Is the push for Jon as Superman motivated by ownership and legal wrangling?

[SecretWarrior]

Here an article explain some stuff on public domain

Mickey Mouse will be public domain soon—here’s what that means



I highly doubt any moves is because of legal reasons, And DC own trademarks on most of the core stuff and Superman is one of most deep rooted heroes in tradition, If you can't use his "S" and color scheme it won't feel like Superman. I don't think it would be like Dracula or Thor were you could pull off feel with out the key things. And then there is this

Arthur Conan Doyle’s estate sues Netflix for giving Sherlock Holmes too many feelings

Netflix Settles 'Enola Holmes' Lawsuit With Conan Doyle Estate

Conan Dolye estate sued Netflix for Sherlock character having feelings and Netflix settled with them,Imo It would be a nightmare trying not to copy Clark and Superman personality. You are better off making your own character who is a superman anolog than public domain version

There's value in using the "Superman," "Batman," "Bruce Wayne," and "Clark Kent" names in-story, in a similar manner to the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Superman could have an "S" logo, especially the Golden Age version. He could have the Golden Age color scheme as well. (It's not like some versions of Robin Hood have to wear orange or some versions of Dracula have to wear white.) And good luck getting money out of an LLC created just to publish such stories. They can fold and the creators can find other means to publish.

I know I'm now particularly interested in the Golden Age versions of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and Dr. Fate. And in about 15 years, I could "own" stories about these characters, even if I don't own the characters themselves. You could just title your book something like "Ultra Comics Presents The Super Society."

I mean, you could have Wonder Woman set in the 1920s hanging out with the Great Gatsby-- Or Bruce Wayne could meet Sherlock Holmes-- Or Alan Scott and Doc Nelson could meet Doc Savage, King Arthur, Hercule Poirot, Steve Rogers, and Mickey Mouse-- Or Superman could meet Tarzan, Popeye, John Carter, King Kong, and the three stooges. Aquaman could really go to war with Namor over Atlantis. I'm not going to miss out on opportunities like that.

[SecretWarrior]

You know these characters will be on an ABC or BBC show at some point, meeting Dr. Who or someone--





I know Alan Moore says he's "retired," but it'd be cool if he came back to thumb his nose by using these characters.

[SecretWarrior]

Interesting comments from this article:

Ironic that Disney might get all litigious over derivative works when many of their most famous and lucrative pieces were themselves derivative of various fairy tales etc. Some of which wouldn’t have been that long out of copyright under current law (The Little Mermaid film, for instance, is about 130 years removed from the original story's publication; tack an extension or two on top of current law, and you’re getting close).

[SecretWarrior]

There are some character elements you'd have to avoid. Like, if you used Alan Scott, who is now known as gay, you would probably have to avoid his sexuality or make him bi. The original, public domain version would be straight, but with the HBO show, the public expect him to be gay. If an independent creator makes him straight, it looks like erasure. If a creator makes him gay, you could run into legal issues. I guess in a situation like that, you could come up with a new person (say "Scott Allen") under the old mask (still "Green Lantern"), giving you more leeway.

[Jim Kelly]

What do people think is gained by Superman entering the public domain?

[SecretWarrior]

What do people think is gained by Superman entering the public domain?

Creators have another character with name recognition they can use. They also have more creative freedom with the character than ever.

Why should these characters be privatized forever, when no other invention is?

[SecretWarrior]

Also, let's say you only want to publish Superman comics-- Why should you have to spend years waiting to get picked to do it?

[SecretWarrior]

Oh, and you have a built in supporting cast, backstory, and psychology to work from at the outset creatively. Seems to be why Alan Moore was drawn to public domain characters.

[Jim Kelly]

Creators have another character with name recognition they can use. They also have more creative freedom with the character than ever.

Why should these characters be privatized forever, when no other invention is?

But do creators do that? It seems to me the exodus of talent from D.C. and Marvel is because 1) the publishers don't want to give enough creative rights to talent where they can share in the profits and 2) the talent want to create their own characters and not have the publisher taking all the royalties. So the incentive is for creators to create--not simply use an already established character. What you would probably have is creators trying to make the "Superman" their own, so they could copyright their product.

I would have liked it if Alan Moore had been able to do with Superman what he did with Supreme. But it would have only been good if it was an official D.C. treatment of the character (imagine if Moore could have tied his stories into reprints of already existing D.C. comics).

I don't want to give my money to suspect interests that hope to profit by putting their label on what Siegel and Shuster created. I think the only creators I would trust to create Superman for a different publisher would be Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster--and they're dead. Any other product is not going to have the right odour of authenticity.

I don't see much being accomplished that isn't already done in fan fiction or in ersatz versions of Superman from other publishers.

