The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in the copyright dispute between the Shuster Estate and DC Comics, effectively ending the battle over Superman.
Full article here.
Results 1 to 15 of 21
-
10-06-2014, 08:19 AM #1Super Moderator
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
- Posts
- 26,245
Supreme Court Won't Intervene in Shuster-DC Fight Over Superman
-
10-06-2014, 08:30 AM #2Astonishing Member
- Join Date
- May 2014
- Posts
- 2,177
When will those money grabbing heirs stop? This is exasperating.
-
10-06-2014, 08:40 AM #3BANNED
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
- Posts
- 6,590
they want their rights just that
Originally Posted by nightrider
-
10-06-2014, 08:46 AM #4Fantastic Member
- Join Date
- May 2014
- Posts
- 329
Seems pretty clear now that while we can debate the moral rights and wrongs, legally the Shuster heirs will NOT win this one. If the Supreme Court is not intervening that endorses the original ruling surely? They are not going to get any more money even if they should (debatable in itself) and frankly they are going to have a hard time paying back the costs they've already run up.
-
10-06-2014, 08:46 AM #5BANNED
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
- Posts
- 943
They don't deserve it. None of them had anything to do with the making of the character and deserve absolutely nothing. Enough is enough.
This has to end already.
-
10-06-2014, 08:50 AM #6Were You There?
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
- Location
- Location, Location!
- Posts
- 2,963
It's not an endorsement per se, but the ruling stands, yes. Ultimately, the Court is declining to opine, or even hear arguments from which to form an opinion, on the matter. Originally Posted by Captain Haddock
If not for that 1992 agreement (which I'd like to see, just to satisfy curiosity), the Shuster estate probably could have worked out a deal similar to what the Kirbys got last week."It's not whether you win or lose, it's whether I win or lose." - Peter David, on life
"If you can't say anything nice about someone, sit right here by me." - Alice Roosevelt Longworth, on manners
"You're much stronger than you think you are." - Superman, on humankind
All-New, All-Different Marvel Checklist
-
10-06-2014, 10:33 AM #7Legendary Member
- Join Date
- May 2014
- Location
- Usually at the End of Time
- Posts
- 4,599
I used to be 100% on the side of Siegel & Shuster.
When they were alive.
The "heirs" deserve nothing.
As much as I like Siegel & Shuster, the fact that a year later Batman's co-creator Bob Kane managed to work out a deal with the same company that paid him handsomely for the rest of his life tells me that S&S lacked foresight to protect themselves legally the way Kane did. Don't get me wrong: I know Kane was kind of a despicable man (he squealed on S&S to DC when they tried to sue what was DC back then, and of course the lifetime screw-over he gave to Batman's co-creator Bill Finger), but bottom line: would you rather live Bob Kane's ruthless life of luxury or S&S's naive lives of poverty, if no other known options exist?
I'm going Lannister over Stark on this one.Last edited by daBronzeBomma; 10-06-2014 at 10:35 AM.
-
10-06-2014, 10:40 AM #8Astonishing Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
- Posts
- 4,650
I'm guessing I'm saying this mostly because I don't have a lot of money or property in my name, but at $25,000/year pension for work I did NOT doesn't seem so bad, even in 1992 dollars. I see why they struck that deal 22 years ago.
-
10-06-2014, 02:29 PM #9Savior of the Universe
- Join Date
- May 2014
- Posts
- 9,021
DC/WB also had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the character so there's that. It's not a onesided argument. Originally Posted by Lexrules
-
10-06-2014, 02:40 PM #10BANNED
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
- Posts
- 943
But DC owns the characters now. As much as some of us may not like that they do. Originally Posted by Flash Gordon
-
10-06-2014, 03:11 PM #11Rachel Grey-Summers
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
- Location
- Rachel turned into Ahab's baby momma by Marvel. Disgusting.
- Posts
- 6,829
DC is the reason those characters are rolling in the money though. Originally Posted by Flash Gordon
-
10-06-2014, 04:20 PM #12Ultimate Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
- Posts
- 18,725
They probably have more than they deserve already. JOE Shuster helped create Superman, not them. And it was Joe along with Jerry that sold him. It was a crappy deal, we all know that. But a deal nontheless. Originally Posted by Blacksun
Last edited by Sacred Knight; 10-06-2014 at 08:38 PM.
-
10-06-2014, 08:01 PM #13Savior of the Universe
- Join Date
- May 2014
- Posts
- 9,021
I have no interest in a "character rolling in money" since the character isn't a living being. Jerry and Joe were.
I'm not saying I'm for either side but I really don't like everyone automatically damning the heirs. This is their family's legacy. I'm sure most of us here would be doing the same thing if we were in their shoes.
-
10-06-2014, 08:36 PM #14Legendary Member
- Join Date
- May 2014
- Location
- Usually at the End of Time
- Posts
- 4,599
Disagree. Originally Posted by Flash Gordon
Superman IS Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster's (S&S) combined legacy.
However, Superman is NOT, was NOT and will NEVER be their family's legacy.
S&S created Superman in 1934, couldn't sell the concept after 4 years of trying in the Great Depression, until National Comics finally bought the whole concept for 130.00 USD (which in 1938 I'm sure was considered a lot more than now). They did not the foresight to have proper legal representation in their negotiations with National Comics (unlike the well-deservedly reviled Bob Kane) and gave up all the rights.
From that moment on, Superman legally belonged to National Comics (now DC Comics).
To put it bluntly, when it came to foresight, S&S were naive kids who did not believe their original creation could have been as successful as Superman would become. They got their lifetime pensions from Warner Bros b/c WB didn't want the potential bad publicity of their plight to hurt SUPERMAN THE MOVIE's box office in 1978.
To put it another way: if your parents made something (in the USA, can't speak for other countries), but then sold the entire enterprise (all rights included) for a quick payout, then you as their progeny are entitled to exactly NOTHING of that something. Your parents can't give you what they don't have because they already sold it long ago.
-
10-06-2014, 08:51 PM #15Savior of the Universe
- Join Date
- May 2014
- Posts
- 9,021
I know the whole story, and again I'm not really on either side but I'm also not just in support of big corporations either.
If my pops created BATMAN, you could bet your bottom dollar that I'd see that as my legacy. It came from his mind, it's a family story. It's just the way people are. Your family is your family (though that could be a bad thing).
I'm just saying they're not being "greedy", all this is well within their rights in the United States.
Reply With Quote
