Superman Through the Ages! Forum

The Superman Family! => Superboy => Topic started by: Klar Ken T5477 on April 05, 2006, 09:02:55 AM



Title: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: Klar Ken T5477 on April 05, 2006, 09:02:55 AM
From Daily Variety: 4/5/06

There's a big dispute in "Smallville."
A federal judge in Los Angeles has found that the WBthe WB's young Superman skeinskein may be infringing on the copyrights held on the Superboy character by the widow and daughter of Jerome Siegel, originator of the comicbook series.

The March 23 summary judgment by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew also found that Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson had successfully recaptured the Superboy rights as of Nov. 17, 2004.

Lew's rulings in the copyright infringement lawsuit against Time WarnerTime Warner, Warner Bros. and DC ComicsDC Comics throw into question the ownership of "Smallville""Smallville" episodes that have run since November 2004. Lew denied a request by the defendants for a ruling that "Smallville" did not infringe on the Superboy copyrights.

Warner Bros. said in response that it "respectfully disagrees" with the rulings and will pursue an appeal.

Still to be resolved is the question of whether "Smallville" -- now in its fifth season and centered on a teenage Clark Kent -- is actually infringing on the Superboy copyright. No trial date has been set in the suit, filed in 2004.

In their request for partial summary judgment, Siegel and Larson didn't ask for a copyright infringement ruling, which Lew said would require a "detailed factual comparison." But he noted, "Enough facts are presented, where this court, contrary to defendants' request, could find that the main character in 'Smallville' is in fact Superboy."

Lew also added in a footnote, "In the Superboy comic strip, a billboard on the side of a rural country road announces, 'Welcome to Smallville! Home of Superboy."

In response, Warner Bros. also pointed out that the suit is directed solely to rights relating to the costumed character Superboy -- not Superman. "Moreover, the court's ruling does not affect the television series 'Smallville,' which is grounded in depictions of a young Superman that pre-date the publication of Superboy in 1944 and which therefore are not subject to the termination notice, even if valid," Warner added.

Marc Toberoff, who represents Siegel and Larson, told Daily Variety that the only representations of a younger Superman which pre-date 1944 Superboy consist of one or two panels showing Superman as a baby or toddler. "Jerry Siegel's Superboy focuses on Superboy's relationship with his parents and his adventures with school classmates in a small town which, by Superboy No. 2, was named Smallville," he added.

The dispute over who owns Superboy goes back to 1938 -- the same year the first Superman comicbook, based on the story originated by Siegel and illustrator Joseph Shuster, was published.

A few months later, Siegel agreed to provide Detective Comics with a new Superboy comicstrip and submitted a plan that was turned down. Siegel unsuccessfully attempted several more times to pique Detective's interest in Superboy before entering the Army in 1943.

But Detective began publishing Superboy comics in 1944 while Siegel was stationed in the Pacific, resulting in a 1947 lawsuit in which New York state court Judge Addison Young found Siegel to be the sole owner of Superboy. In 1948, Siegel reached a settlement with National Comics Publications (predecessor of DC Comics) in which he sold ownership of Superboy and Superman to National.

Siegel and Shuster sued to regain the Superman copyright in 1973, but lost that suit two years later. Siegel then launched a PR campaign to protest DC Comics' treatment of him and Shuster, placing a "curse" on the upcoming "Superman" film and resulting in Warner Communications awarding annual pensions to the duo along with credit as co-creators.

Shuster died in 1992; Siegel passed away four years later.

The Superboy copyrights -- granted originally for the standard 28 years -- were renewed for another 28 years between 1972 and 1975.

However, Congress amended copyright law in 1976 to extend renewal terms from 28 years to 47 years in order to allow authors and their heirs to recapture copyrights for the extended renewal period. So in late 2002, Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson served the standard two-year notice they were terminating the 1948 grant of the Superboy copyright.

But in August 2004, DC Comics notified Siegel and Larson it was denying the validity of the termination notice and asserting it would "vigorously oppose" any attempt to exploit the Superboy copyrights. Siegel and Larson filed their suit two months later.

In their legal responses to the Superboy suit, Time Warner and its co-defendants had contended Superboy was simply a younger version of Superman and that Superboy was "work for hire" solely owned by its predecessors. But Lew said those arguments were unpersuasive in light of rulings made by Judge Young in the 1947 trial.

Lew noted that Young had made those determinations after hearing evidence from the parties who were "directly involved" in the original dispute.

