O'Neil posted an excerpt from Levine's filing:

"'An Agreement of EMPLOYMENT [emphasis mine] executed on or about December 4, 1937, which states in
part that 'any new and additional features which the employees [Siegel and Shuster] produce for use in a
comic magazine are to be first submitted to the Employer [Detective Comics, Inc.], who reserves the right to
accept or reject same within a period of Sixty days.'
"Clearly, somebody--either DC and/or S&S--saw their deal as an employment contract, as well as a sale of a
particular already completed work."

Kurt replied:

"Well, that pretty well clinches the idea that there was more to S&S's sale of Superman than $130 and no
further obligation. The part quoted here refers to obligations on S&S's part, not DC's, but they're obligations
in an ongoing, contractual relationship. Without more actual data, we can't tell for sure what the obligations
were on the other side, but it's very hard to imagine there were none..."

I don't think this 'clinches' anything. Anyone who's been involved in protracted, hardball litigation knows each lawyer's motion or filing puts his client's spin on it. Note the wording "in part," for example. Moreover, nowhere is it stated that the agreement of employment was part of the initial deal for Superman; it could've been a deal cut after they "sold" DC Superman.

The actual details of this 'done deal' are ambiguous and there is probably much wrangling going on between Siegel and Time Warner in terms of copyright vs. trademark and from what usage the money comes.

Kurt: Thanks for clarifying that one point; it makes perfect sense.

I have only one quibble about this exchange:

Groth: My guess is that DC gave them a bone by overpaying them for running the Superman factory (where they
oversaw their fellow artists taken advantage of by DC via them), a rare bit of noblesse oblige on DC's part
that kept S&S happy and got the work done out of house so DC didn't have to worry about it.>>

Busiek: What you're doing here is assuming that S&S screwed up because it's in character, but assuming that DC
was remarkably generous, which isn't in character. You could just as readily assume that S&S did one smart
thing in their dealings with DC, and that otherwise DC would have been consistently greedy. Either way,
someone acted out of character -- we just don't know which one.

I'm told that S&S's deal on the Superman newspaper strip was amazingly slanted in their favor -- virtually all
the money went to them with only a tiny pittance going to DC. If this is the case, then that was one hell of a
bone for DC to throw when they could have paid a page rate and kept the lion's share of the money
themselves. But they didn't -- they made deals that put hundreds of thousands of dollars into S&S's pockets
when, if Darren's assumptions are correct, they had no reason to do so beyond being nice. Arguing that S&S
couldn't have had any sort of employment deal because it was out of character doesn't really fly when it
depends on DC being just as out of character for the hypothesis to work.

So did DC reward S&S all out of proportion to their obligations? I dunno, maybe. Did S&S sell Superman
contingent on the idea that if they could ever sell a comic strip, which was what they wanted in the first
place, they could do it on the kind of terms they'd have gotten if they owned the character, and DC agreed
because they never imagined such an eventuality would actually happen? I dunno, maybe. Did DC funnel all
work on Superman through S&S for a while because they thought it was a great idea to pay S&S high rates
instead of hiring S&S's employees to work directly cheaper? Did they funnel all the work through S&S
because they'd promised to? I dunno.

End quote.

I think the contradiction you're positing here is faulty. Everything I know about S&S' decision-making throughout this period --'38 to '52, when they sued over Superboy-- indicates a pretty consistent dunderheadedness. Or, put more charitably, they never displayed the kind of savvy and shrewdness that they needed to take on DC and even when they won as in the case with Superboy, they gave it away.

DC, as well as other comics outfits up to approximately the late '50s were widlly inconsistent in their behavior toward creators. Some creators cut better deals than others; Kubert kept the rights to some of his comics; Simon & Kirby retained the rights to some of their comics; Kane cut a deal for Batman; and so forth. The blanket scorched earth policy toward creators was only cofidied in the late '50s/early '60s, probably due to the declining economic conditions, the emphatic buyer's market, and the consolidation of power among a handful of companies. Prior to that, companies' policies were a combination of paternalism, greed, and caprice.

In short, DC cutting them a better but no means equitable deal was not a matter of them acting out of character --their greed remained intact given the imbalance between what S&S were getting and what revenues DC was hauling on board-- and it may not have been to DC's disadvantage to keep "the boys" happy, or at least not resentful. I even heard that DC's hold on Superman was not ironclad and that it's possible S&S failed in their first lawsuit because they hired a bungling attorney (once again, perfectly in character). If this was the case, it certainly would've been in DC's best interests to keep them from investigating DC's ownership too closely. Throw them just enough meat to keep them assuaged. I think this, r some permutation of it, is more plausible than S&S securing an employment agreement while simultaneously selling their character en toto. Of course, as you suggest, it may have been something in between -- sell us your character and we'll let you write and draw the franchise, wink, wink, and the boys bought it.

