I used to not buy Supes for the artistic reasons mentioned by Darren Hick, but this call has filled me with such inspiration that I've decided to not buy it for DC's recalcitrance. Hoorah!

[This message has been edited by Charles Reece (edited 09-18-1999).]

New rally cry:

Poops on Supes!

DC's Paul Levitz is trying to get them the
money, so the ball is in WB's court. If
you want to lean on WB, I can think of a lot
of things you could boycott. Movies, TV and
magazines.

If there is a strong drop in sales for
Superman, it's more likely to make WB think
they should fight it in court. Higher sales on Superman would make them think it's worth more money and that they shouldn't risk a fight and should settle.


- Rik

A few thoughts here...

Yes, Joanne Siegel was the model for Lois Lane. And the entire concept of Superman is built upon Nietzschean philosophy, but I don't see Neitzsche's heirs banging on Levitz & Kahn's door. Inspiration is worth roughly bupkiss.

I've never quite understood the logic behind thinking that Siegel and Shuster (henceforth referred to as S&S) got screwed. They were desperate for cash. They sold out. They had a character that no one would take. They wanted a comic strip; they settled on a comic book. They were *willing* to take $130.00 for the story. They *willingly* sold the story (sorry, Edmalex, but if this constitutes theft, I'm a platypus). Subsequently, they were paid HANDSOMELY to work for National Periodicals/DC Comics (I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it's a damn sight more than I'm being paid -- and in the '40s, at that.). They were by no means screwed. DC (I know it wasn't DC at the time, but I'm calling it that for convenience sake) is a publisher. And, ideally, a publisher is a hell of a lot more than a middleman (sorry again, Edmalex). The publisher is willing to put up the money to produce the product. It's an investment on their part. Superman was by no means a sure-fire hit. No other publisher or syndicate would go near it. DC also put up the money to produce Slam Bradley (another S&S creation), but you don't see Siegel's heirs offering up cash to pay for the loss on that particular investment on DC's part.

This makes me think. A while back, I had a patent in mind. And my plan was to sell it to 3M. I knew I'd be unable to produce it, market it and distribute it on my own. I knew they'd likely be interested in it. And yeah, if push came to shove, I'd probably have sold it for $10,000 bucks (give or take, about what $130 bucks would have been worth in the mid to late-'30s). And if they made a couple million off it, I'd probably kick myself, but that's my due for selling out. I wouldn't think it my right to demand massive restitution for my stupidity and 3M's ability to take advantage of a saleable product.

There wasn't anything stopping S&S from self-publishing the story and/or demanding creator's rights. Eisner did it with The Spirit at about the same time. However, a self-published Superman would likely have flopped. DC provided publishing, distribution, visibility, marketing. It was an investment that's paid off a king's ransom for them. Lucky, skillful them. And DC rewarded S&S by hiring them to continue to write and draw the strip. There's nothing, to the best of my knowledge, that required them to do this. And they paid well.

Yeah, DC's done some truly despicable things, but this isn't one of them. They did their job. They did it well. In my opinion, Marvel's outright (and completely illegal) theft of Jack King Kirby's art is infinitely more evil than DC's treatment of the Superman creators.

As a side-note, I can't understand what you'd hope to accomplish with a boycott on Superman products. Assuming the Siegel heirs are, indeed, eligible for 50% (or thereabouts) of the profits from the comics, you're screwing them, too. Besides which, anyone who thinks any sort of majority of DC's profits comes from Superman comics is either uninformed or deluded. Superman properties, yes -- like Mickey Mouse, the Superman trademark is worth a hell of a lot more at this point than the copyright -- Superman comics, no. If DC were to stop publishing Superman comics tomorrow, it's unlikely to hurt a company backed by one of the most powerful communication companies in the world.

Darren:

Your'e messing with one of the three sacred truths of fandom.

1) Siegel & Shuster were robbed.
2) Stan Lee never wrote anything.
3) Steve Geppi doesn't deserve to be rich.

Beware the wrath of fandom when simplistic beliefs are questioned.

Actually, I've used the Slam Bradley comparison, myself. So I am not unfamiliar with your reasoning, but I still come down on the side of S&S. They signed a lousy deal with mobbed-up gangsters. Though they were legally in the clear, the corporate entity that grew up from their work was shamed into paying them pensions. Now that corporation is whispering with their lawyers about how to deal with the latest twist in the saga.

