Superman in the Public Domain Discussion Thread

[kingaliencracker]

I just think fans will be disappointed if/when other entities are able to do very basic Superman stuff. I suspect we'll see drastically more "evil" Superman than we already have.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I just think fans will be disappointed if/when other entities are able to do very basic Superman stuff. I suspect we'll see drastically more "evil" Superman than we already have.

I actually think there are a bunch of writers waiting in line to bring the political Superman from Action Comics #1 in a big way. Like, we already have that to an extent (Superman Smashes The Klan, Morrison's Superman, etc.) but the non-corporate owned versions will probably double down on that because they literally have no corporate restraints.

[CosmeticSkull]

I still very much doubt Superman will enter the public domain. I'm old enough to know, not just believe, that mega corporations and their political pals can get anything done, no matter the law and no matter the cost. WB/DC will find a way to keep enough out of public domain to make it virtually pointless to attempt anything with the character. Until or unless they sell Superman to a company that actually loves and understands the character, Superman is done. Same goes for most DC characters at this point.

Exactly. Idk why people are acting like it's inevitable. DC will do everything to protect their IP.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Exactly. Idk why people are acting like it's inevitable. DC will do everything to protect their IP.

It will eventually be inevitable. Sooner or later.

The only way it will "never ever" happen is if the US goes fascist and completely gets rid of PD. But let's cross that bridge when we get there.

[Tzigone]

I still very much doubt Superman will enter the public domain. I'm old enough to know, not just believe, that mega corporations and their political pals can get anything done, no matter the law and no matter the cost. WB/DC will find a way to keep enough out of public domain to make it virtually pointless to attempt anything with the character. Until or unless they sell Superman to a company that actually loves and understands the character, Superman is done. Same goes for most DC characters at this point.

Exactly. Idk why people are acting like it's inevitable. DC will do everything to protect their IP.

Disney hasn't tried to up it again for the Mouse, so that trends to at least one mega corp not trying to get it extended this time. Now, Superman is a decade off, and a lot can change in that amount of time, but right now, the tide is not running towards extension.

I do think there will be a lot of hair-splitting on what aspects are in pubic domain or not. The concrete ones - actual existence of character, the powers, the outfit, the symbol - those are easy, but the more nebulous ones will be interesting.


For me, another issue is trademark and toys. Trademark lasts longer, so is all the merchandise off the table, even after we reach a more recognizable "S" in public domain?

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I wrote a post called 'Debunking Arguments Against a Public Domain Superman'.

https://subatomicviewer.wordpress.co...main-superman/

The first issue of Action Comics is just ten years away from entering the public domain. As of now, there are no rumors of any loophole that could extend DC’s copyright on the book. That means we are potentially just ten years away from the first major superhero joining the public domain. Unsurprisingly, it also means the internet is already in panic over this. It’s a sign that the fearmongering over superheroes being in the public domain has begun.

On an emotional level, the fear is understandable. For one, superheroes hold deep meaning to a lot of fans. Also, representation matters. How these characters get depicted in film and other mediums will absolutely influence how they’re seen by audiences and what sorts of depictions they get going forward. When you put these two facts together, the idea that seven billion people (including your worst enemies) will soon be able to do whatever they want to your favorite characters can indeed seem scary.

It’s also normal to fear the unknown. There is evidence to suggest it’s the oldest and strongest kind of fear, but we don’t need evidence to know this. Every single person reading this can think of a time in their life when they knew things would objectively get better (e.g. maybe you found a better paying job), but still experienced anxiety and doubt. Our fear of the unknown is so strong that we would rather get stuck with things we hate but are at least familiar with. (In extreme cases, it’s the reason people stay in abusive relationships or toxic work environments.) Superheroes in the public domain, for better or worse, is a similar new unknown territory – no different than a new job or new neighborhood. So I can sympathize. But I ask you to consider if your reasons for opposing it are grounded in good reasons, or if they’re just rationalizations brought about by your deepest fears of the unknown.

The good news is that we don’t have to worry about anything bad being done to these characters once they are no longer in the hands of corporate overlords. To help us reflect on this, I scoured social media for any arguments against superheroes in the public domain. I will explain how each of these arguments made by you – the people of the internet – are nothing more than logical fallacies. I will primarily focus on Superman, but what I say is applicable to all superheroes.

THE ELITIST FALLACY

The most common argument you’ll find online against Superman in the public domain (PD) is that PD will supposedly “ruin” the character. Supposedly, we will get more “bad” Superman content and depictions out of it than “good” ones. In the long run, this will supposedly tarnish the character. Because of that, DC/WB supposedly needs to own the IP to “protect” it.