We're going to dig as deeply as we can about all this. There's certainly a book's worth of material here.

Gary Groth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>I don't think this 'clinches' anything.>>

True enough. I'll amend that to "casts further doubt" on the idea that DC can't have had any obligation beyond the $130 because we hadn't heard about it.

>> The actual details of this 'done deal' are ambiguous -->>

Yep. This was one of my original points, in opposition to Darren.

>> I think the contradiction you're positing here is faulty. Everything I know about S&S' decision-making throughout this period --'38 to '52, when they sued over Superboy-- indicates a pretty consistent dunderheadedness. Or, put more charitably, they never displayed the kind of savvy and shrewdness that they needed to take on DC and even when they won as in the case with Superboy, they gave it away. DC, as well as other comics outfits up to approximately the late '50s were widlly inconsistent in their behavior toward creators.>>

Were they wildly inconsistent toward the same creators, though? Kane, Kirby et al seemed to get better deals; that's not inconsistency, but a consistency within particular circumstances -- when you have to make the deal to get the talent, you make the deal. Screwing the talent at one turn and handsomely rewarding the same guys at another does strike me as inconsistent.

>> In short, DC cutting them a better but no means equitable deal was not a matter of them acting out of character -->>

I've been arguing against the idea that DC didn't cut them _any_ deal beyond that $130 check. A better but by no means equitable deal is still a deal.

>> I even heard that DC's hold on Superman was not ironclad and that it's possible S&S failed in their first lawsuit because they hired a bungling attorney (once again, perfectly in character).>>

I wouldn't be surprised -- I'm only a little confused that yesterday you argued with my contention that DC might not have secured all rights with that first check and today you're saying that maybe they didn't after all. If what you've been told is correct, my argument that Darren's assumptions were groundless is in fact stronger, not mistaken.

>> Of course, as you suggest, it may have been something in between -- sell us your character and we'll let you write and draw the franchise, wink, wink, and the boys bought it.>>

Yep. My point hasn't been to argue that the deal was something in specific, merely that there wasn't enough evidence to assume that DC made no obligation to them beyond that one $130 payment. Everything I've been tossing out is just an alternate theory -- not meant to be my guess at the truth, just a demonstration that there are more possibilities than one.

I have to admit, I like the idea that S&S might have gotten a sweetheart deal on the newspaper strip because that's what they really wanted all along and inserted it into the deal at a time DC had no idea what it would be worth -- the percentages I've heard, if they're accurate, are so skewed in S&S's favor that I find it next to impossible to believe DC would give 'em that just to be nice, but they do match the kind of percentage S&S could have expected if they'd sold SUPERMAN as a strip on their own. But I like that because of the grace of it, and the faint ring of poetic justice -- not because I have any evidence in support of it. I fully recognize that my liking a particular airy supposition doesn't make it one whit more true.

>> We're going to dig as deeply as we can about all this. There's certainly a book's worth of material here.>>

I'll be fascinated to see the results.

kurt

Gary,

If the monetary worth of Superman is due equally to the efforts of the creative and marketing side, then there should be a 50/50 split. However, I find 2 assumptions that you seem to be making incorrect (or at least not necessarily true): (1) the creation of some property X is a primary determining factor in the financial rewards resulting from X; (2) all forms of creativity are deserving of equal dividends.

First, there are plenty of creations that are far more amazing than Superman filling up journals and books in the history of science that made little money in and of themselves, but were subsequently used for financial gain. For instance, von Neumann laid down the majority of principles by which current serial computing occurs, however neither he nor his heirs get a kickback from every PC sold. For every theoretical idea that is eventually put to use, are we as a society morally remiss in not demanding that the thinker/creator be given remuneration every time said idea is put to use? It is hoped that you answered, “depends on whether there was a contract (or some other form of agreement) involved.” I see no difference with the creation of Superman. If S&S didn’t have an agreement to receive 50% of all profits made from the use of Superman, then their status as ‘creators’ is irrelevant. They are due all the respect that any scientific, philosophical or political thinker is due for his/her creation, but the money is another matter. Remuneration results from the use of a property, not it’s creation. Unless the monetary value of some property can be causally traced to its creation, remuneration for the value of its usage is due to the person or conglomerate whose actions resulted in such value.

