Darren Hick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Kurt Busiek wrote:
<>

>> Why do you only make assumptions that benefit the creator?>>

I don't. I simply remain open to possibility in lieu of hard evidence either way. I don't know what S&S signed away, and didn't say that I did. You base your argument on them having signed away all rights when you don't know that they did.

>> Okay, silly question. Nonetheless, your reasoning for Siegel's heirs' rights is peppered (nay, littered) with statements like "As far as I can tell," "but very likely," "I don't know for sure, but," "I don't know what S&S signed, but..." and so on.>>

That's true. That's because I'm not actually making a case for their rights, but rebutting your case for their having none. I don't know what they signed away -- I can guess that they didn't sign away everything, or they'd have had no case on SUPERBOY a few years later, but I can't know for sure and don't pretend to.

>>I'm making assumptions for the side of the publisher simply because everyone else is making assumptions for Siegel and Shuster.>>

I don't really think we should draw conclusions from assumptions either way; at best, we can only reach guesses.

>>Busiek again:
<< 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.>>

>>For you to claim that I'm uninformed because I'm making the opposite assumptions as you was pretty unexpected by me, as well.>>

Then you didn't read what I wrote, Darren, because I didn't say any such thing. It was your comment about demanding massive restitution that suggests to me your were uninformed. The Siegel estate isn't doing that -- as was made clear in the original news story, and as I reiterated in my response to you.

kurt

Darren-
Can the hyperbole and you might be making some clearer points. Just because you can cite a couple of exceptions to a basic rule of thumb doesn't discount the essential truth of the facts in contention. When I stated that creators are "fairly universally recognized as the primary force everywhere else in the publishing world", I should have included an "almost" before "everywhere". My neglecting to do so doesn't create a "grossly misinformed" opinion, it merely gives you an excuse to cite a couple of rare exceptions, neither of which is directly related to publishing creative writing.

(And are you truly equating the contributors to the Oxford English Dictionary with creators in order to disprove my point? Surely you recognize the difference between researchers writing clear descriptions and writers pulling something from their own imaginations.)

To clarify my position, I believe that any ETHICAL publisher looks to make money while enriching the author proportionally. If you feel that this description accurately fits DC, then your pleasant description of those who feel a publisher has a duty to do more than enrich itself would be more aptly applied elsewhere. ("Hopelessly deluded" indeed. Why the need to pepper your arguments with a constant stream of insults when trying to share information and a point of view? I've not thrown any insults at you or your position, I've merely disagreed with you, and I feel that the insults are inappropriate and unwarranted.)

As for Kurt's points, he's at least equally as capable of defending and clarifying his points as I am (probably more so), but I do wish to add that one of the things I've always admired about Fantagraphics (and by this I mean to fully credit Gary and Kim) is their strong ethical position on creator's rights. When Kurt alludes to surprise at an editor at Fantagraphics flagship publication discounting the possibility that Siegel and Shuster were maltreated by NPP, and assuming the honorable intentions of a publisher whom the Comics Journal has regularly detailed as displaying shaky ethics (even if you state you're doing it for argument's sake), I have to admit that it seems a little unusual to me as well.

A couple of points:

The SPIRIT SECTION (to give it its full name) was not self-publishing as we would understand it today - rather Eisner packaged up a comics section that was sold to newspapers unable to do it themselves. Eisner ran a studio that supplied all the comics for this section. So he wasn't so much a publisher as he was a packager. The Eisner studio also sold stories to a variety of comics publishers.

Its worth noting that this was pretty common practice at the time, and as I understand it S&S did it too (as did Simon & Kirby) - their studio put together the SUPERMAN stuff which they supplied to DC. They did this largely because Shuster couldn't keep up with the demands for more art. Whether their "studio" was really just a bit of DC over which they had some control, or an autonomous unit that could have taken their work to whatever publisher wanted it, I'm not sure (although I suspect the former).

Note also that S&S probably paid the extra artists themselves out of the "vast" sums that NPP was paying for SUPERMAN, either directly or indirectly.

