from Action Comics number 1 up in the air. . For the record, I'm not sympathetic to one side or the other, regardless of my associations. The Kirby case is based on the vagueries of whether his deal actually WAS "work for hire" or if, much like Siegel/Shuster "the check is the contract." 'tallo is certainly right about Superman being created years before it being brought to the proto-DC, but it doesn't change the general tone of these cases where the check is seen as the contract, and once you sign it and deposit it, you have legally accepted the terms of the agreement. ALSO unlike the Kirby case is the fact that there are few, if any, primary sources left alive now to deliver "expert testimony" on behalf of the Siegels, and such expert testimony is often ruled inadmissible anyway. WB will maintain the rights, if not exclusive rights, indefinitely. Superman will always be from Krypton, be Clark Kent, a reporter, and Lois will always be around. If the new Superman were a hedge against this case (which it isn't), it wouldn't have entailed a line-wide reboot, particularly not one in which Superman has maintained a presence in a good chunk of the line. DC is in a position with that reboot now where there is no turning back. It's here to stay. If they folded it up after all of that hooplah, the backlash would be unheard of, and that would be the only way they could eliminate Superman from the publishing schedule. It ain't happening. If WB wants to tie this up in court for the next 25 years, they can, and they probably will given the opportunity. They can literally wait until Toberoff dies of natural causes and they have more than enough resources to keep this in litigation indefinitely. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 12, 2012 15:47:42 GMT -5
It really depends on the details of the cases. With Superman he certainly wasn't a work for hire creation. Even if Siegel did agree to terms with National/DC/whatever we have no idea if those deals were fair at the time or if the companies they were dealing with were being totally upfront. We have corporate deception NOW and I can only imagine it would be easier to get away with 50 plus years ago.
I think The Siegel estate has a better shot than Kirby's simply because of how far back they created Superman before they even sold the rights. With Kirby at least he was working with Marvel though I guess its the terms of his employment that are up for dispute. I mean years later it was a contract dispute that caused him to bolt for DC so who knows maybe there is a case there. Disney is going to unleash lawyers from a Lovecratian dimension to fight it though.
If we take the legal ownership matter off the table and just stick with creative credit Kirby probably deserves MORE credit than most comic book artists. More than Stan Lee. Marvel had a unique way of putting issues together back then. Its not like Stan just wrote a script and Jack just illustrated it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jul 12, 2012 15:48:29 GMT -5
VAL- i DO hope you are correct, but as i have read in recent articles toberoff HAS lept some legal hurtles in making his case. we can't assume that its only about money. we hear about david-vs-goliath legal battles all the time. in this case "david" is worse than WB/goliath.  also- i love you- but the future of superman in comics is not dependent on NEW52. oh, and when i said you were "sympathetic" i meant that you have a (laudable) interest in creators rights- not that you want toberoff/estate to win.  |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 12, 2012 15:59:47 GMT -5
Rebooting Superman for 52 might not mean WB is losing any rights any time soon but it could very well be WB hedging their bets and setting up a back up plan just in case. That way if they DO lose some things they've already got the ball rolling to patch some of the holes that will be left.
Val is right WB could keep this going for decades but we could see a situation where even if they don't lose some of the rights they could be held up in a way where they can't use certain things either.
I wouldn't always bet against the little guy. Look at Bonds various legal battles. Ellison vs Cameron and co in court over Terminator. Sometimes the little guy can score a win in the battle that hurts even if he doesn't win the war.
Like Val said though so many people involved with Superman's early days are dead though. But there's a lot of contracts and paperwork still around.
