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

[Blue22]

It pretty much makes me cry into my vintage Superman socks, yes, lol. Another irony is that kid Jon fans (the majority of Jon fans altogether) are doing the same thing so we're reluctant brothers in arms. I don't get the feeling they're entirely satisfied with the digital title.

I mean....It's nice. I've definitely been enjoying it. And i hope it continues for a long time.. But I can't help but shake the feeling like it's a consolation prize. Especially with how....limited it has to be since it's stuck in at a fixed period in time. We got the Jon back that we wanted but there's not a lot of room for him to progress. Which, for me, was part of the reason I liked him as a kid in the first place.

[The Frog Bros]

It pretty much makes me cry into my vintage Superman socks, yes, lol. Another irony is that kid Jon fans (the majority of Jon fans altogether) are doing the same thing so we're reluctant brothers in arms. I don't get the feeling they're entirely satisfied with the digital title.

Elseworld now seems like a hope for....something. But it may end up something completely different, or worse, some dumb meta thing.

There certainly has been no shortage of meta things of late. Elseworld could end up having some cool stuff, and if it does it would be ironic because it would have been created by a meta event in the first place (Death Metal). But here's to hoping it's legit!

[Vordan]

I feel like with Post-Crisis it wasn't so much that people didn't respond well to the newer versions of the characters (look at how much CEO Lex has come to define the character while Post-Crisis helped define the modern Lois Lane) but that the stuff they took away like Kara or Krypto was never adequately replaced.

With Bendis having Clark out himself I had a feeling we were going to shift the franchise over to him operating as Superman 100% of the time, and being in costume all the time, moreso than we already had been.

When was the last time Clark’s secret identity or journalism actually got some play? While I thought people overrated Venditti MoT, he did a good job of showing Clark constantly working as a journalist, but in the main books? Tomasi did nothing with it and it was mainly just the Superman show, before him the New 52 had tossed out the secret identity as well and focused on Superman being Superman 24/7. The issue is the editors just do not seem at all interested in stories about Clark interacting with people outside of being Superman.

[SecretWarrior]

Why is there a rights issue with Superman, but not with Batman? Wouldn't Batman's copyright be up the subsequent year, followed by DC's (and Marvel's) other Golden Age characters?

[Vordan]

Why is there a rights issue with Superman, but not with Batman? Wouldn't Batman's copyright be up the subsequent year, followed by DC's (and Marvel's) other Golden Age characters?

Oh the reason for that is a real doozy. Go look up all the crap Bob Kane pulled and you’ll have your answer. Short version: Siegel and Shuster wanted more money from National/DC for creating Superman. Bob Kane screwed them over and in exchange for giving up any claim to Batman, he got very well taken care of financial-wise.

[SecretWarrior]

Oh the reason for that is a real doozy. Go look up all the crap Bob Kane pulled and you’ll have your answer. Short version: Siegel and Shuster wanted more money from National/DC for creating Superman. Bob Kane screwed them over and in exchange for giving up any claim to Batman, he got very well taken care of financial-wise.

I'll have to look into that-- Thanks!

I think DC will be facing similar issues with the other Golden Age characters in a decade or two, regardless--

The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/f...l%2070%20years.

[SiegePerilous02]

Oh the reason for that is a real doozy. Go look up all the crap Bob Kane pulled and you’ll have your answer. Short version: Siegel and Shuster wanted more money from National/DC for creating Superman. Bob Kane screwed them over and in exchange for giving up any claim to Batman, he got very well taken care of financial-wise.

As if screwing over Bill Finger wasn't bad enough

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Why is there a rights issue with Superman, but not with Batman? Wouldn't Batman's copyright be up the subsequent year, followed by DC's (and Marvel's) other Golden Age characters?

I'm pretty sure Disney will make sure that copyright laws keep getting changed.

I was talking more about the Seigel family, who have never missed an opportunity to squeeze Warner Bros. for a few more dollars whenever their lawyers see an opening. Yes, they have settled the case currently, but there's no guarantee that they couldn't try again thanks to the clearly shady behavior of National Comics back in the 1930s and 40s that allowed Seigel and his heirs to keep the issue of Superman's ownership a reoccurring thorn in the side of Warners since they bought DC decades ago.

Unlike Batman & Wonder Woman, I don't think the ownership of Superman is as cut and dried, even after this latest settlement. There have been settlements before, so I don't think there's any guarantee that the Seigel estate can't try again and again if some legal precedent presents itself. As a result, shifting the Superman franchise towards Jonathan Kent, who Warners owns without any legal complications would be a smart move on their part. If they can establish Jonathan Kent as a stand-alone character beyond his parents, then Warners has a far better position to negotiate from moving forward.

Look at Future State: Superman of Metropolis as a good example. There's virtually nothing in there that isn't fully owned by Warner Bros. Lois & Clark are absent, along with the main elements of the costume seen in Action Comics #1 are all gone. There's almost nothing derivative (from a legal standpoint) left that the Seigel estate could latch onto.