"Defendants' attempt to recast Superboy as a 'derivative work' or 'work for hire' stands in stark contrast to Judge Young's conclusion that Detective/National was 'perpetually enjoined and restrained from creating, publishing, selling or distributing' Superboy, based on the fact that Siegel was the sole and exclusive owner," Lew said.

"Defendants' argument also contradicts the fact that Siegel subsequently transferred his exclusive interest in Superboy to National in the May 19, 1948, stipulated settlement. Had Superboy been nothing more than a derivative work, Siegel would have owned no interest in the Superboy property to transfer."

Lew also noted that the defendants' predecessors had relied on Young's rulings in previous cases such as Siegel-Shuster's unsuccessful 1973 suit. "Defendants now take the inconsistent position that this court is not bound by the state court findings, as they relate to Superboy," he wrote.

Toberoff, a specialist in intellectual property, represented Robert B. Clark in his suit against Warner Bros., which was settled last year for at least $17.5 million for infringing on the copyright to the 1974 film "Moonrunners" by making the feature "The Dukes of Hazzard." "Moonrunners" became the basis of the Warner TV series "The Dukes of Hazzard."


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: dto on April 05, 2006, 10:12:10 AM
So the Siegels have the "Superboy" rights again, eh?

Perhaps that's why DC is drastically changing their Superboys (killing Conner Kent and altering now-villain Superboy-Prime's costume) -- they don't want to bother with potential lawsuits from the Siegels if higher courts uphold their claim.  

Current copyright protections extend to 75 years after the death of the creator.  Will this mean DC won't touch Superboy until after he finally becomes "public domain" in 2071?   :shock:   Hopefully some agreement can be made with the Siegels so DC can continue publishing a Superboy, but judging from past acrimony on both sides perhaps DC is prudent to take such precautionary measures.


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: DBN on April 05, 2006, 02:01:45 PM
Well, the new Legion cartoon has Superboy in it.


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: Super Monkey on April 05, 2006, 04:26:35 PM
DC can use Superboy, but they have to pay the Siegels when they use him.

The lawsuit is from the fact that the Siegels haven't seen a red cent from Smallville.

I guess DC figured, heck as long as we don't call him Superboy (but they actually did as a joke) and as long as he never wears the supersuit, we don't have to pay those darn Siegels and kept all the money for us, hahahaha or something like that ;)

Hey, read this: http://superman.nu/tales3/birthOfSuperboy/


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: TELLE on April 06, 2006, 01:03:04 AM
I wonder why Warner would try to deny their legal obligation re: the Siegels and Superboy?  Corporations can't feel.


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: Great Rao on April 06, 2006, 04:35:13 PM
More updates:

Siegel Heirs Win Ruling Calling "Smallville" Ownership into ...
http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=9983
Toon Zone - Yonkers,NY,USA
A Los Angeles judge has ruled that the WB network's TV show Smallville may infringe on the copyrights on Superboy held by Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson ...

STUDIO BRIEFING: April 5th, 2006
http://www.movieweb.com/news/48/11948.php
MovieWeb - USA
... As reported by Daily Variety, the ruling by Judge Ronald SW Lew observed that Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson had successfully recaptured the copyright ...

More here:
http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&hl=en&client=google&ncl=http://news.toonzone.net/article.php%3FID%3D9983

That's Truth, Justice, and the American Way for you!

:s:


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: Klar Ken T5477 on April 06, 2006, 08:25:57 PM
I salute my imaginary relatives! :)


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: TELLE on April 06, 2006, 11:22:24 PM
This story is just exploding everywhere.  More so than when they won the rights in the first place, because it concerns an active TV property and people are thinking about the movie hype already.


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: DoctorZero on April 07, 2006, 07:55:20 PM
It will be interesting to see how this comes out.  I suspect they will end up paying the Siegels money for Smallville to continue.


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: TELLE on April 07, 2006, 08:00:47 PM
I think so too --is Smallville made by a separate production company or does Warnets own most of it?  How do those things work?

The Comics Reporter has links to 3 separate articles by Mark Evanier about the case --Evanier is very knowledgeable.

http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/mark_evanier_on_superboy_and_siegels1/


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: Klar Ken T5477 on April 07, 2006, 08:23:06 PM
Warners owns it


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: MatterEaterLad on April 07, 2006, 08:31:22 PM
Huh, with WB and UPN merging and sorting out shows, I wonder if the ad revunues are strong enough for Smallville to think its worth it...


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: Great Rao on April 07, 2006, 09:45:58 PM
Looks like the whole thing is going to go to a jury.

