Superman in the Public Domain Discussion Thread

[marhawkman]

I wonder if DC will eventually permanently drop the trunks/“classic” outfit? Because that’s going to go public domain at some point, and then you have to differentiate the Superman you still own from the one anyone can use.

I have been expecting them to simply drop those characters entirely.

I think this was the real endgame for 5G, which is simply proceeding in a different form with Jon, Yara, and Damien. even if Superman is public domain, they won't be.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I have been expecting them to simply drop those characters entirely.

I think this was the real endgame for 5G, which is simply proceeding in a different form with Jon, Yara, and Damien. even if Superman is public domain, they won't be.

I don't think Jon and Damien are the right choice for that as they are too defined by their parents.

[JBatmanFan05]

Read that Action #1-#7 will actually enter the public domain. But when it happens, I wouldn't expect much interesting use due to warranted fear of costly litigation. Very little interesting stuff will be allowed to be used. After a period of time, after court cases define the parameters more of what can be used vs not used, then you might occasionally see something (mildly) interesting.

[superduperman]

I have a feeling Warners is working on a way now to keep it out of the public domain as much as possible. Or make it as much of a pain in the ass as possible if someone actually did try to do something with it. Remember how Disney made Steamboat Willy their mascot for their animation division? I expect we'll see something like that at some point in the future. Superman holding up the car over his head will become their new symbol or something.

[Ascended]

It will mostly just be people using Superman himself to rape and murder others instead of settling for an expy like Homelander. That’s what I expect, but we may still get the odd project which is actually good.

So basically the same situation we're in with WB, where most of the stories we get are utter crap? We'll be no worse off with Clark in the domain than we are now. At best we'll have more options to pick from, and that competition will force DC to invest and put quality talent on the character. At worst, it leaves us where we already are, with plenty of options but few worth consuming.

Read that Action #1-#7 will actually enter the public domain. But when it happens, I wouldn't expect much interesting use due to warranted fear of costly litigation. Very little interesting stuff will be allowed to be used. After a period of time, after court cases define the parameters more of what can be used vs not used, then you might occasionally see something interesting.

By the time Action #1 hits the domain, we'll have had a decade of Disney trying to protect their assets from public domain work, so the legal limitations and definitions should be much more defined than they are now.

[JBatmanFan05]

By the time Action #1 hits the domain, we'll have had a decade of Disney trying to protect their assets from public domain work, so the legal limitations and definitions should be much more defined than they are now.

You'd think that, and such precedent might offer clarification of parameters, but I think new litigations will still happen and they will be fact-specific more to Superman-related questions. Fear will still dampen use after whatever hits the public domain.

[Ascended]

Perhaps, we'll have to wait and see how things unfold.

By the time Clark hits the domain, all of this drama might have already played out and domain-based stories with active-use corporate IP won't be a big deal. Or who knows what. We could get a new extension in the law. Hell, SCOTUS could say the entire public domain concept isn't legal because the Constitution doesn't mention it.

Too far off to say, too many variables and elections between and now and then to even guess. But should the law stand as-is, I think most of the hurdles will be smoothed over by the time Clark enters the domain. WB will still try to litigate specific elements I'm sure, and try anything else that'll keep Superman out of the hands of the people, but as things stand currently I don't think there'll be much they can actually do other than just try to annoy people to the point they give up. But that didn't work for Disney with Blood and Honey and I doubt it'll be any more effective after a decade of similar cases we're certain to see.

[DochaDocha]

I'll probably be sad when I come across the first story Marvel or whoever publishes when Superman just shows up to get beaten up by another hero. DC's done it a lot when they actually had something to lose by making Superman look bad, so I figure a company that has not a lot to gain by having Superman would do something similar but harsher.

The other thing that stings is that I feel like if some of the older generation of creators who loved both Marvel and DC IPs were working outside DC, they'd actually treat the first use of public domain Superman as a big freakin' deal. The current generation? I don't know if PD Superman's first appearance would hold much significance, so either they'll treat it like another other comic or just use PD Superman as a stepping stool for whatever other hero the creator wants to hype.