I just think Time Warner/WB will do whatever they have to financially to make sure they keep the rights. No matter what they spend they know Superman could potentially make them much more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jul 12, 2012 16:01:28 GMT -5
I doubt WB totally loses the rights. Something will probably be worked out even if its leasing the rights that they need. Not that this would ever happen but it would be crazy to see The Siegels shop a version of Superman to Marvel and watch what happens. i am of two minds on that matter. on one hand- marvel and DC might be competitors, but they have always been pretty amicable. i would imagine marvel having trepidations about leasing superman in this circumstance. on the other hand- both companies can be pretty ruthless when they need/want and who's to say? nat'l periodicals sued over "captain marvel" being too similar to superman (bs) and then subsequently BOUGHT the character and made hime a peer of superman! ;D DC bought charlton (cool) and wildstorm (shit) to add to their bench strength of characters. an speaking of captain marvel- marvel comics was able to introduce a "captain marvel" while DC owned the original "captain marvel" leading DC to (foolishly) refer to cap as "shazam". so anything is possible. It'll be interesting to see how far some claims extend. Superboy has been a prime example of that in recent years. the fact that "superman returns" depicted a young clark exhibiting powers, and whether or not it was "superboy" led to bryan singer being deposed in the case |
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Jul 12, 2012 16:04:51 GMT -5
It really depends on the details of the cases. With Superman he certainly wasn't a work for hire creation. Even if Siegel did agree to terms with National/DC/whatever we have no idea if those deals were fair at the time or if the companies they were dealing with were being totally upfront. We have corporate deception NOW and I can only imagine it would be easier to get away with 50 plus years ago. "fairness" doesn't figure into the legality of it. In the most recent judgment AGAINST the Kirby estate, the judge basically agreed that Kirby was treated unfairly, and that Marvel has a moral obligation to pay his heirs. She then ruled against the estate noting that while morally there was an obligation, legally there was none. |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jul 12, 2012 16:08:23 GMT -5
i DO believe a judge could say that DC keeps what they have- AND- the estate gets the "primitive" version.
i don;t see how the estate could get rights to the original and still get royalties from DC.
i'm in the minority, but i DO believe a "primitive" version is enough to go on especially if he's dropped into an existing established comic book universe.
he won;t need Zod or the fortress or all that if he's in the marvel universe sent from krypton and joins with the avengers to fight the kree. (just for example)
plus, a creative writer could add new villains/companions to his myth w/out relying on the older characters at all.
siegal didnt invent a LOT of what we associate superman with and i think it's entirely possible to have a superman TRULY rebooted without the usual beats we would expect.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 12, 2012 16:24:24 GMT -5
i am of two minds on that matter. on one hand- marvel and DC might be competitors, but they have always been pretty amicable. i would imagine marvel having trepidations about leasing superman in this circumstance. on the other hand- both companies can be pretty ruthless when they need/want and who's to say? nat'l periodicals sued over "captain marvel" being too similar to superman (bs) and then subsequently BOUGHT the character and made hime a peer of superman! ;D DC bought charlton (cool) and wildstorm (shit) to add to their bench strength of characters. an speaking of captain marvel- marvel comics was able to introduce a "captain marvel" while DC owned the original "captain marvel" leading DC to (foolishly) refer to cap as "shazam". DC and Marvel have been more competitive since Joe Q ascended the ladder. I think them being in the world of business they couldn't turn down the opportunity to at least consider leasing a version of Superman if they were legally in the clear to do so. Don't forget Disney is also part of the equation now and they've been buying new outside properties more and more for decades. Including Marvel. The Siegel estate couldn't make money off the Superman rights on their own. They'd have to partner with someone. If they ever did get the rights to do so. Marvel's Captain Marvel made his debut while the Fawcett/DC Marvel was in publishing limbo. DC hadn't gotten the rights yet but Fawcett wasn't publishing Captain Marvel books after the long legal battle. Thats how Marvel Comics was able to swoop in and trademark the name. The thing with the Captain Marvel/Superman case was that Fawcett won the initial decision in court but National got an appeal and won. There was a partial Superman rights infringement but the case never REALLY got decided for good in court because instead of going back to fight Fawcett settled with National out of court. |
|