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,18747,00.html

:s:


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: TELLE on April 09, 2006, 08:54:13 AM
The people will decide, then.  Too bad Jerry and Joe often faced only judges and lawyers.


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: TELLE on April 10, 2006, 03:31:24 AM
Journo Heidi MacDonald parses the latest news:
http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/04/siegels_regain_superboy.html

Quote
A few months later, Siegel agreed to provide Detective Comics with a new Superboy comicstrip and submitted a plan that was turned down. Siegel unsuccessfully attempted several more times to pique Detective's interest in Superboy before entering the Army in 1943.

But Detective began publishing Superboy comics in 1944 while Siegel was stationed in the Pacific, resulting in a 1947 lawsuit in which New York state court Judge Addison Young found Siegel to be the sole owner of Superboy. In 1948, Siegel reached a settlement with National Comics Publications (predecessor of DC Comics) in which he sold ownership of Superboy and Superman to National.

Well that ends that, then, right? Not really, because the new copyright laws enacted in 1976 allowed original copyright holders to regain their rights -- a provision specifically created for authors who had signed "bad deals."

So in late 2002, Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson served the standard two-year notice they were terminating the 1948 grant of the Superboy copyright.

But in August 2004, DC Comics notified Siegel and Larson it was denying the validity of the termination notice and asserting it would "vigorously oppose" any attempt to exploit the Superboy copyrights. Siegel and Larson filed their suit two months later.

So, to sum up exceedingly briefly, Siegel and Larson have regained the copyright to Superboy. Warners intends to appeal, naturally, and now the crux of the argument will be whether SMALLVILLE depicts a young Clark Kent, or the specific character of Superboy.

It's of some note that this story has ben kept exceedingly quiet, unlike other, less meritorious claims for copyright by older comics creators. It's widely believed that negotiations have ben ongoing between the Siegel heirs and DC Comics execs who have been supportive of Superman creators Siegel and Joe Shuster in the past.

Finally, it's being noted around the web today that in the latest issue of Infinite Crisis a whole bunch of Superboys have been killed. Coincidence? Or a prudent plan since the Siegel's claim to Superboy always appeared strong? U decide.

We'll have more on this after we digest a few hundred pages of legal brief we have sitting here.



Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: TELLE on April 12, 2006, 10:16:27 AM
and then writes an article for Publisher's Weekly, including an interview with the Siegels' lawyer:

http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6323787.html

Quote
Contacted by PWCW, the Siegels' attorney, Marc Toberoff, gave his own take on why the copyright termination clause was included. Toberoff says that the clause was not added to wreak havoc on the publishing world, but to protect authors. Fifty-six years is a long time, says Toberoff, and in order to clear all the hurdles necessary for a copyright grant termination to take effect, there has to be a lot of money at stake to survive the economic war of attrition that the legal battle will cause. Toberoff said the Siegel decision could be significant—with more creations coming up for copyright renewal, publishers may try to sweeten the pot to keep authors or their heirs from filing.



and more about Infinite Crisis:
 
Quote
But it doesn't end there. On February 2, 1998, Siegel and Larson filed a termination of grant for Superman "and 2,607 other titles," which would have taken effect on April 16, 1999. Joe Shuster had no children, but his nephew and executor, Mark Peary, also filed for termination of grant, which would take effect on October 26, 2013. DC had argued in the past that because the Siegels did not own more than 50% of Superman, the termination was not valid, but it is speculated that this is the subject of ongoing negotiations.


While the legal battles go on behind the scenes, real-world repercussions are already being felt. Perhaps expecting the court decision to go against Time Warner, DC recently killed off several versions of Superboy in its Infinite Crisis miniseries.


For Joanne Siegel—who was the model for Lois Lane—and Laura Siegel Larson, the March 23 decision provides some vindication after a very long battle. Or as one legal observer put it, "It's the first good news they've had in 50 years."


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: Gangbuster on May 05, 2006, 03:05:35 PM
I don't see how Jerry Siegel's wife and daughter could not win this case. They filed a 2-year termination notice in 2002 and got the rights to Superboy back in 2004, as the judge recently ruled. He also opined that Smallville was in violation of the copyright, but left it to a jury to decide.

Basically, it boils down to this bit of history: A young Clark Kent was never shown as NOT being Superboy. Siegel submitted a Superboy proposal in 1938, but DC didn't want it at the time. In 1945, when he was away at war, they published it without permission...so in the 1947-48 legal proceedings Siegel was awarded sole custody of Superboy. He then sold the Superboy copyright to DC for a period of time.