I call this argument elitist because there is no way to sugarcoat it as anything else. Its subtext isn’t just that most people are stupid and incapable of handling Superman if given the opportunity, but that control ought to be given to a group of technocrats who “just know better than us”. (Where I’m from, we call this ‘Joe Quesada Logic‘.)


Presumably most of the fans making this argument are not elitist themselves. In spite of that, not once have any of them explained why we can’t apply this argument anywhere else. This is the same argument used to justify all sorts of real oppressions and inequalities. For example, it’s the argument used to justify the power of the Supreme Court. (In 2022, the Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade while Kansas – a Trump loving red state – voted to protect abortion rights. Not a good look for elites, to say the least.)

Nor is this argument unique to current inequalities – it’s been used throughout history. Monarchs claimed republics would cause the fall of civilization. Slave owners claimed abolition would lead to more slavery (don’t ask). It’s also the excuse that Hollywood used for years to oppose the unionization efforts of their writers. They used to claim that the quality of Hollywood films will “suffer” if the writers gain more creative control – as if “the product will suffer” is not the excuse of every union buster throughout history.

In each of these cases, a segment of the population defended them in spite of it not being in their best interests. Does that mean they were stupid or sellouts? No. Their fear of the unknown just got to them. See? I told you it can make anyone say and do foolish things.

Maybe you feel that I shouldn’t compare Superman in the public domain to “serious” issues like abortion rights. In that case, I have four responses to you:

1. Corporate control – regardless of whether it’s over an IP like Superman or natural resource like water – is always a serious issue. At the very least, corporate control over “less important” things paves the way for control over more “important” things.
2. The distinction between “serious” and “not serious” issues goes both ways. Anyone upset or worried over Superman becoming public domain is clearly taking it as a serious issue. Otherwise, why spend so much time and energy fretting over it?
3. People make political metaphors all the time in order to prove a point. People compared Snyder’s DCEU heroes to Trump and fascists, but it does not mean they think Snyder is a fascist. The point is that the logic in “We need elites to protect Superman” is the same as in “We need elites to protect abortion rights”, even if the scale and consequences of abortion rights is significantly greater.
4. If you agree elites are not necessary for a major and serious issue like abortion, there is no reason to think we would need them for a “minor” or less “serious” issue like telling Superman stories.

If anything, the idea that Superman needs to be regulated by elites is even more absurd and illogical than something like the SCOTUS. At least with the SCOTUS, there is some logic to it. The logic there is that significant portions of America are homophobic and racist, so it’s therefore the SCOTUS’ job to keep that contained. There are problems with that argument too, but it’s not the craziest thought in the world. With Superman, though, we are being asked to believe that a character who embodies the total opposite of elite values should be controlled by elites – who by definition don’t believe in Superman’s values. Yet these hypothetical elites will supposedly uphold what Superman is about (see next section for why they won’t).

This argument also ignores the reality that Superman for decades now has been jumping between poor portrayals and being MIA (missing in action). Assuming that some hypothetical group of benevolent elites even exists, clearly they’re not the ones that have control of Superman over at WB.

THE "FASCIST SUPERMAN" FALLACY

The second most common argument I found online was that a public domain Superman will lead to a spam of fascist Superman takes. DC is already putting out so much content with an authoritarian Superman (the Injustice games, the Snyderverse, etc.) that that number will only increase once Superman is in the public domain.

It’s true that more Superman content means more chances of getting “bad” Superman content. That is just basic math and probability. However, more Superman content also means more chances of getting “good” Superman content. The important question is if the ratio of good-to-bad Superman content will get worse. The people making this argument imply that it will get worse.

There are problems with this argument as well.

Most of the population is overwhelmingly progressive. Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America. On pretty much every political issue, most people are at odds with the corporations. This means that all else being equal, the public is far more likely to align with Superman’s intended values than WB is. (Superman is a working-class hero like most of us, so this should come as no surprise.)

Even if we only consider superhero fans, there is no reason to think they’re different or less progressive than the general population. Zack Snyder’s Superman had a cult following, but was not universally embraced by fans and moviegoers the way the MCU was (and the way MCU Steve Rogers was specifically). The most beloved Superman films are still the first two Richard Donner films, and not Snyder’s.

Generally speaking, most people aren’t drawn to superheroes because they think the superheroes are fascist. If that was true, the endless online rants about how superheroes symbolize hope makes no sense.