Finally, Kurt's said this already, but it bears repeating: the Siegel's are not asking for, nor are they due any money DC made over the last 60 years. The law was specifically designed to protect people who had signed their rights away for a certain period. While NPP did pay S&S, and did make that risky investment (and it was risky, there's no denying it), should they be allowed an extra bite of the cherry for free?

To use Darren's patent example - while you can sell/licence your patent rights, wouldn't you be pissed off if after those rights were to have elapsed, thus allowing you to sell them elsewhere, the rules were changed and you were told you'd have to wait another 30 years?

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

Am I the only one who would be interested in hearing Howard Stern's take on all this?
He's been known to call up DC on the air in the past.
I'd get up early to listen.

Hey Alias:

I'd love to but I don't get Stern down here. But if you do hear something please post a quick recap -- if you can.

I'm well aware of the current situation, Kurt, as well as some of the finer (if muddled) points of U.S. Copyright Law. My arguments have been based on Edmalex's original reference to NPP/DC as "the company that robbed him [Siegel] at pen point."

In terms of the third term of copyright ownership, provided Siegel & Shuster didn't sign the rights to Superman away in perpetuity (and I have to think that NPP/DC would have at least tried to arrange it so that they did, and that S&S would've likely been happy to agree to such an arrangement), the Siegel heirs are fully justified in applying for termination of DC's copyright grant. For those who complain that DC is fighting the matter, though, keep in mind that the Siegels' application for termination is just that: an application, which may or may not be recognized by the court system.

David Groenewegen 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.

David Groenewegen 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.

Edmalex wrote:
<>

Well, surprise, surprise that I'm not always willing to give the creator the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying they weren't AT ANY TIME mistreated (the Superboy case lends evidence to the contrary). What I'm saying is that when they signed away their rights to Superman (for however long), they weren't mistreated.

Darren says: "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."

When I interviewed the TIME WARNER P.R. person, she was quick to point these figures out as proof that S&S were ingrates. When I asked how much the SUPERMAN franchise had brought in to NPP/DC in total, suggesting it would be fare to compare the two amounts in my reporting, she said such figures were not available.

I think if someone could realisticaly come up with such a total (and like the S&S numbers often are, factor it for inflation) the difference between what S&S made from their creation and what NPP/DC made would put the situation in a clearer perspective.

I believe, from research I did on the MAXIMORTAL, that Siegel also thought that he and Shuster had an verbal agreement that guaranteed them the production of the book and royalties from licensing. When he went public in the early seventies he released a letter he'd received from National circa 1940 which indicates they too were aware of such an agreement and were hiding the fact that they'd signed a deal with Fleischer studios for cartoons and a number of other lucrative contracts. I don't have a copy of it in front of me, but it appeared in Phil Yeh's Uncle Jam alternative newspaper (which was one of the first to report on Siegel's plight as the SUPERMAN movie went into production). In the letter, the publisher tells Siegel to concentrate on the books and forget any dreams of movies and toys because the SUPERMAN feature was losing money.




------------------
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

Darren Hick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I'm well aware of the current situation, Kurt, as well as some of the finer (if muddled) points of U.S. Copyright Law. My arguments have been based on Edmalex's original reference to NPP/DC as "the company that robbed him [Siegel] at pen point.">>

Including your reference to your not being in a position to make a demand for massive restitution were you to have signed away similar rights? That certainly read as if it were a reference to the current claim, and if you didn't intend it that way I think you were unclear.

Nonetheless, it seems you've clarified that point.

>>In terms of the third term of copyright ownership, provided Siegel & Shuster didn't sign the rights to Superman away in perpetuity (and I have to think that NPP/DC would have at least tried to arrange it so that they did, and that S&S would've likely been happy to agree to such an arrangement), the Siegel heirs are fully justified in applying for termination of DC's copyright grant.>>

Thanks for that -- I hadn't been getting that impression from your earlier posts at all. For my part, I don't have to think that NPP would have arranged things to their greatest legal benefit, though, not in an industry so rife with examples of publishers not doing any such thing. I think it would have been smart of them to, but that's another matter entirely. The history of comics publishing is full of publishers assuming, but not securing, sweeping rights to work that they then exploit to their sole benefit, regardless of the fact that it was risky of them to do so.

