ED M.:
With all due respect, you implied with your 1st post that S&S were robbed at the time of signing the contract:

“Whatever Siegel's reasons for fighting the company that robbed him at pen point, is there any reason that we should support a company that was built on legal theft?”

In fact, you explicitly state that the company robbed Siegel.

Another thing that seems one-sided here is that S&S’s reasons for signing away such a lucrative character (rather than, say, publishing it themselves) are assumed to be the social conditions in which they were situated (e.g., creatively owned properties were a rarity). I don’t necessarily find this to be incorrect, but it seems the people that were at DC were also working within the same social conditions that they accepted as “just the way you do things.” If S&S were unaware of creator’s rights, isn’t it possible that the management at DC were unaware, as well (or at least thought such a concept to be ridiculous for funnybook characters)?

RICK VEITCH:
The fact that S&S were paid handsomely remains; it seems difficult to maintain that they were robbed regarding their signing over Superman. (I’m, of course, excluding all of the nasty things that have been brought up in this thread, which are extraneous to this one point). DC invested a lot more money into the character, so why shouldn’t they have made more? Do you (or anyone else, for that matter) really believe Superman would be so recognizable without the marketing abilities of DC?

[This message has been edited by Charles Reece (edited 09-20-1999).]

Charles,
While I can't weigh in on the recognizability of the character, I am of the opinion that, creatively, SUPERMAN would have been handled much better, and with more integrity, had S&S been doing the work.

------------------
Rick Veitch
Invites You To Read THE DAILY RARE BIT FIENDS
updated every day along with news of the world's most popular artform!
THE COMICON.COM DAILY SPLASHis always refreshing!
www.comicon.com/splash

Charles-
Sorry to disagree with you, but I didn't imply that this was the case. In the sentence you quoted I stated that Siegel was robbed at pen point by (NPP). From this you've inferred that I referred to the signing away of rights to Superman at the point of initial sale. I neither stated, referred to, nor used that assumption as a point of argument. I specifically referred, later in the post, to the theft of Siegel's idea for a Superboy series as this is the primary incident that I'm aware of where NPP was forced to back down, and then took retaliatory steps against Siegel for asserting his legal rights. Because of the pattern of behaviour by the company I also believe that they reneged on verbal promises made to Siegel and Shuster, but lacking proofs of these incidents (as verbal promises not made in front of witnesses leaves no evidence behind) I didn't specifically refer to them.

By using the term "robbed at pen point", I'm simply alluding to a company that makes a legally binding deal that is disadvantageous to a contract signer who's unaware that it's unwise to enter into a deal structered by an attorney who's only protecting the interests of the party that's paying him (in most cases a business that has an attorney on retainer), due to the fact that the contracting agency has given (misleading) verbal assurances that anything the person they're contracting with doesn't like can be fixed after the signing, and that the attorney is considering the needs of all parties. This was a frequent occurance in (at least) the first part of this century and fraud laws didn't cover such circumstances until far more recent times than 1938. I believe that Woody Guthrie popularized the phrase, but it may have been in popular usage before he used it in his songs and speeches.

-Ed

Ed,

I might be completely out of the loop here, but I read Darren's 2nd post (where he begins with the meat of his argument) thinking that he was referring to the initial signing away of rights and whether S&S were robbed at that time. I took it that he was in large part responding to your post, where you made the "robbed at pen point" phrase. I generally agreed (and still do) with Darren's assessment of his supposed interpretation of your phrase. I simply don't see how within the context of the intial posts and Darren's response the original issue under dispute was anything other than the initial signing away of rights. Perhaps Darren will enlighten me as to whether I am reading him incorrectly.

Rick,

I'm not sure whether Superman would've been handled with anymore integrity or not if owned by his creators. I can think of quite a few creator-owned properties without a whit of integrity. However, I don't think this has much relevance to the issue I was alluding to. Does a creator have a right to a huge portion of money earned from his/her creation if it was largely the company's actions that led to the huge profits? The problem here is whether Superman could have been the money-making enterprise that he is while still maintaining creator integrity. Certainly creators can make a fine living with integrity still in check, but there seems to be that hyperbolical realm of money where only those willing to pander to the lowest common denominator are capable of reaching. I would suggest that the property of Superman, with its billion dollar earning capacity, has reached the hyperbolical realm.

[This message has been edited by Charles Reece (edited 09-20-1999).]

Charles-

Please go back and re-read my post. I think you'll find that I made the point I just stated, and that Darren chose to interpret my post in the way that would best serve his argument. Whatever anyone else may have posted is beyond my capacity to control and I can only take responsibility for the statements within my own posts.

I wrote:
<>

The Darren wrote:
"The Siegels haven't been told any such thing, though. They've been told that where the original creators (or their heirs) are still alive, they have the right to apply for termination of DC's copyright grant on the Superman property and its associated and derivative properties. Where there is no heir (as I believe is the case with Shuster, though I haven't fully researched that), the copyright remains with the current holder for an additional term."

Yes, I agree. What I was trying to say was that your original analogy (about your 3M patent) was not applicable to this case, because it has to do with the extension of rights. They signed the shitty contract, and were stuck with it, but should they be bound beyond that shitty contract.