The Siegel's understanding, and the legal understanding, of Superboy (and Jerry continued to write Superboy comics until about 1966) is that "Superboy" stories are the adventures of Superman before he was Superman. Also, any other characters that have been named Superboy during this time, like Elliot Maggin's Superboy Prime (1985) or Kon-El (1993) now belong to the Siegels.

Warner Bros. is trying to argue this: Smallville is a show about a young Clark Kent, not a young Superman. Thus, they are not in violation of the copyright. They will probably fail, and the Siegels will own all Smallville episodes since 2004. This is why:

1) In several Smallville promotional photos, "young Clark Kent" is shown with an 'S' on his chest. He always wears red and blue in the episodes.

2) Since 2004, young Clark Kent has been nicknamed "Superboy" on the show. I believe that both Chloe and the Aquaman character have called him this.

3) Lana Lang, Pete Ross, and even the town of Smallville were created in Superboy comics.

My guess is that Smallville will move forward, but that WB will have to pay lots of money, for DVDs, reruns on ABC family, etc.

Here are the ramifications of this: a young Superman could be defined by law as legally being always Superboy, which I like. While DC still owns the "Superboy" trademark, like Marvel owning "Captain Marvel," the Siegels own the content of every Superboy story ever written, even the most recent Superboy series, if I'm not mistaken. The Superboy TV show, which went through several years of legal wrangling before WB finally got control of it, now automatically belongs to the Siegels. If this is true, I am very happy.


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: ShinDangaioh on May 05, 2006, 04:39:30 PM
I've got a silly question.

If it is found that the Siegel's own everything introduced in the Superboy comics and assoicated with Superboy, wouldn't that include the Legion of Super-Heroes as well?


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: Gangbuster on May 05, 2006, 04:45:44 PM
I don't think so. Basically, they would own the right to use Superboy in print. However, DC would still own the trademark (the right to stamp "Superboy" on a product) so if the Siegels sold Superboy items or stories separately, they would have to put some other label on it, similar to the way all Captain Marvel stories now have "Shazam!" on the cover.


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: Great Rao on September 23, 2007, 10:59:43 PM
More updates on this:

http://www.trexfiles.com/2007/09/the_latest_on_the_supermansupe.html


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: Lee Semmens on September 25, 2007, 08:23:09 AM
I've got a silly question.

If it is found that the Siegels own everything introduced in the Superboy comics and assoicated with Superboy, wouldn't that include the Legion of Super-Heroes as well?

No, because Jerry Siegel didn't create such characters or concepts as Lana Lang, Krypto, Legion of Super-Heroes, or even Smallville (early stories were set in Metropolis).

The Siegels would have no legal claim on anything in Superboy or Adventure Comics not actually created by Jerry Siegel.


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: Super Monkey on September 25, 2007, 01:10:00 PM

No, because Jerry Siegel didn't create such characters or concepts as Lana Lang, Krypto, Legion of Super-Heroes, or even Smallville (early stories were set in Metropolis).

That was Otto Binder.


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: AMAZO on September 25, 2007, 02:51:01 PM
Otto Binder really did do a lot to flesh out the Superman universe didn't he? It's amazing just how many of his stories and concepts have hung around. After Jerry Siegel, I'd have to say Binder is the most important Superman writer.


(I like Morrison too)


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: Klar Ken T5477 on September 26, 2007, 05:13:55 AM
And Edmond Hamilton.

And whoever came up with The Empty Doom (Phantom Zone) in "Superman Vs Atom Man".

Binder also created Brainiac AND Kandor.


Title: Re: SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY
Post by: India Ink on September 26, 2007, 02:17:47 PM
I think the legal argument goes that if Superboy always belonged to Siegel and not DC (or at least partially), then whatever was created under that feature (Krypto, Lana, the Legion) is therefore the property of that feature.  But you would have to argue this out in court, and there are lots of legal angles that we don't understand.  It's not a simple case.

Binder, Hamilton, et al were working for DC--therefore everything they did was work for hire. But also, Wesinger always said that he came up with these ideas (and I tend to think he probably did in a lot of cases) and told the writers what to write. Binder and Hamilton and Siegel all had their own distinctive styles and gave their own tone to the plots. But I'm not sure you can copyright tone.

By the same token, artists probably came up with ideas on the page, that the writers didn't think of. And those visual ideas would have given Weisinger further springboards he would have passed on to his writers.