Darren Hick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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).>>

Depends on what they sold, and what National took. If there wasn't any more of a contract than that $130 page-rate check, then all National was entitled to was first printing rights -- not all rights in and to the characters in all media forever. I don't know what S&S signed, but I'm not going to assume that National covered all the bases with that $130 check -- not when things were so lax in the comics business for decades that even thirty years later, Marvel wasn't having creators sign anything, and was simply assuming all rights in return for a pagerate check.

>> 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.).>>

And Stephen King gets paid handsomely to write novels, but the size of the check doesn't affect the rights transferred. As far as I can tell, there were later settlements in which all rights _were_ transferred, but very likely only after National had assumed all rights without securing them. If you rent my car and then won't give it back, that'd be theft, even if you rented it for handsome amounts.

>> 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.>>

What loss?

Slam Bradley debuted in DETECTIVE COMICS #1, a magazine successful enough to provide National with a new company name. Given that Slam Bradley debuted before ACTION COMICS, when S&S were willing to take $130 for their Superman story, I can't imagine they were paid huge amounts of cash for the material, and even pre-Batman, DETECTIVE was successful enough to spur more "theme" anthologies -- like, say, ACTION COMICS. It's hard to see National taking a loss on those early DETECTIVEs, and as such, it's hard to see 'em taking a loss on the "Slam Bradley" feature. Heck, they still trot him out for the occasional anniversary issue -- and not, I expect, because they're still trying to recoup that hundred bucks or so per story they "invested" back in the Thirties.

>>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.>>

That's not what the Siegel estate has done here.

Copyright law, at the time of sale, said National was only allowed to own Superman for a certain number of years, after which it would go into the public domain. When the copyright period was extended, it was decided that the original owners of those rights should have the ability to re-assume those rights for the extended copyright period, because they'd never made a deal for those extra years in the first place.

The Siegel estate hasn't claimed massive restitution for the period that DC owned Superman outright -- they're not asking for a dime of what Superman earned DC prior to the reversion. Rather they've claimed that they never sold Superman for the _extended_ period of copyright (which they didn't, as the law states), and as such they're entitled to half of any _new_ monies that come in. Which is something the law is designed to allow them to do, since they can't have been considered to have sold rights for a copyright period that, at the time of initial sale, did not exist.

>> DC provided publishing, distribution, visibility, marketing. It was an investment that's paid off a king's ransom for them.>>

Yes they did, and yes it did. But making a king's ransom doesn't entitle them to the sole right to another one, not under current copyright law. Not unless they actually buy those extended rights from the Siegel estate.

Or perhaps you think that what you call S&S's stupidity should be compounded all over again?

>> 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.>>

The continued employment was part of the deal in selling them the series in the first place -- they sold an ongoing feature to a new magazine. Was DC required to do it? If that's what the deal said, yes -- and if so, DC reneged when they fired them. Was it in the deal? I don't know for sure, but you don't seem to know for sure either, and are willing to assume that DC made no promises beyond that $130, just as you're willing to assume that DC specifically and concretely bought all rights in all media now and forever for that $130. Why do you make only the assumptions that benefit the publisher?

>> 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.>>

How so? DC didn't return Shuster's art either.

Keep in mind that DC not only did not return their artists' work during that period (and Marvel didn't return anyone's, not just Jack's), but DC routinely destroyed the art boards to make room in the closets. And keep in mind that a lot of rights used to be assumed to the publisher without legal title. So why would keeping Kirby's art be theft while destroying Shuster's or Swan's art was not? Why would keeping the art be theft while keeping the movie rights to the Silver Surfer (never paid for, never signed away, as far as I know) was not?

If nothing else, Darren, this certainly makes it clear that there's a new era at TCJ. I'd never have expected that a TCJ editor would be this unaware of what's actually being claimed in a major comics-industry news story, or be this ready to assume that in the absence of any evidence, the publisher must be right.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that you think that Marvel was doing something unusual or outside of industry practice when they kept Kirby's art. The legal flap over its return in the Eighties was certainly unusual and particular, but the "theft" of it in the first place was no different than what was being done to Don Heck's or Steve Ditko's art, and quite a bit nicer than what was being done by those infinitely less evil folks over at DC, who were taking a paper-cutter to the stuff. Was Kirby CHALLENGERS art destroyed by DC? I don't know -- but if it wasn't, it was the luck of the draw.

kurt

And as long as I've spoken up:

* I don't think a boycott of Superman comics would do anything to punish Time-Warner or prod them into making a settlement; all it does, even on a miniscule scale, is weaken the position of the one guy there who's demonstrably trying to get a fair settlement for the Siegel estate. Boycotting everything else Time-Warner does, from TIME magazine to their movies and TV channels, and writing them to let them know that -- that would put the message into the hands of the people who you want to hear it. I don't think it'd do much good there, either, but it'd at least be aimed correctly.

