What is DC’s current legal status with Wonder Woman?

[I'm a Fish]

I know DC had to keep publishing Wonder Woman comics to keep the rights to the her IP. Is that still the case?

I know there where also some legal roadblocks preventing WW from being a cameo character in most live action and cartoon depictions, but I think those have been completely removed. D

Does her IP have any other legal bindings or ramifications?

[Gaius]

They used to have publish four issues a year or the rights would revert to the Marston estate but I believe that's no longer a term of their ownership.

[Digifiend]

I know DC had to keep publishing Wonder Woman comics to keep the rights to the her IP. Is that still the case?

I know there where also some legal roadblocks preventing WW from being a cameo character in most live action and cartoon depictions, but I think those have been completely removed. D

Does her IP have any other legal bindings or ramifications?

Is that why Donna wasn't in Teen Titans and why Cassie only joined Young Justice in season 2? It's odd though, as Diana did appear in Super Friends more than 20 years earlier, as well as, of course, her own live action TV show.

[I'm a Fish]

Is that why Donna wasn't in Teen Titans and why Cassie only joined Young Justice in season 2? It's odd though, as Diana did appear in Super Friends more than 20 years earlier, as well as, of course, her own live action TV show.

It is why.

Diana could appear in Superfriends and Justice League because she was a main character and not a cameo. I think by the time of Justice League: Unlimited and Young Justice, those where starting to loosen up and by Young Justice season 2 DC had acquired full distribution rights for TV and Movies.

I’m not sure how much ownership the Marston’s have on her IP anymore, if any at all.

[Hypo]

Sometime between the publication of The Legend of Wonder Woman in 1986 and this post by Busiek on the DC message boards in 2005 stuff changed:

They are no longer true, but they were true for a long time — as I understand it, the terms were that DC had to publish at least four issues with "Wonder Woman" as the banner lead feature or rights would revert. That's why DC did the LEGEND OF WONDER WOMAN mini-series that I wrote and Trina Robbins drew — the Perez revamp was in development, but coming along slowly, and they had to publish something to fulfil the contract terms.

They specifically didn't want something that would be attention-getting, because they didn't want to undercut the revamp. So they wanted something gentle and nostalgic, and we had fun doing it.

In the intervening years, though, I'm given to understand that at some point DC bought the character outright, and thus those contract terms are no longer in force.

The post text does appear to be legit as it also appears on an old CBR article, albeit without a date.

[I'm a Fish]

Sometime between the publication of The Legend of Wonder Woman in 1986 and this post by Busiek on the DC message boards in 2005 stuff changed:



The post text does appear to be legit as it also appears on an old CBR article, albeit without a date.

Hmmm, interesting. Thanks Hypo!

I wonder why they had legal difficulties with Cassie and Donna in Young Justice then.

[Hypo]

Hmmm, interesting. Thanks Hypo!

I wonder why they had legal difficulties with Cassie and Donna in Young Justice then.

Yea, it's hard to find concrete info on that - this interview from 2003 with Glen Murakami, one of the creators of the Teen Titans cartoon, doesn't mention any legal issues re: Donna's exclusion:

Dr. Toon: Congratulations, Glen, on your new series, Teen Titans. I was wondering how it was decided to go with the 1980s version of the team as opposed to the 1964 originals or even the Titans of the mid-90s?

Glen Murakami: Sam Register (svp of original animation), who came aboard at Cartoon Network, was really interested in developing it since it was a comic he grew up reading. Then I was brought on board. Im from that generation where those were the characters that I read about growing up too. That led to the decision as to why the 1980s (Marv) Wolfman and (George) Perez Titans were chosen. I think we wanted to portray characters that hadnt really been seen before, and we were trying to make something that was different from the Justice League.

Using Robin as the lead, well, hes the type of character that everyone can identify with. We definitely wanted to show the audience a different Robin than they thought they were going to see, rather than someone whos normally a sidekick character. Its like taking Batman and putting him out of your mind: How would you portray Robin? We made him confident and really kind of cool. A lot of people say, Well, Robin has no superpowers. I dont think that matters. Theres kind of a nice balance to the group now an alien, a robot, a shape-changer and a witch. Its very iconic.

Dr.T: Is that why Donna Troy (Wonder Girl) and Wally West (Kid Flash) didnt make the cut?