On the other hand, it's not like DC's done a great job with the IP anyway so things will only get marginally worse.

[bat39]

I think you got tired of us talking about this in the "Legacy" thread so you rightfully and correctly made a new discussion for it.

I also think we're ten years away from this happening under current law, and no telling what changes might come between now and then. That said, this year is likely the one that truly matters; Steamboat Willie hits public domain in '24 so Disney has until this December to lobby congress. They may try to change the law afterwards, and pull the Mouse back out of the domain (which has happened before with other IP), but if they haven't started a lobbying effort by now I don't think they'll try later. And if Disney doesn't get involved then I doubt other corporate entities will have the muscle to pull off a lobbying effort, Disney's been the one leading the charge in the past. The legal arguments for copyright extension were never strong either, and the public is much more aware of this sorta thing than they were in the 90's (the last time the law was changed). My guess is Disney and other corporations will try to protect their assets via trademark disputes, film/distribution rights, etc., which is much sneakier than a blanket extension but also much harder to enforce and litigate.

Keep your eyes on stuff like the Blood and Honey movie. As I understand it, Disney tried to shut that film down and failed, partially because it was so wildly different from anything Disney would do with Winnie the Poo that they couldn't successfully argue it was a threat to them. I think that's gonna be a key takeaway going forward; does the domain-based product overlap with the corporate sphere of use? In this, I think the OG Superman is safe; he's far removed from the Superman DC uses today. And yes, Blood and Honey looks awful. That matters far less than the fact that it got made and distributed.

The real question, I think, is whether a public domain Superman could be successful. When we look at other fictional characters within the domain, like folk heroes such as Robin Hood or Paul Bunyan or literary characters like Holmes and Tarzan, we see that these characters get various adaptations every ten/fifteen years or so, but not much more. We certainly don't have a plethora of public domain heroes on the comic rack, nor a ton of big blockbuster movies staring such characters.

However! None of those characters are Superman. He's a infinitely bigger name in pop culture than these other figures, with a lot more draw for audiences. We might love characters like Robin Hood or Hercules, but Superman is baked into our DNA. And even limited by the early Golden Age material that'll first enter the domain, Superman still has everything he needs to be successful. And I maintain that the original Superman is the Superman the world needs right now, so a public domain effort might just turn out to be pretty gods damn popular, if the people making it know what they're doing.

Someone asked if you could do a story where Lois and Clark get married. I'm honestly not sure, I'm no expert on this side of business/law. As I understand it, characters like Mickey and Superman entering the domain is unprecedented territory we haven't dealt with much before, legally speaking. I know you could take a public domain Superman and have him fight a green alien, as long as that alien wasn't called Brainiac and didn't try to shrink cities. I know your public domain Superman could get married....but I dunno if he could get married to Lois. There might not even be a legitimate answer to that yet, legally speaking?

Well, there's been quite a bit of Sherlock Holmes. I think in terms of sheer pop-cultural appeal, he's the closest analogy to Superman among existing public domain icons. And Sherlock Holmes already offers an example of the kind of legal pitfalls that could arise - the Doyle estate tried to sue Netflix for featuring a more compassionate and emotional Holmes in the Enola Holmes movies because according to them, this more 'human' take on Holmes originated in the few final short stories that were still under copyright (they've since passed into the public domain).

I suppose if someone does a Superman story in any form featuring him married to Lois, DC/WB could claim that Superman getting married to Lois was a concept they invented decades later in 1996 (or, arguably, in 1978 - the year the story of Earth 2 Superman and Lois' marriage was published) and that it wasn't something that was remotely part of the original conception of the character that is now in the public domain. Would that be a solid case? I don't think the Doyle estate got anywhere with their case against Netflix, but I guess there's also a difference between just giving a character a more compassionate personality, and replicating a specific story idea/plot point (but what if the story idea is something as generic as "X and Y get married"?)

I have been expecting them to simply drop those characters entirely.

