Should "Action Comics #1" have entered the public domain after 56 years?

[MikeMC005]

Personally I am a capitalist and think that if I come up with something great it should belong to me forever until I sell it. This is America people. If you came up with Superman wouldn't you want to make money off it in perpetuity. Originality should be praised and rewarded and in America what better way to be rewarded than with $$$$$$$$.

[Lexrules]

Personally I am a capitalist and think that if I come up with something great it should belong to me forever until I sell it. This is America people. If you came up with Superman wouldn't you want to make money off it in perpetuity. Originality should be praised and rewarded and in America what better way to be rewarded than with $$$$$$$$.

DC didn't come up with Superman. They just own the rights now. If hindsight is 20/20 and knowing how up and down the direction of Superman has been in the last 10 to 15 years I would say yes, It should be in Public Domain by now.

[Ascended]

Personally I am a capitalist and think that if I come up with something great it should belong to me forever until I sell it. This is America people. If you came up with Superman wouldn't you want to make money off it in perpetuity. Originality should be praised and rewarded and in America what better way to be rewarded than with $$$$$$$$.

Well, Siegel and Shuster did sell Superman. And their families get a check in the mail every month for the contractually agreed upon cut of Super-profits, but WB is the one who actually makes bank on the brand. This isnt work for hire and never has been.

And if those early Superman stories were public domain, that doesnt mean DC would stop making Superman comics and merchandise, just that other people could base their own work off those early issues. And then DC could sue them for any infringement of Superman material that was not yet under public domain.

On the one hand, that might damage the profit margins for DC, if someone like Image came along with their own Superman comic (which would almost certainly be better than what DC typically produces). But on the other hand, such competition would force DC to put more effort into the franchise, which would then force Image to increase their own quality, and so on and so forth. Seems to me that everybody wins in that situation. Fans get a highly competitive environment with multiple versions to chose from, DC makes more money from Superman thanks to the extra effort and marketing required by all parties, and other publishers get a chance to spin their own tales with one of the most recognized faces in fiction.

Robin Hood and the gods of Greek myth are public domain and have put a lot of money in a lot of pockets. And Im fine with that. Im also quite fine with DC not having a monopoly on all things Super-related, given their inability to sell the character. Public domain means a lot of crap material, but it also means creative freedom and the very best material always comes from that.

[Francisco]

No. I want Superman to belong to DC/Warner for ever so they can keep up making comics, movies, cartoons, tv series and all kinds of merchandize. I don't trust anyone else doing anything remotely good with the character. I don't want him to turn into Dracula and get disrespectfully used in a Buffy the vampire slayer movie or comic. I want perpetually well established cannon.

[Auguste Dupin]

No. I want Superman to belong to DC/Warner for ever so they can keep up making comics, movies, cartoons, tv series and all kinds of merchandize. I don't trust anyone else doing anything remotely good with the character. I don't want him to turn into Dracula and get disrespectfully used in a Buffy the vampire slayer movie or comic. I want perpetually well established cannon.

Frankly, Dracula hasn't been used in any more disrespectful ways than Superman overall.

[DochaDocha]

Frankly, Dracula hasn't been used in any more disrespectful ways than Superman overall.

Well, it's not like a sanctioned DC story would make Superman a loathsome villain instead of a hero. Or take one of Superman's best qualities and attribute it to another DC hero. Or change various characteristics of the guy just to make a story work. Right guys?

[Auguste Dupin]

Well, it's not like a sanctioned DC story would make Superman a loathsome villain instead of a hero. Or take one of Superman's best qualities and attribute it to another DC hero. Or change various characteristics of the guy just to make a story work. Right guys?

Right.
Plus, there's been so many take on the guy none of us can even agree on what kind of person he is or how he's supposed to behave.
Which makes him actually very similar to Dracula, Robin Hood, and all. So, y'know, might as well just make him public domain and let the world show their own take on him.
Which, of course, would include me.

[tombo]

But imagine seeing the genuine name "superman" in porn films or being used to promote nazis or something. I like him as he is. As long as DC keep letting interesting writers take a shot at him.

I remember reading in the Sandman TPB how DC wouldn't let Gaiman portray Clark in the dream-world with his cape sticking out of the back of his jacket because they thought it would look disrespectful. I liked that. I wouldn't have minded seeing the cape stick out, but I like the idea he is protected, and that a barrier is there for challenging writers to push against. Otherwise we'd just end up with official underground comics with him as a meth user or something.