And what were those myths?

1. Siegel and Shuster were robbed? I don't know if I'd say pure-dee robbed, though enough agreements were reneged on and rights assumed without being secured (I'm thinking Superboy here, at least) that pointing to stuff that was done legally doesn't make it all legal. They were certainly treated well at times -- and poorly at others.

2. Stan Lee wrote plenty. Maybe not as much as the credits implied all the time, but plenty nonetheless.

3. Steve Geppi can be rich as Croesus, if he can manage it.

kurt

Yeah! What he said.

(Or see my post above)

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

Wow, I was reading Darren Hicks posts thinking he was just some misinformed fanboy. Then I read this topic a few days later and find out he's working for the Comics Journal. And this is someone working for the magazine that would presume to "indict" Stan Lee. Boy, now that's funny.

[This message has been edited by Carlton Donaghe (edited 09-18-1999).]

Kurt did a fantastic job replying to Darren, but there is one thing he left out.

Darren Hicks said:

> 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.

Umm.. Hello?? Self Published Comics in 1938? Have you ever heard of Cerebus and Dave Sim? First self published comic in 1979?
Able to be self published because of the direct market and a lot of work by Dave Sim himself?

Self Published Superman Comics in 1938 was not possible. Fanzines done locally perhaps, but not comics distributed around USA on a returnable basis. One needed deep pockets and big balls in terms of risk to publish comic books back then. Two Teenagers from Cleveland didn't have that, selling the rights was the only option.

Creator rights is funny too. The *very* reason creator rights became an issue in comic books was because of Siegel and Shuster. Bob Kane knew he had a good chance of creating something popular *and* had a lawyer in the family, that's why he had some rights with Batman. Marston (Wonder Womans creator) also saw the popularity of superheroes and was very intelligent himself, that's why he retained some rights as well.

Comic strips were a slightly different story as creator rights had been an issue in the past there. What Siegel and Shuster knew about that I don't know. Perhaps they assumed DC's editors would reward them with a fair division of the profits and long term employment in return for giving them a successful "property."

Regardless, they were teenagers and I think they were taken advantage of in terms of creator rights. Yes I understand the money worshipers are in glee over the idea that in a cold blooded, cut throat, market driven economy, a smart corporation took advantage of uninformed teenagers and made billions while Siegel nearly starved to death later on in life. That's capitalism isn't it? The American dream, the very essense of what makes the grand ol USA the best place on the planet to live?

Me, I thought that was wrong. Thankfully politicians thought so too, made changes to the laws and allowed the Siegel heirs to take back the copyright that was not supposed to belong to DC forever in the first place.



------------------
Regards,
Jamie Coville
The History of Superhero Comic Books!
http://www.sigma.net/comichistory/

Hey Guys:

So many responses and I can't get to all of them but THIS is exactly what fans of this medium should be doing.
THIS gives comic books the "validation" not sales gimmicks that pontificate that "Comic are not just for kids"
Let's discuss options, let's think of a plan of "attack" and let's get this out there!!!!!.
I find what we are doing here is a better way of using that "energy" that we would otherwise use to fight over what Green Lantern is better Hal or Kyle.
Creators are not cattle.
Other than, at times, frightening them in Conventions with our unabashed adulation we must try our damn best to make ourselves be counted and show how we really appreciate them as human beings -- especially if nobody else will.
If a boycott is wrong than a letter, a whole bag of letters, emails ANYTHING other than allow this to drag on, and on and people like the Siegels to continue to suffer.
I honestly think they've gone through enough.

Poops on Supes! (Until somebody comes up with a better one!)

Hey Carlton:

YEAH! Got any address (email or snail mail)?

I think it's time to let the fandom really be heard!

Hey Kurt:

Thank you for posting your opinion.
And if you have a address (email or snail mail) where we can send our views on the whole ordeal (respectfully) of course, I will be more than willing to send whomever a few lines.

Hey Darren:

Please don't take anything I've posted personally.
I disagree with you but I respect your views, I've even went back and reread "Comics: Between the Panels" and a Harlan Ellison interview to reeducate myself.
I think that what we are doing here is EXACTLY what we (fandom) should be doing.
This is more positive than endlessly warring about if Thing can beat the Hulk.
Siegel and Shuster suffered enough.
May they rest in peace and let's not help matters by dragging it on.
Let's show whoever his holding the strings that this ordeal should end and end quickly.
Whatever you can suggest -- I'm more than open to suggestions -- I'll listne but until I hear a better idea I'm not buying Supes.

Poops on Supes!

RCRUZ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Hey Kurt: Thank you for posting your opinion. And if you have a address (email or snail mail) where we can send our views on the whole ordeal (respectfully) of course, I will be more than willing to send whomever a few lines.>>

Try this one:

Richard D. Parsons, President
Time Warner
1325 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019

kurt