I think this was the real endgame for 5G, which is simply proceeding in a different form with Jon, Yara, and Damien. even if Superman is public domain, they won't be.

I don't think DC will ever stop publishing the original Superman. For better or worse, 'canon' is something that matters to fans, and there will still be a demand for 'official' Superman material produced by DC/WB.

But I can see them doubling down on elements of the character which aren't in the public domain. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a new suit (again!) for starters.

[Ascended]

Would that be a solid case? I don't think the Doyle estate got anywhere with their case against Netflix, but I guess there's also a difference between just giving a character a more compassionate personality, and replicating a specific story idea/plot point (but what if the story idea is something as generic as "X and Y get married"?)

And in ten years that kind of frivolous litigation won't happen nearly as much. Most of these estates know they'll lose the lawsuit, they just do it for intimidation purposes, sometimes to try and bankrupt a story out of existence. Assuming the law stands as it currently is of course, precedent should be established enough to cut down on a lot of that.

The marriage issue, I think, falls in the current gray area. Least as far as Lois goes. The idea of getting married is a broad enough concept that you could do it with domain Superman, as long as you weren't copying the details of DC's wedding story. But whether you could use Lois....not sure. I think you could argue that the triangle for two (which would be in the domain by then) establishes marriage as a viable option but DC might be able to argue that it's too closely associated with their version? Either way, I doubt anyone would want to use domain Superman just to tell stories DC already has.

But I can see them doubling down on elements of the character which aren't in the public domain. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a new suit (again!) for starters.

They showed their hand already, back when the heirs were suing them. DC will try to make their version stand on its own enough to be protected. Which benefits those looking to use the OG.

They'll probably keep the classic suit though, and try to lock that down through trademark (though I think it's the logo that really matters?).

On the other hand, it's not like DC's done a great job with the IP anyway so things will only get marginally worse.

DC put a sexual predator in charge of Superman, used to have an official policy that high-end talent couldn't write his books, and have abused him across media for decades to benefit other characters, including in his own movies. I'm not worried about things getting worse.

The domain isn't gonna be the limitless source of quality some people think it will be. We'll still see crap stories told by people who have no clue, and/or just want to capitalize on Clark's name. In other words, we'll be exactly where we are right now. Except there'll be the potential for more alternatives, more/better competition, and a wider range of voices. We're not going to get a massive amount of domain content either, like some folks seem to think. The limitations of the domain and the inevitable legal challenges raised by WB will prevent plenty of people from putting in the effort, even if the legal framework is clearly mapped out by that point.

Still, ceteris paribus, in ten years someone like JAK could actually make his Golden Age Superman movie. A while ago I was talking to Kurt Busiek about his ideas for a domain Superman story (which he definitely has, but wouldn't share other than to say it wouldn't be through Marvel, so don't ask). Creators could tell stories unbound by corporate interests or focus groups. These are good things. We will get content DC would never imagine, much less create. And some of it, probably most of it, will be bad. But so what, so is most of what DC has done over the last thirty/forty years. And the good stuff that'll come out of it, sparse as it may be? That'll be worth all the dross.

We literally have nothing to lose in this. DC will keep doing what they do, we're not losing their Superman. But we gain the potential for creators like Deniz Camp or Busiek or Waid or Morrison or you or I to tell the stories we want, unfettered (as long as we stick to what's in the domain, which isn't hard). The gains are all hypothetical and potential, but there's literally nothing at risk here.

[Vordan]

Yeah if anything PD Superman will just be more of the same. Most writers will use him for cheap dunks or to make him the bad guy (because realistically Superman would be KILLING AND RAPING EVERYONE!!!!!), while a few will see the potential in the character and give us stories that capitalize on that potential. In other words… pretty much exactly how DC has been using him since the DKR .

I do wonder what the landscape for DC’s Superman looks like once most of the iconic elements start to become widely available to use which is still a ways away. Clark’s future likely hinges on how well Gunn’s reboot does, that will be the test to see if he’s still profitable enough for DC to keep investing in him.