Is WB/DC a good gatekeeper of fascist Superman takes, though? Empirical evidence suggests the opposite: it’s the writers and fans that keep WB/DC in line from turning Superman fascist, and not the other way around. It was WB who picked Zack Snyder for the DCEU. It was Grant Morrison who had to stop DC from turning Superman into a fascist in the comics:

“If you’d let me do a version of Superman where he’s like, a Dad, who’s having to lay down the law sometimes but at the same time he’s only doing it for the best reasons.” The author of All-Star Superman continued, saying, “You know, he’s trying to be ‘the Dad,’ I said. “If you let me do that version of Superman please don’t make him a right-wing tyrant guy, that’s just not Superman.” (Grant Morrison, 2021)

Once again, is it really a surprise that our corporate overlords – who have always been closer to fascism than democracy to begin with – would flirt and entertain a fascist Superman this way?

As for writers like Morrisons who prevented this, they can still work on Superman if he were public domain. As would writers and directors like James Gunn (for the movie audiences). In fact, they would have even more creative control.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

the "winnie the pooh" fallacy

some don’t think the public domain will lead to an abundance of fascist superman takes, but don’t think any good would come out of it either. They also think it would be very different from the superman we know. In an attempt to try prove this, they cite the recent winnie the pooh film, blood and honey – a film that is both bad and a radical departure from what winnie the pooh is. I have seen people online even treat blood and honey as some sort of “checkmate” against superheroes joining the pd.

I haven’t seen the film, but let’s assume it’s as bad as they say. Is that a good reason to keep superman away from the public domain?

No.


This fixation on winnie the pooh is nothing but confirmation bias. Dracula, sherlock holmes and a bunch of other iconic characters are all public domain. My favorite holmes and dracula portrayals are by benedict cumberbatch and claes bang, respectively. Both came out in recent years. Both were great and true to the characters.

Also, neither of them were anomalies. Sherlock holmes had at least three other successful versions in the last few years: Elementary with jonny lee miller, guy ritchie’s two films with robert downey jr., and mr. Holmes with ian mckellen. Dracula entered the public domain in 1962 and has enough good films for a top 10 list.


Zorro is another proto-superhero with decent success in public domain. The mask of zorro was an extremely successful film, both critically and commercially.

Superheroes have a lot more in common with the likes of sherlock holmes, dracula and zorro than with winnie the pooh. The former come out of modernist literature just like superhero characters; winnie the pooh does not. The former have influenced several superheroes (the most obvious example being batman); winnie the pooh has not. The former therefore give us a far better idea of what superheroes in the public domain would look like than something like winnie the pooh.

Others cite the 2019 film brightburn as proof that something like blood and honey can happen. This example, too, is fallacious:

1. Brightburn did not happen because superman was public domain. Superman wasn’t any more in the public domain in 2019 than he is now.
2. Brightburn is a satire of superman, and not an adaptation. Citing it as an example for why a pd superman can’t work is like citing homelander from the boys.
3. Brightburn is a far better made film than blood and honey. In my opinion, it’s also better than any superman film since donner.
4. Brightburn was made by james gunn and his brothers and cousin – james gunn being the same guy rebooting superman right now after the disastrous dceu superman.

THE FALLACY OF "NOTHING WILL GET MADE"

some don’t think that the public domain will hurt superman, but don’t think anything good or memorable will come out of it either. They will list other public domain characters who have been missing in action (such as zorro and robin hood) as proof that “nothing” will happen with superman.

Just like with citing blood and honey as an example of public domain allegedly butchering a character, this argument is based on selective cherry-picking and confirmation bias.

1. Given we just listed a bunch of successful adaptations in the public domain, it is simply not true that “nothing ever” gets made. Clearly at least sometimes, something gets made that can range from being decent to great.
2. A company like disney literally built its empire off of public domain characters. The disney classics are still some of the most iconic, influential, and acclaimed films of all time. They will be watched and remembered for long after we are all gone. The current disney live-action remakes are likewise based on those same public domain properties.
3. Marvel likewise had tremendous, ongoing success with thor and norse mythology – both in their comics and films.

Indeed, some characters haven’t had consistent or exceptional success in the public domain. However, public domain had nothing to do with that.

1. A folklore hero like robin hood had two box office hits with mixed reviews in the last 35 years: The 1991 film with kevin costner and the 2010 film with russel crowe. Likewise, superman in the last 35 years had two box office hits with mixed reviews: Superman returns (2006) and man of steel (2013).
2. Zorro had only one critically acclaimed and commercially successful film in the last 35 years, but this is more than can be said for superman. The mask of zorro (1998) is better received than any superman film since superman ii (1980). Also, the mask of zorro came out the same year as the first blade film, which was marvel’s first official entry onto the silver screen. Superman has yet to have a film that good since the age of marvel films began.