[Auguste Dupin]

But imagine seeing the genuine name "superman" in porn films or being used to promote nazis or something. I like him as he is. As long as DC keep letting interesting writers take a shot at him.

I remember reading in the Sandman TPB how DC wouldn't let Gaiman portray Clark in the dream-world with his cape sticking out of the back of his jacket because they thought it would look disrespectful. I liked that. I wouldn't have minded seeing the cape stick out, but I like the idea he is protected, and that a barrier is there for challenging writers to push against. Otherwise we'd just end up with official underground comics with him as a meth user or something.

I don't see this being much of an issue for any public domain character I can think of. Not a relevant one anyway. Ho, sure, you could probably find some Italian Z moviestarring Robin Hood and Zorro which were absolute cr.p. But frankly, do these franchises seem to have suffered from it? Not really. So, that kind of fear is completely misplaced, really.
And sure, DC won't let Gaiman play with the guy's cape, but Injustice? Perfectly fine. The only way that kind of behaviour counts as "protection" is the kind gang mobs provide to small shops.

[The Kid]

But imagine seeing the genuine name "superman" in porn films or being used to promote nazis or something. I like him as he is. As long as DC keep letting interesting writers take a shot at him.

I remember reading in the Sandman TPB how DC wouldn't let Gaiman portray Clark in the dream-world with his cape sticking out of the back of his jacket because they thought it would look disrespectful. I liked that. I wouldn't have minded seeing the cape stick out, but I like the idea he is protected, and that a barrier is there for challenging writers to push against. Otherwise we'd just end up with official underground comics with him as a meth user or something.

There already are Superman porn movies along with Batman and Wonder Woman porn films as that falls under parody. It hasn't hurt the characters so far

[Cap'n_RDM]

I think the creator should retain the rights until he opts to sell them himself. If said creator never sells and then passes away, the opportunity should be there for the creation to be passed along to his family.

In regards to corporations, I don't blame them for wanting to protect this intellectual properties for as long as possible. They are the ones who invest the time and money to keep these properties alive.

[Lorendiac]

Personally I am a capitalist and think that if I come up with something great it should belong to me forever until I sell it. This is America people. If you came up with Superman wouldn't you want to make money off it in perpetuity. Originality should be praised and rewarded and in America what better way to be rewarded than with $$$$$$$$.

You're not the only person (in this thread, and in the thread for a duplicate poll I started on another forum) who seems to feel that I should have had my Poll include an option of: "Copyrights should not have any time limits in the first place!" (In other words: "Action Comics #1" should stay copyrighted forever.)

I admit I didn't see that one coming! I somehow thought comic book fans in general would be eagerly looking forward to the day when DC lost its stranglehold on Superman, so that a wide range of fans with literary and/or artistic talent could start cranking out their own variations of the core concept and competing with one another in the open market.

[daBronzeBomma]

Should Action Comics #1 be in the public domain?

Depends on how you feel about capitalism.

If you like capitalism, then the answer is a resounding No.

If you dislike capitalism, then the answer is a resounding Yes.

I like capitalism well enough, so my answer is Action Comics #1 should NEVER enter the public domain, so long as DC Comics exists.

Public domain is best left to entities without a definitive starting point, like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

[Lorendiac]

Should Action Comics #1 be in the public domain?

Depends on how you feel about capitalism.

If you like capitalism, then the answer is a resounding No.

I'm not following that. I'm pretty fond of capitalism, myself, but that doesn't mean I think corporate-owned copyrights and patents should be allowed to last forever as some sort of sacred imperative.

In other words, my definition of "being pro-capitalism" does not include saying: "Big corporations are absolutely trustworthy and we should always tailor our laws to make things as profitable for them as humanly possible!"

[The Kid]

Agree with Lorendiac. I fully support capitalism but I believe corporate capitalism is the biggest flaw in American politics today. I don't want Gael to delete this so I'll tie it back to the ain topic at hand. Copyrights imo shouldn't last forever and they have never been meant to last forever. Patents were created so that creators and their children could reap the benefits of their work. But now when corporations that had nothing to do with the creation of the character, it is time to give back to culture.

Furthermore, only Action Comics #1 would go into the public domain. Not the trademark or other hallmarks of the character. I think that's fair. It's been, what, about 75 years since it came out right?