[SecretWarrior]

But do creators do that? It seems to me the exodus of talent from D.C. and Marvel is because 1) the publishers don't want to give enough creative rights to talent where they can share in the profits and 2) the talent want to create their own characters and not have the publisher taking all the royalties. So the incentive is for creators to create--not simply use an already established character. What you would probably have is creators trying to make the "Superman" their own, so they could copyright their product.

I would have liked it if Alan Moore had been able to do with Superman what he did with Supreme. But it would have only been good if it was an official D.C. treatment of the character (imagine if Moore could have tied his stories into reprints of already existing D.C. comics).

I don't want to give my money to suspect interests that hope to profit by putting their label on what Siegel and Shuster created. I think the only creators I would trust to create Superman for a different publisher would be Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster--and they're dead. Any other product is not going to have the right odour of authenticity.

I don't see much being accomplished that isn't already done in fan fiction or in ersatz versions of Superman from other publishers.

I just see it like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. No "original" creator appears to have been involved in that, and Moore could still copyright his stories with those characters, just not the characters themselves.

[Alpha]

There are some character elements you'd have to avoid. Like, if you used Alan Scott, who is now known as gay, you would probably have to avoid his sexuality or make him bi. The original, public domain version would be straight, but with the HBO show, the public expect him to be gay. If an independent creator makes him straight, it looks like erasure. If a creator makes him gay, you could run into legal issues. I guess in a situation like that, you could come up with a new person (say "Scott Allen") under the old mask (still "Green Lantern"), giving you more leeway.

I don't think sexual identity reaches copyright. Heck, personality in general can't be copyrighted. Design can. Stories can.

[SecretWarrior]

I don't think sexual identity reaches copyright. Heck, personality in general can't be copyrighted. Design can. Stories can.

I hope that's the case. I'm curious though-- Let's say someone makes a Black Batman once Batman is in the public domain (let's call that Batman "John Smith")-- Couldn't DC sue by arguing they have a Black Batman ("Fox") who's still copyrighted and the new character ("Smith") is too similar, even if they have different backgrounds and blood relatives? What if you just make the original Bruce Wayne Black, mixed-race, or even blonde-haired?

Here's why I ask-- The public domain Superman would be the Golden Age version, with that era's powerset and cast. DC would still own the Silver Age version and Silver Age elements. I wonder how far you can deviate from the Golden Age versions without intruding on some later version of the characters.

If DC hasn't already done it (Gay Clark Kent), you should be fine. If they have already done it within the last 95 years (Gay Alan Scott), then you could run into trouble, I imagine.

[The Kid]

Superman in the public domain will be something I'll look forward to. To me, once the original creators are dead and they're descendants have profited off their creation for a decent amount of time, the characters should be available to the public. Especially with a character who's a 20th century myth in the mold of Hercules.

That said, it'll be Golden Age designs and concepts that are only in the public domain. DC will still have all the trademarks and the vast majority of the mythos but I think different creators can do a lot with just the Golden Age Superman

[SecretWarrior]

Superman in the public domain will be something I'll look forward to. To me, once the original creators are dead and they're descendants have profited off their creation for a decent amount of time, the characters should be available to the public. Especially with a character who's a 20th century myth in the mold of Hercules.

That said, it'll be Golden Age designs and concepts that are only in the public domain. DC will still have all the trademarks and the vast majority of the mythos but I think different creators can do a lot with just the Golden Age Superman

One of the ideas I find interesting is that Public Domain Supermen won't likely won't be able to fly until the first stories featuring flight enter the public domain. For some creators, he'll really have to go back to basics.

[Alpha]

I hope that's the case. I'm curious though-- Let's say someone makes a Black Batman once Batman is in the public domain (let's call that Batman "John Smith")-- Couldn't DC sue by arguing they have a Black Batman ("Fox") who's still copyrighted and the new character ("Smith") is too similar, even if they have different backgrounds and blood relatives? What if you just make the original Bruce Wayne Black, mixed-race, or even blonde-haired?

Here's why I ask-- The public domain Superman would be the Golden Age version, with that era's powerset and cast. DC would still own the Silver Age version and Silver Age elements. I wonder how far you can deviate from the Golden Age versions without intruding on some later version of the characters.

If DC hasn't already done it (Gay Clark Kent), you should be fine. If they have already done it within the last 95 years (Gay Alan Scott), then you could run into trouble, I imagine.

You do realize that what you are worried about is a court telling a writer that they legally can't make Batman black because there's already a black batman in dc stories. No, I don't think DC would win this court case if they went for it. As long as the character itself and the stories don't intrude, changes like sexuality, ethnicity, age, and probably religion aren't out of bounds for anyone.