I don't know. I could be completely off-base here, but the speed in which Jonathan Kent went from his creation to the main character seems a little too fast, so my Spidey-sense is tingling. It's entirely possible that this is simply more creative flailing around on the part of DC, who still don't know how to make the character relevant to today's audiences.

I mean, the story of a refugee raised to love his adoptive planet and works to protect it with his alien abilities while working to expose the corruption of the rich and powerful as a mild-mannered reporter just doesn't seem like something that would resonate with today's audiences who are living in a world that shares so many similarities to 1930s America.

[SecretWarrior]

I'm pretty sure Disney will make sure that copyright laws keep getting changed.

I was talking more about the Seigel family, who have never missed an opportunity to squeeze Warner Bros. for a few more dollars whenever their lawyers see an opening. Yes, they have settled the case currently, but there's no guarantee that they couldn't try again thanks to the clearly shady behavior of National Comics back in the 1930s and 40s that allowed Seigel and his heirs to keep the issue of Superman's ownership a reoccurring thorn in the side of Warners since they bought DC decades ago.

Unlike Batman & Wonder Woman, I don't think the ownership of Superman is as cut and dried, even after this latest settlement. There have been settlements before, so I don't think there's any guarantee that the Seigel estate can't try again and again if some legal precedent presents itself. As a result, shifting the Superman franchise towards Jonathan Kent, who Warners owns without any legal complications would be a smart move on their part. If they can establish Jonathan Kent as a stand-alone character beyond his parents, then Warners has a far better position to negotiate from moving forward.

Look at Future State: Superman of Metropolis as a good example. There's virtually nothing in there that isn't fully owned by Warner Bros. Lois & Clark are absent, along with the main elements of the costume seen in Action Comics #1 are all gone. There's almost nothing derivative (from a legal standpoint) left that the Seigel estate could latch onto.

I don't know. I could be completely off-base here, but the speed in which Jonathan Kent went from his creation to the main character seems a little too fast, so my Spidey-sense is tingling. It's entirely possible that this is simply more creative flailing around on the part of DC, who still don't know how to make the character relevant to today's audiences.

I mean, the story of a refugee raised to love his adoptive planet and works to protect it with his alien abilities while working to expose the corruption of the rich and powerful as a mild-mannered reporter just doesn't seem like something that would resonate with today's audiences who are living in a world that shares so many similarities to 1930s America.

The law might change, but what I think is more likely is that DC will have their own Superman (Clark or otherwise), while Superman also becomes a public domain character. Companies like Disney don't own folktales or stories like Sleeping Beauty or The Jungle Book, but they do own their version of those stories. We've seen Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, and others bounced around from different film studios, for example.

I don't see why DC and Marvel won't be competing with 3rd party publishers and self-publishers who decide to use the Golden Age versions of their characters. That would be an interesting time for the industry, to say the least.



DC and Marvel have been leaning into the legacy and multiverse concepts more over the last decade or so, with multiple versions of characters operating simultaneously. I could see them focusing more on getting people interested in the iconography slapped onto different new characters. Like imagine an MMO where you choose which DC family your character is a part of, and your character becomes just another version in the multiverse.

That situation might actually lead to sidelined Golden Age characters becoming more prominent for a little while, or we might see the public become more comfortable seeing an Indian Superman and a Chinese Batman without thinking it's weird.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

A lot of you guys are mixing up two different legal issues regarding Superman:

(1) The Siegel Family case where they terminated their father's transfer of copyright to DC

(2) Superman falling into the public domain


The first issue has been resolved in the courts with a settlement/agreement with the Siegel Family. That's why the credits now read "Superman created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster by Special Arrangement with the Jerry Siegel Family." DC owns the character and all associated trademarks.

The second issue regarding Public Domain is something that has nothing to do with the Seigels. US copyright law states that work for hire projects lapse into the public domain 95 years after publication. In Siegel and Shuster's case, they created the Action 1 material BEFORE being employed by DC, and it sat in a slush pile until MC Gaines gave it to Vincent Sullivan who was looking for material for Action Comics #1. Since Siegel and Shuster transfered the copyright over to DC, this likely has the effect of having the 95 years rule apply here as well.

This would mean that the story material shown in Action Comics 1 would fall into the public domain on January 1, 2034 -- the first New Year after the 95 year period elapsed.

I guess we'll find out what's what in 13 years.

In any event, DC will always have the trademark to the name "Superman" as long as they continue to use the name to sell products (such as Superman-brand comics magazines). The name "Superman" does not have to be associated with Clark Kent, so maybe, to answer the OP question, this WOULD be a way to phase out the Clark Kent character and make Jon the new Superman.

