DC Actively Erasing Superboy

[DBN]

This doesn't make any sense, the Siegels own the rights to the concept of a Clark Kent Superboy in Smallville. IMO, that doesn't include Kon-El and moreso, DC has the trademark of the Superboy name. So, it shouldn't be a problem.

[Gangbuster]

This doesn't make any sense, the Siegels own the rights to the concept of a Clark Kent Superboy in Smallville. IMO, that doesn't include Kon-El and moreso, DC has the trademark of the Superboy name. So, it shouldn't be a problem.

Not exactly. The Siegels own the copyright, and DC owns the trademark. That means basically that DC could publish a comic book or any other product with "Superboy" on the cover, but if the story contains a Superboy, it is copyright infringement.

[Michel Weisnor]

This doesn't make any sense, the Siegels own the rights to the concept of a Clark Kent Superboy in Smallville. IMO, that doesn't include Kon-El and moreso, DC has the trademark of the Superboy name. So, it shouldn't be a problem.

Not exactly. The Siegels own the copyright, and DC owns the trademark. That means basically that DC could publish a comic book or any other product with "Superboy" on the cover, but if the story contains a Superboy, it is copyright infringement.

In the recent Action Comics Annual, a young Clark Kent is active in Smallville as "Superboy". He doesn't wear a costume but uses his powers; saves lives etc. DC refuses to use the name Superboy, except in reprints. That's about the size of it.   

[Great Rao]

In the recent Action Comics Annual, a young Clark Kent is active in Smallville as "Superboy". He doesn't wear a costume but uses his powers; saves lives etc. DC refuses to use the name Superboy, except in reprints. That's about the size of it.   

The only unknown is why the young Clark Kent doesn't wear a costume or go by the name.  Is it a creative/editorial decision, or a decree from the legal department?

And thus, we're back to the beginning of the thread.

This doesn't make any sense, the Siegels own the rights to the concept of a Clark Kent Superboy in Smallville. IMO, that doesn't include Kon-El and moreso, DC has the trademark of the Superboy name. So, it shouldn't be a problem.

You're attempting to apply logic to a legal situation; plus we don't know all the facts.

[JulianPerez]

Can someone out there with a far keener legal mind explain...in very small words...exactly what it is that this ruling means?

Incidentally, I'm reminded of the lawsuit by George Lucas against the creators of the original BATTLESTAR: GALACTICA, which TV GUIDE once called "STAR WARS 1 1/2." One of the comments by a juror on this case was very telling: "It's like the first Western ever made suing the second." I've always strongly suspected that jurors on these cases always treat science fiction differently. If the original BSG had been, say, a romantic comedy, it's hard to imagine the jury siding with Universal.

I would never celebrate at the death of a fellow human being, especially someone as talented in his own right as L. Sprague de Camp, but...really, thanks to him dying we've got these deluxe, unabridged versions of Conan, the Bran Mak Morn tales, etc. While L. Sprague is a great writer, his copyright-ownership stranglehold on Howard's estate, and refusal to allow "pure" Howard to be published really hurt fans. A pastiche by him or Lin Carter has no business with Howard's work, no more than something I write belongs there.

I've always thought the Superboy stories were better off in concept than in execution.

Cary Bates wrote a few great Superboy stories in the early eighties, to be sure (the one about Superboy's "extra candle" was fun, fun, fun)...and the "Superboy and the Legion" stories were classics (though really, despite his marquee name...did ANYONE read Legion...for Superboy?) but for the most part, the SUPERBOY comic was an unwelcome Silver Age-style atavism with an emphasis on gimmickry and transformations, usually featuring dubious and interchangeable smuggler/gangster villains, and was for DC what DOCTOR STRANGE would later become for Marvel in the eighties: a rest home for old fogeys past their prime, who did not Exit Stage Right with dignity the way Arnold Drake did.

I'm talking about Leo Dorfman, of course, who has penned some spectacular Superman tales (Superman Red/Superman Blue comes to mind)...but after 1969, I can't think of a single good Dorfman story of any kind, Superboy, Superman, or not. And combine that with Murray Bolitnoff editing, and...

And Superboy has had some pretty mediocre artists. I'm talking about George Papp and Al Plastino here. The brief, but major exception is Bob Brown, who is one of my all-time favorite AVENGERS artists, right up there with Perez and Heck. They had Murphy Anderson to ink over him on SUPERBOY, and you've got something explosive enough to need a warning label. Still, the Brown/Anderson combo didn't last as long as it ought to.

Just about every SUPERBOY comic I own, I bought for the Cary Bates/Dave Cockrum "Tales of the Legion" backup. While there are some Superboy stories I do love and cherish (Cary Bates's DC SUPER STARS #12 [1977], where the Super-Teacher returns and forces Superboy to fall in love and save his girlfriend from Bigfoot), Superboy doesn't make or break versions of Superman for me. He's not important enough to be hard-assed about.

If Geoff Johns wants there to be a Superboy, that's fine. If DC can't because of legal problems, that's fine too.

[DBN]

In the recent Action Comics Annual, a young Clark Kent is active in Smallville as "Superboy". He doesn't wear a costume but uses his powers; saves lives etc. DC refuses to use the name Superboy, except in reprints. That's about the size of it.   

The only unknown is why the young Clark Kent doesn't wear a costume or go by the name.  Is it a creative/editorial decision, or a decree from the legal department?

And thus, we're back to the beginning of the thread.

This doesn't make any sense, the Siegels own the rights to the concept of a Clark Kent Superboy in Smallville. IMO, that doesn't include Kon-El and moreso, DC has the trademark of the Superboy name. So, it shouldn't be a problem.

You're attempting to apply logic to a legal situation; plus we don't know all the facts.

It's confusing. At this time, I just don't see how this ruling would pertain to Kon-El, whom Siegel didn't create and who's origin is quite distinct from Siegel's creation.

[Gangbuster]

It's confusing. At this time, I just don't see how this ruling would pertain to Kon-El, whom Siegel didn't create and who's origin is quite distinct from Siegel's creation.

It wouldn't pertain to Kon-El, unless he is called Superboy in the comics. If they only refer to him as Kon-El, or give him a different name other than Superboy, he's ok.

However, at the end of the recent ruling giving control of Superboy back to the Siegels (since 2004) the judge stated that he thought the Siegels should seek action against Smallville, and they have. Though the first judge didn't rule on it, his opinion was that any young Superman is inherently also a Superboy.

If the Siegels win that case, not only would they own the Smallville TV series, but they could also win control of Superboy Prime and Kon-El, by demonstrating that they were young Supermen (in Kon-El's first appearances, he refused to be called anything but Superman.) DC might be forced to settle with the Siegels and admit that any "young Clark Kent" story is a Superboy story. Then DC would have no hope of "erasing Superboy" unless they also erased Superman, which they wouldn't do.

[nightwing]

Gangbuster writes:

That means basically that DC could publish a comic book or any other product with "Superboy" on the cover, but if the story contains a Superboy, it is copyright infringement.

Michel Weisnor writes:

DC refuses to use the name Superboy, except in reprints.

So....if they can print a comic with Superboy in the title, and they can feature Superboy in reprints (he did make it into Showcase Presents Superman, Vol 2), then we still have no explanation for why there isn't a Superboy Archive...or at least his own Showcase.

BTW, I see the Superboy segments have been removed from the upcoming DVD collection of Filmation's 1966 "New Adventures of Superman" cartoons.  Which is a shame, since Superboy and Krypto were the best part of the show.