Second, it is those individuals creative at marketing properties (possessing acumen into the crass ways of the masses) who should be paid for doing just that, not the artists who created the property. It seems that Superman’s earning potential is due largely to marketing creativity (viz., through licensing) and not artistic creativity, therefore DC deserves much of the credit for turning Superman into the highly valuable, but soulless property that we see today. Although creators should be able to make a fine living from the use of their creations, there is a level of financial gain, requiring the most loathsome of populist pandering, that only the most unscrupulous among us has any hopes of achieving. In general, only corporations driven solely by economic interests and not artists are capable of such debased solicitude due to its being at odds with artistic creativity.

Let’s face it, Superman is more like a cereal brand than art, so why not believe DC deserves most of the credit for his present banality and, provided their contract with S&S was legitimate (i.e., both morally and legally), most of the money? I’m sure that had Superman been controlled by his creators, we’d see (as Rick V. suggested) a better character today. However, it is unlikely that the trademark would be worth as much (unless S&S behaved like DC’s marketing team), because the more singular the vision, the less interest from the masses.

Charles

[This message has been edited by Charles Reece (edited 09-22-1999).]

[This message has been edited by Charles Reece (edited 09-23-1999).]

Kurt said (Can I call you Kurt?)


Personally, I think S & S thought they were getting a deal just like the comic strips. Did the distributers ever take the creators off of their creation? Not that I can think of.

Mike Brady also had this to say about what I had said about what he said:


Well, this makes it a little wordy, but here it goes. The Siegels claim that the government says that the paper gives them ownership of half of Superman and loads of derivative properties including Steel. WB claims that the government says the paper means much less, perhaps only covering reprints of a few choice pages of Action 1.

The only way to find out what the government really thinks about it would be to have a judge make a ruling.

-Rik Spruitenburg

"Did the distributers ever take the creators off of their creation?"

Yes. Rudolph Dirks, who created The Katzenjammer Kids in 1897, took a year's vacation in 1912-13, and was replaced by Harold Knerr. When he returned, publisher/syndicator William Randolph Hearst refused to give it back. They went to court, and the baby was split -- Hearst got to keep the strip, while Dirks was allowed to take the same characters and sell them elsewhere. That's why, until at least as recently as the 1970s, there were competing strips with those characters (the other being The Captain and the Kids).

Far from an exact parallel, of course. Still, it's a clear example of capitalists glomming ambiguously-assigned rights, from the very early days of American comics.

Quack, Don

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

I did a radio show on this topic this past Tuesday. My guest was Michael Sangiacoma of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, who has been working on this topic (he writes a weekly comic book column for them and has written on the Siegels (who are from Cleveland) before).

There are three heirs, the third being Jerry Siegel's son from his first wife. The government doesn't consider ex-wives (she is still alive) as heirs.

Time/Warner is fighting this harder than DC is because they fear for repercussions in other forms of entertainment. If all entertainment that was not created on staff is still owned by creators (Superman was written and drawn years before Siegel and Shuster worked for them), then most music that Time Warner publishes would not be owned by them. They have had few, if any, musicians on staff.
Think of what would happen to their jazz catalogue!
Paul Levitz is in the middle of all this. Not an enviable position. He may some day have to choose between his bosses and the Siegels.
Ironically, the cheapness of having writers, artists and musicians hired freelance instead of on staff may ultimately cost these corporations a lot of money.

This topic has implications far beyond comic books. Far beyond.



------------------
Ken Gale, co-host
'Nuff Said!, WBAI-FM
The weekly comic book radio show
www.nuffsaid.net

>>Paul Levitz is in the middle of all this. Not an enviable position. He may some day have to choose between his bosses and the Siegels.<<<

Is this a "Jim Shooter" bit of revisionism? Paul is being painted as "the good guy" on this board, but as an aside in a Comicon article last month they mention that it was Paul from this regime who painted S&S as ingrates and kooks in the media. Is that inaccurate?

------------------
*If The Red Bee Should Fall*
www.delphi.com/smithee/messages/

Even that isn't the same as firing them off the strip. I don't know any details, but this could be seen as loyalty to the current creator, Knerr. It's clearly a case of not wanting to change something that was working. Anyone else have an example of a syndicator removing the creator from his
creation? (No, killing the strip would not count.)

- Rik

Hey Ken:

Thanks for posting!
I agree totally. This "reluctance" by TIME/WARNER seems to be in character with a big corporation with alot to loose.
I especially agree with your comment on the repercussions going beyond comics.
As far as Mr. Levitz, I don't know the man personally so I (me, myself) won't presume to guess who he's trying to save.
If he resigns -- then it could be interpreted as in protest but we'd have to wait for a public message to be made (ala like he did with the Superbaby situation) but I guess it's a safe bet that anything like that won't come out until this is resolved.
At this point everything is just speculation.
Again, thanks for posting.