There will most likely be a settlement with the heirs that includes a non-disclosure agreement. So, as with the Steve Gerber case, fandom assembled will be left tantalized in perpetuity.

If only the Siegels had put up a web site like the Skippy heirs.

------------------
"I love him like a brother. David Greenglas." -- Woody Allen - Crimes & Misdemeanors

DC lost money on Slam Bradley?

News to me.

Quack, Don

------------------
HUNDREDS of daily comics -- and MORE!
http://www.stormloader.com/markstein/daily.htm
"Your Daily Dose Links Page"

Jim Hanley done said this here deal:



Okay, one and three, I understand. But the second one confuses me. Stan Lee never wrote anything? Is joke? If not, how so?

Bradly


------------------
Bradly E. Peterson
Psychodrama Press
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds"
(Albert Einstein)
www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama/

Darren-

While you may not be a platypus in regards to the initial sale of Superman, you'd certainly earn your bill if you defended DC for deciding not to buy Superboy when it was proposed by Siegel, only to publish it while he was in the service and then try to refuse any payments to him on his return. This was blatent enough theft that they eventually were forced to pay a settlement, and in a fit of pique against Siegel's not wanting to be stolen from, they essentially blacklisted him. Hence, I stand by the description of the company as robber and Siegel as an acknowledged target of theft.

As for a publisher being more than a middleman; it's true that a publisher can and should provide many functions and services but for a publisher to list itself as a creative entity is aggrandizing nonsense. Employees of a publisher may serve a creative role, but it's then the employee and not the publisher that has created something. If a book is written by a committee (as some godawful books have been), the committee is credited with the work, usually under a pseudonym. I agree that a good publisher is invaluable, and a (lesser) partner in fine tuning an author's work in the form of good editing and good marketing. None the less, this is in service of the author, who is fairly universally recognized as the primary force everywhere else in the publishing world.

Finally, do you have some reason to think that Slam Bradley lost money for NPP? I'm of the understanding that it did just fine in the time before the superhero frenzy devoured this type of strip. Please let me know if there's some other acknowledged story besides that.

-Ed

Jim-

I don't have a problem with any of these three "sacred" beliefs being questioned, and it's not out of any sense of a crusade against the heretics that I feel umbrage at DC (Warner's? NPP?). Those "tenets" may be simplistic, but there are foundations of truth in at least two of them.

1) National Periodical Publications may (or may not) have acted in a legal fashion in garnering their assets, but there's an incredibly strong case that they routinely behaved in an unethical and immoral manner. They far too often had creators sign contracts with punitive clauses while verbally reassuring the rather gullible signers that the punitive clauses were routine and didn't apply to them.


2)Stan certainly did do a considerable amount of comic book writing, but just as certainly has at times taken more credit than he was due.

3) As far as I'm concerned, Steve Geppi can make more money than Bill Gates and Scrooge McDuck combined. I just hope that he does it in a moral and ethical fashion, and that he doesn't illegally involve himself in restraint of trade.

Darren: "And the entire concept of Superman is built upon Nietzschean philosophy, but I don't see Neitzsche's heirs banging on Levitz & Kahn's door."

I believe that the Superman concept would be more accurately attributed to Elisabeth Nietzsche's Nazi-flirting version of her brother's philosophy (have you ever seen what became of her colony in Paraguay? Not exactly the fair-haired master race she envisioned, ewww!). Nietzsche was hardly a fascist, but due to his sister's misappropriation during his illness and after his death, his memory has been tainted ever since.

As for your opinion on S&S "being robbed", I think your interpretation is largely correct. I seem to remember reading (fairly recently) something about S&S getting paid in the 5 or 6 digits back in the 40s (maybe someone else can confirm[oops]/disconfirm this), which is quite a bit (if true).

However, DC could've been a bit more forthcoming with a pension for 2 people so important to the development of their image.

"I wouldn't think it my right to demand massive restitution for my stupidity and 3M's ability to take advantage of a saleable product."

Of course, if the law says its your right, you wouldn't abstain based on this moral principle of yours, correct?

[This message has been edited by Charles Reece (edited 09-18-1999).]

[This message has been edited by Charles Reece (edited 09-19-1999).]