Ultimately, it boils down to popularity and economic demand. Superheroes are extremely popular and “hot” right now, other ip’s are not. Social media like twitter is full of people tweeting their superman pitches to james gunn. The internet is littered with endless fanfics and film or tv pitches going back years to the dawn of the internet and early youtube. Writers’ desire to work on these characters is so strong that a company like marvel knows they can hire them for cheap. Superhero popularity (especially when we look at the success of conventions) is like nothing else, with the exception of maybe star wars and anime. Logic thus dictates that there is both an abundance of viewers who want to watch these characters, and of aspiring writers who want to contribute to them.

Part of why this is unsurprising is that superheroes are already more of a collective effort than other ip’s. Marvel and dc for decades conditioned us to look at superhero comics as a collective effort from one writer to the next. Superhero movies and shows have done the same. Going from thinking “everyone at this company contributes to this character” to “everyone contributes to this character period” is not a huge psychological leap.

There are some superheroes who are already public domain and are unused, like black terror or the golden age daredevil. However, that is mostly because they are unknown. They are less known than even robin hood and zorro. They were never as popular to start with. Their situation is not applicable to characters like superman, batman, and most of the stan lee marvel creations.

Hypothetically, even if nothing were to get made or made often, surely that would still be better than the current status quo we have now. Superheroes being public domain doesn’t mean that companies like marvel and dc can’t use them anymore; just that others can use them too. It would still be better to let everyone have the rights to use these characters – and maybe someone eventually pulls a disney or lee/kirby thor with them, and gives the big two some competition – than to have copyright policies in place that give marvel and dc a monopoly. Whether you are a socialist who thinks private ownership shouldn’t exist, or a free-market capitalist who believes in market competition, we can both agree that monopolies are fundamentally unjust.

Notice how the fallacy of “nothing will get made” contradicts the previous three fallacies. If “nothing will get made”, then by definition, none of the first three arguments against superman in the pd make sense. I wish i could say that each one of these fallacies has been argued by different people, but i have seen people argue that “nothing will get made” and “superman will be turned fascist” in the same breath. A good sign that someone has not thought things through, and is instead acting on their irrational fears, is if their assertions don’t add up.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

the fallacy of "nothing can be used"

some argue that while plenty will want to do something with superman, they won’t be allowed to use much. Technically, action comics #1 becoming public domain means only the content from that issue joins the public domain, and not the rest of superman’s eighty-five year history. Dc is also likely to crack down on any similarities between a pd superman and superman content not in the public domain yet.

Fundamentally, this is not an argument against public domain. It’s an argument for why we should extend public domain rights to all of superman’s history. Logic follows that if someone agrees corporation has too much power or ownership, the solution is to that is not to give it more power and ownership.

In superman’s case, i also doubt it will be a major issue. Action comics #1 was what we would today call “lightning in a bottle“. Most of the basic story beats showed up in that first issue or within the first few years:

1. Clark’s origin as an alien is from that first issue.
2. Lois lane showed up in the first issue, too.
3. Jimmy olsen showed up the same year (1938).
4. The kents first appeared one year later (1939).
5. Perry white and lex luthor appeared just two years later (1940).
6. By 1940, superman had most of his iconic powers, including flight.

Superman beating up the superintendent of a prison – action comics #10 (1939)
if anything, not being allowed to pull from later stories could be a blessing in disguise for superman. A lot of people are craving a return to the golden age superman who was a champion of the oppressed, and not the silver age superman who was a champion of the status quo. Even now in our post-cold war world, some fans and writers still associate superman with “old school”, patriarchal and republican ideals. It’s where superman first got his reputation for being “boring”. A pd superman would force writers to ignore all of that, and to only focus on the most appealing parts of the golden age.

In any case, more and more superman comics will become public domain as time goes on. Eventually, a pd superman will look indistinguishable from a dc superman comic made today.

"public domain is theft"

some believe that great things can be done with superman in the public domain, but oppose the idea of public domain in general. They claim that public domain is essentially theft and/or usage without the author’s permission. (if the author is dead, they argue it is usage without the author’s family’s permission.)

the history of public domain is too long to cover in this post. In short, here are the problems with this argument:

1. All culture and creativity is inspired by other work. The point of public domain is thus to give back to the same pool of ideas you borrowed from. Superman, too, was not created in a vacuum. He was inspired by pulp characters, gods, biblical characters, and american myths like john henry.