Each successive year after 2034, the first stories of more and more DC characters will fall into the public domain, which will allow anyone to make derivative works from them -- just as anyone can publish a Dracula story, or a sequel to Macbeth, if one so desired.

However, because DC owns the trademark to the names in most, if not all, relevant product classes, you wouldn't be able to put the name of the character in the title -- similar to the "Captain Marvel" mess that DC has been in since 1973.

[Jim Kelly]

Mickey Mouse was created in 1928. Which should mean he would fall into the public domain in a few years (but Disney would still own the trademark). Many believe that Disney won't let that happen and they wlll get their lawyers to force a change in the United States copyright. Which would then move the goal posts for everything else created in 1928 and after.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

But as for using Jonathan Kent to stop the Siegels from claiming ownership of Superman in the future, I don't know if that would work because if there would be some new law that would allow them to go after DC again, they could just claim that Jonathan Kent is a derivative work from their father's Superman character -- and they'd likely win since he's Superman's son. You can't get much more derivative than that.

However, I would guess that DC lawyers wrote an agreement with provisions that it would remain intact no matter how the law may change in the future in order to prevent their having to deal with this all over again.

[SecretWarrior]

A lot of you guys are mixing up two different legal issues regarding Superman:

(1) The Siegel Family case where they terminated their father's transfer of copyright to DC

(2) Superman falling into the public domain


The first issue has been resolved in the courts with a settlement/agreement with the Siegel Family. That's why the credits now read "Superman created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster by Special Arrangement with the Jerry Siegel Family." DC owns the character and all associated trademarks.

The second issue regarding Public Domain is something that has nothing to do with the Seigels. US copyright law states that work for hire projects lapse into the public domain 95 years after publication. In Siegel and Shuster's case, they created the Action 1 material BEFORE being employed by DC, and it sat in a slush pile until MC Gaines gave it to Vincent Sullivan who was looking for material for Action Comics #1. Since Siegel and Shuster transfered the copyright over to DC, this likely has the effect of having the 95 years rule apply here as well.

This would mean that the story material shown in Action Comics 1 would fall into the public domain on January 1, 2034 -- the first New Year after the 95 year period elapsed.

I guess we'll find out what's what in 13 years.

In any event, DC will always have the trademark to the name "Superman" as long as they continue to use the name to sell products (such as Superman-brand comics magazines). The name "Superman" does not have to be associated with Clark Kent, so maybe, to answer the OP question, this WOULD be a way to phase out the Clark Kent character and make Jon the new Superman.

Each successive year after 2034, the first stories of more and more DC characters will fall into the public domain, which will allow anyone to make derivative works from them -- just as anyone can publish a Dracula story, or a sequel to Macbeth, if one so desired.

However, because DC owns the trademark to the names in most, if not all, relevant product classes, you wouldn't be able to put the name of the character in the title -- similar to the "Captain Marvel" mess that DC has been in since 1973.

That's really soon and actually has me excited. So, if I understand correctly, you could publish a book with a character named "Clark Kent" and in-story that character could go by "Superman" (like the Captain Marvel situation), but you couldn't call the title of the book "Superman" or "Man of Steel" or "Action Comics." You'd probably also have to design your own "S" symbol.

That seems fine. You could create an anthology book titled something like "Amazing Comics" and have Clark Kent team up with Steve Rogers in World War II.

I'm much more interesting in looking into the Golden Age characters now for my own creative reasons. You could essentially do a "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" thing with all of them, race-, gender-, and orientation-bending as you please.

[Frontier]

When was the last time Clark’s secret identity or journalism actually got some play? While I thought people overrated Venditti MoT, he did a good job of showing Clark constantly working as a journalist, but in the main books? Tomasi did nothing with it and it was mainly just the Superman show, before him the New 52 had tossed out the secret identity as well and focused on Superman being Superman 24/7. The issue is the editors just do not seem at all interested in stories about Clark interacting with people outside of being Superman.

Tomasi's book wasn't really the place for it since he focused on Clark Kent the father and farmer. Jurgens spent more time trying to re-contexualize the status quo and get things back to basics to really do much with it after Reborn.

Bendis ironically seemed to get it at the start of his run and he's the one who got rid of the dynamic.

To be fair it seems like an industry-wide problem with books focusing less and less on the heroes' lives outside being Superheroes.

[SecretWarrior]

The new Superman show is supposed to feature his two sons Jon and Jordan (Jor-Dan?), which could serve as a vehicle for prepping the public for a new Superman whose defining background trait is that he's the son of the original--something 3rd parties and self-publishers might not be able to do. DC focusing more on the legacy characters they own like Wally or Yara or Wallace or Donna would make some sense then. Maybe that's the problem DC was trying to solve with the original plans for Future State.

Every few decades or so, we could see a new mantle-holder, creating a situation like The Phantom, where virtually every version of the character is a descendant of the original (assuming DC could handle the competition).