[DochaDocha]

I think there's potential to gain, but we still have some to lose, too. This is conjecture on my end, but I think Superman's been plagued by being staffed by writers who aren't all that passionate about him. And even if editorial didn't do a great job with growing the brand, they and the WB team were still trying. PD may open the doors wide open to abuse the character in ways we haven't yet seen or perhaps even imagined. IMO, if you just look at the "bad" of the spectrum and think things are pretty awful now, we haven't seen nothing yet.

But on the "good" end of the spectrum? I think we'll see some potentially good stuff, just not so much at the big budget level. The license itself isn't going to be valuable so I don't know if anyone would be willing to make a $300 million Superman solo film at that point if you can't capitalize it to its fullest the way you can now with something like Spider-man or Batman.

[Frontier]

I see the appeal cause i generally don't like wb's superman... democratisation of the character means more voices.I am sure there will be ****..But,it won't be just **** like it is now..Atleast for me.

I feel like we get plenty of voices on Superman now, but WB's Superman is the only Superman I've ever known.

[Ascended]

I think there's potential to gain, but we still have some to lose, too. This is conjecture on my end, but I think Superman's been plagued by being staffed by writers who aren't all that passionate about him. And even if editorial didn't do a great job with growing the brand, they and the WB team were still trying. PD may open the doors wide open to abuse the character in ways we haven't yet seen or perhaps even imagined.

Hard for things to be worse than what DC has already done. Yes, it could be worse, but putting a sexual abuser in total charge of the character and screwing him over in his own content has already set a pretty high bar. You'd have to put real effort into treating Clark worse than DC already has.

But on the "good" end of the spectrum? I think we'll see some potentially good stuff, just not so much at the big budget level. The license itself isn't going to be valuable so I don't know if anyone would be willing to make a $300 million Superman solo film at that point if you can't capitalize it to its fullest the way you can now with something like Spider-man or Batman.

A Golden Age Superman doesn't require a 300 million budget.

Yes, without major corporate backing the character won't have the kind of media muscle we're used to. But that muscle has punched Clark in the face more than it's helped him. And Clark is the second most recognized fictional character on earth. He doesn't need massive corporate muscle to get headlines.

If WB/DC had treated the character well over the years, I'd understand the hesitation to let other folks have a shot. But DC is the problem.

[DochaDocha]

Hard for things to be worse than what DC has already done. Yes, it could be worse, but putting a sexual abuser in total charge of the character and screwing him over in his own content has already set a pretty high bar. You'd have to put real effort into treating Clark worse than DC already has.

Just to be clear, we're talking Berganza, right?

I think that's definitely a black eye in Superman history, but despite his overall lack of human decency, he still was trying to get a product out there that was some combination of reasonably profitable and enjoyable for fans. And who knows how many times somebody did something so controversial about Superman somewhere in the DC line that some editor somewhere had to send back to the creator and say you can't do this to the franchise.

I'm just saying if you identified a superhero that I actively disliked and then said I could write whatever story about that character without threat of getting sued, I know I can make a story so bad it'd piss off every fan!

A Golden Age Superman doesn't require a 300 million budget.

Yes, without major corporate backing the character won't have the kind of media muscle we're used to. But that muscle has punched Clark in the face more than it's helped him. And Clark is the second most recognized fictional character on earth. He doesn't need massive corporate muscle to get headlines.

If WB/DC had treated the character well over the years, I'd understand the hesitation to let other folks have a shot. But DC is the problem.

Yeah, I don't feel I need a $300 million Superman movie. I think I'd be happy if you did an animated one well for a whole lot less. I look forward to future love letters to Superman from dedicated creators, but I still think that editorial (as crappy as it's been) at least shielded us from the worst of the worst. So overall, it might feel the same on average, but I think we're going to sink to new lows.

EDIT: I think if you had a draw a quality spectrum for Superman, the PD era will widen the spectrum mostly on the "bad" end, but with any luck the "good" end won't be adversely affected.