2. Since we already have a public domain, there is no good reason why superheroes should be an exception.
3. Marvel and dc have no room to talk when it comes to “fairness”. Both companies got rich by screwing over the creators of these characters. The worst part is they still do it today. (first time i had to use five links back-to-back… even then, there were links i had to remove to keep this short. That’s how much these companies mooched off the work of others.)

if you want to know more about the history of public domain and why it’s important, here is an essay that goes into more detail on it.

the fallacy of "you don't know for sure"

even with all those fallacies out of the way, some insist we still “don’t know for sure” what will happen once superman is in the public domain.

This is just the fear of the unknown we talked about earlier, but masqueraded as a need for certainty.

Technically, we don’t know anything “for sure”. We don’t know for sure that tomorrow none of us will be hit by a bus if we cross the road. By that logic, we would not do, allow, or look forward to literally anything. If certainty was necessary when making decisions or predictions, there would be no decisions or predictions made, period.

The important thing to consider is if we have sound reasons to expect an outcome. And the same is true of superman in the public domain. As this post laid out, we have plenty of good reasons to think it could go great, and no reason to think that the content would get worse. But expect dc to fearmonger about the public domain the closer superman gets to it.

And that is a good note to end this on.

This is all I can post here.

[Deacon Blues]

i'm very excited for action comics #1 to enter the public domain. so much of what i enjoy about superman is present in that first story! i'm hoping we'll see some stories that make use of superman as he was originally conceived-- the champion of the oppressed, friend of the helpless. powered by the new deal and the righteous anger of two cleveland teenagers.

it will also be interesting to see how artists will get around parts of the mythos still owned by dc-- what will clark's childhood look like if he's not raised on the kent farm? will his parents have minded the general store, like they did in the golden age? if not smallville, where did he grow up? will he be invulnerable without kryptonite to weaken him? or have friends without jimmy olsen? lots to think about.

[DABellWrites]

I wrote a post called 'Debunking Arguments Against a Public Domain Superman'.

https://subatomicviewer.wordpress.co...main-superman/

When you look at the the amount of Superman pastiches, most of them are good guys or someone like that Metro Man. Most of the "evil" Superman are actually from Marvel or DC. Brightburn is the first live action one. So, I largely disagree with the idea of a rise of bad Superman stories. I think most people want a heroic Superman.

[Agent Z]

When you look at the the amount of Superman pastiches, most of them are good guys or someone like that Metro Man. Most of the "evil" Superman are actually from Marvel or DC. Brightburn is the first live action one. So, I largely disagree. I think most people want a heroic Superman.

Even DC doesn't nearly as many evil Supermen as other companies.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

When you look at the the amount of Superman pastiches, most of them are good guys or someone like that Metro Man. Most of the "evil" Superman are actually from Marvel or DC. Brightburn is the first live action one. So, I largely disagree with the idea of a rise of bad Superman stories. I think most people want a heroic Superman.

100% Agreed.

[Digifiend]

i'm very excited for action comics #1 to enter the public domain. so much of what i enjoy about superman is present in that first story! i'm hoping we'll see some stories that make use of superman as he was originally conceived-- the champion of the oppressed, friend of the helpless. powered by the new deal and the righteous anger of two cleveland teenagers.

it will also be interesting to see how artists will get around parts of the mythos still owned by dc-- what will clark's childhood look like if he's not raised on the kent farm? will his parents have minded the general store, like they did in the golden age? if not smallville, where did he grow up? will he be invulnerable without kryptonite to weaken him? or have friends without jimmy olsen? lots to think about.

Once Superman himself becomes public domain, won't it only be a few years before Jimmy does too? He did debut in the golden age. Of course, Lois debuted at the same time as Clark, so any non-DC Superman material will be able to use her (but only in her reporter who likes Superman but not Clark guise, not the modern wife and mother).

[HsssH]

I wonder how is this supposed to work with new developments? Like, it is not a crazy idea that Lois eventually starts liking Clark. So you can't do it because it is in later Superman comics? Can you do it if she marries Clark but still doesn't know that he is Superman? Is that different enough?

[marhawkman]

I wonder how is this supposed to work with new developments? Like, it is not a crazy idea that Lois eventually starts liking Clark. So you can't do it because it is in later Superman comics? Can you do it if she marries Clark but still doesn't know that he is Superman? Is that different enough?

Lois and Clark as co-workers who flirt was a thing even in the Max Fleischer cartoon.