The trouble is that none of us have seen the shitty contract, so we're all speculating a little here.

Me again:
<>

Darren again:
"The Saturday Evening Post reported S&S's gross earning for 1940, for example, at "$75,000, of which $16,000 goes in staff and overhead." The Superboy suit brought to light that S&S had, between 1938-1947, been paid approx. $400,000 (and we're talking '30s and '40s dollars here). I should be so poor."

While this sounds like a lot of money, let's break it down: $400,000 over ten years is $40,000 a year. Assuming that studio/overheads stayed at the same proportion of their payments (20% - although they might have needed more writers when Siegel was in the Armed Forces), then S&S get $32,000 a year to share, or $16,000 each (a touch over $300 a week, before tax). Good money for the time, but hardly a fortune.

And while I think that NPP were due a share for their risk and investment, in what way should that apply to the money they got from the merchandising/films, in which their "investment" would run to lawyers fees for signing agreements.

While I think NPP played a pivotal role in creating the icon that is Superman. especially by getting it started, I would also suggest that the outside uses of him were equally important. Wasn't "Up, up and away" created for the radio show, and "Truth, justice and the American way" for the TV? NPP can't claim all the credit (or have all the credit given to them).



------------------
Venting My Spleen every week at:
www.digitalwebbing.com/cbem/

Referring to original topic:
Personally, I'll be glad to join such a boycott. But keep in mind that's a little like when I felt smug about boycotting Coors, in that it tasted like watery piss to begin with so I never drank it.

How about this: Fantagraphics licenses Superman from the Siegels. They do a huge 80-page giant issue in which each cartoonist (one per page) is allowed to kill Superman. Again and again. Profits to go to the CBLDF. How about that?

Ohh, I've GOT to lay off the demerol...

------------------
John Roberson
Bottomless Studio
bottomlessstudio@earthlink.net
http://members.delphi.com/johnroberson/index.html
Write for details of Bottomless Studio and its nasty little offspring PLASTIC, featuring VITRIOL(now in its last four chapters, thank God!)by John Linton Roberson and RIBBED FOR HER PLEASURE by Kelly Pillsbury!

Wow! Some really powerful arguments.

Guys, I'm old enough and cynical enough to know that businesses are created to make money. Pure and simple.
People get screwed and if it's legal ... it's legal.
Off the top of my head: Col. Sanders (KFC) sold Kentucky Fried Chicken for a few million dollars. The new owners offered him stock. He refused to buy. The same owners sold KFC for over 200 million. Needless to say, the Col. wasn't too happy.
I understand that TIME/WARNER feels like a government that is being threatened by "terrorists". If they let into the "terrorists" demands, it establishes a precedent for other Golden Age creators that signed similar harsh contracts way back then to follow suit.
Now, as in the case of the owners of KFC, if TIME/WARNER had went to the Siegels, first, before the copyright change, and offered them (for argument's sake) 150 million --over a 30 year period. (just an example) and the Siegels wanted 300 million -- then even I can understand TIME/WARNER's position.
But no -- they (TIME/WARNER) play a waiting game, looking for legal ways to "hairsplit" meanwhile keeping things quiet to avoid public outcry.
Who's being sneaky here? TIME/WARNER has a fortune and more to "lose" not the Siegels.
The Siegels already lost -- when you think about it --from the first moment Jerry Siegel protested and then got blacklisted for the rest of his career.
The copyright law changed they (Siegels) didn't change it and they are only claiming what is theirs by right.
The minute details are for the legal pundits to discuss.
We (fandom), on the other hand, should show our solidarity to the Siegels, in only in principal -- what happened to S&S could've happened to anyone. We've benefited from their "mistakes".
Start writing your letters people! Every little bit helps!

Brady posted:



That's right. The Siegels filed for, and got a piece of paper. The Siegels claim it means one thing, WB claims it means another. Either they will come to an agreement, or they will go to court.

Rik

Charles said: "I'm not sure whether Superman would've been handled with anymore integrity or not if owned by his creators. I can think of quite a few creator-owned properties without a whit of integrity. However, I
don't think this has much relevance to the issue I was alluding to."

It does have relevance to the comic book form as it has been shaped by the profit motives of publishers, though. Think how the world of comics might have evolved if the NPP publishers had a more enlightened attitude, not only to the creators, but to the character itself. IMHO some of the absolute best SUPERMAN stories were written by Siegel during the late 50's and early 60's (under work for hire with with no credit). Imagine how the hideous 'DEATH OF SUPERMAN' stunt might have been handled if it was written by the creator of the character near the end of his life.

Charlse also said: "Does a creator have a right to a huge portion of money earned from his/her creation if it was largely the company's actions that led to
the huge profits?"

I think it could be argued that NPP/DC was largely built on the success of SUPERMAN rather than visa versa.



------------------
Rick Veitch
Invites You To Read THE DAILY RARE BIT FIENDS
updated every day along with news of the world's most popular artform!
THE COMICON.COM DAILY SPLASHis always refreshing!
www.comicon.com/splash