I don't make the assumption that NPP didn't get those rights, either -- or that if they did, they promised nothing beyond $130 for them. Without more information than I have now, I can't tell either way.

>>I'm saying is that when they signed away their rights to Superman (for however long), they weren't mistreated.>>

If the publisher assumed more rights to themselves than the deal provided for, I'd say they were. I don't know for sure either way, but I won't make the assumption that NPP was entirely in the right, regardless of S&S making more money for a few years than either you or I do. NPP made even more money than S&S during those years, so I'd be happy to be as "poor" as either side, without it affecting whatever legal rights might be involved.

kurt

Darren Hick said:
>>>For those who complain that DC is fighting the matter, though, keep in mind that the Siegels' application for termination is just that: an application, which may or may not be recognized by the court system. <<<

um, no it's not. not really, anyway. The Siegels were fully within their rights to file this - no approval process necessary. You file, it happens (at least according to my original article and the follow-up at: http://www.anotheruniverse.com/comics/features/supermanrights5.html - sorry Rick!)

In the follow up, Arthur Levine (the Siegels' attorney) makes it very clear:
"I don't know what their [TW] exact 'interpretation of the law' is and how they're claiming it is different from our interpretation of the law," Levine says. "What I can say is that we filed legally sound, legally correct notices of termination and I have no question that the termination is valid."

and followed that up with this:
"All I can say is that we filed the notices and the Siegels are now joint owners with DC Comics of the Superman character, and that's where things stand right now."

so unless, Levine, a prominent patent/copyright attorney in his own right, was just yanking my chain, the papers are good to go. as I stated in the original article, there is no courtroom process at all if things proceed normally. If a party has a challenge to said termination, they're free to sue to keep the creator (or creator's heirs) from getting the copyright, but so far, DC/TW has shown no interest in 2 and a half years of talks to call in the courts.

as far as courts recognizing it, again, what the Siegels filed was allowed by the law. If DC feels thay have a case and wants to drag the Siegels into court, they can, but as the article and Rick states, no one connected with the matter thinks DC/TW is looking to bring "Mrs. Superman" into court for a publicized (if you think the NY Post has ignored this so far....) trial wherein she recounts the well-documented stories regarding her husband and Joe Shuster's treatment over the years.

As for DC 'fighting the matter' they are. Otherwise, they would've given up the half of the copyright. Whatever settlement is being brokered ain't a 'thanks for letting us use him' parting gift. It's a purchase price.

matt

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

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

Darren-

I find your selective answers to be troubling. I (and others) have written on this board about the disturbing over all treatment that Siegel and Shuster recieved from DC, and you've been taking a position that we somehow have our collective heads up our asses because you feel that the contracts they signed treated them fairly. Every indication seems to show that NPP cheated them out of owed money at several points, and became abusive when called to task, and even you seem to acknowledge this in your last comment. In my initial post I stated that NPP had cheated S&S. I didn't state that the cheat was the initial contract for Superman, and for you to decide that this was my point and focus on it is a little disengenious.

I understand when anonymous (usually fairly young) posters take on a hostile and confrontive tone to ward off the arguments of people they disagree with, but I don't feel that it's either necessary or appropriate for you to do so when, by dint of your position, you're representing a magazine that frequently acts as the voice of conscience for the comics industry. I'm neither asking nor expecting you to give creators the benefit of the doubt at all times when there's a conflict with a publisher, but I do think it would be appropriate, in lieu of having actual facts at your disposal, not to presume for either party. I also expect you to respond to a point being made instead of pulling a rhetorical switch and responding to something other than the issue in question (which was S&S's overall treatment at the hands of their publisher). There's no reason not to make your arguments clearly and gracefully.

Thanks
-Ed