GM: Pretty much. We wanted to show characters that hadnt been seen before.

On the other hand Greg Weisman does mention legal issues when it came to including Donna and Cassie in Young Justice:

Myth #6: "Greg stated that the plan from day one was to use Donna in Season One and Cassie in Season Two."

This is more of a half-truth. EARLY, early on, Donna was one of our leading candidates for Season One. This was before we had even narrowed things down very much. And BEFORE any true decisions were made, we were informed by our DC Liasons that both Wonder Girls were off-limits for legal reasons that were never explained to us. (So don't ask me.) So neither Wonder Girl was seriously considered. Then Geoff Johns came aboard and made both Wonder Girls available. Unfortunately, by that time, it was flat out too late to include Donna. So we decided we'd put Cassie in Season Two. And have Donna be one of the characters who joined and left the Team during the timeskip, and cameo her in Season Two. Unfortunately, for reasons reported fairly accurately from ASK GREG LIVE, we were unable to cameo either Troia or Mary at Rocket's bridal shower because there just wasn't time for Phil Bourassa to design FOUR new characters, i.e. the two girls in both their civilian and super-hero costumes. Had they appeared in "Satisfaction", then they would have also had cameos in "Endgame", since their designs would already have been completed. But since they didn't appear in the earlier episode, we weren't able to get them at all. This is a sadness to me. But there are realities of production that we're all subject to.

[Perseus]

Does anyone know some of the editorial mandates surrounding the Wonderfam?

I'm not too familiar with the legal aspects of comics. Why would their be a problem of having Cassie as a main character in YJ since season one? Is it a DC/WB thing or a Marston estate thing? Wasn't there like a requirement that whatever Diana is doing she has to be a main character or something?

[Frank]

I don't know if this remains true, but I understood that, at one point, Wonder Woman rights to media were held by one person and Wonder Girl right by another.

[Primal Slayer]

Does anyone know some of the editorial mandates surrounding the Wonderfam?

I'm not too familiar with the legal aspects of comics. Why would their be a problem of having Cassie as a main character in YJ since season one? Is it a DC/WB thing or a Marston estate thing? Wasn't there like a requirement that whatever Diana is doing she has to be a main character or something?

I would assume they wouldnt be able to use the Wondergirl name. Why they wouldnt just use a different name though? no idea.

[wonder39]

Sometime between the publication of The Legend of Wonder Woman in 1986 and this post by Busiek on the DC message boards in 2005 stuff changed:



The post text does appear to be legit as it also appears on an old CBR article, albeit without a date.

The family still retains ownership of th3 character, and the information provided by Busiek regarding DC now owning the character outright is not correct. This is per family member Christie Marston.

[kjn]

"Legal reasons" can be lots of things. One strong possibility for what Weisman mentions is that WB or DC had already written a contract with another entity about using Wonder Girl for their project, but that that was cancelled sometime between the initial communication and Geoff Johns joining the project. Heck, perhaps it was Geoff Johns who had the option to use the characters in the first place.

From what I can tell, DC Comics owns the trademark for Wonder Woman outright (at least it's registered in their name). The copyright situation might be trickier, and it might be what the Marston family refers to, but that only pertains to the original stories. I note that the Golden Age omnibus (2017) refers to the original stories as copyright DC Comics 1941–1943, so there might be a contract between the Marston family and DC regarding the copyright of those.

[Digifiend]

I would assume they wouldnt be able to use the Wondergirl name. Why they wouldnt just use a different name though? no idea.

If that's the problem they could just have called Donna "Troia" (which they did when she finally showed up). Cassie would've needed a new name though.

[Primal Slayer]

If that's the problem they could just have called Donna "Troia" (which they did when she finally showed up). Cassie would've needed a new name though.

If they wanted to use Donna in S1 then we wouldnt have gotten Cassie anyway. But even if they did use Cassie first they could've come up with a new name. They easily could've gone with Fury or Olympia or something of the sorts. The Marstons wouldn't own Donna or Cassie unless I'm mistaken so like everything, there's a workaround.

[Digifiend]

Five year timeskip between seasons, remember? There's no reason Cassie couldn't have still shown up in season 2 if Donna was in season 1. They added a lot of characters that season (Blue Beetle, Static, Batgirl, among others).