"Created by William Moulton Marston"

[Jim Kelly]

I raised this subject elsewhere and I wanted to check the facts. My understanding is that DC is expected--if not required--to put the note: "Wonder Woman Created by William Moulton Marston"--just as they do with "Superman Created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster" and "Batman Created by Bob Kane."

This might have been a courtesy at one time, but my understanding is that DC is now committed to making these acknowlegements.

Also what is the creative ownership with the Marston estate these days? It seems to me the family used to have some say in what happened to WW, but at some point they lost that control and now DC can do whatever they want with the character (including not publishing her).

[AmiMizuno]

I raised this subject elsewhere and I wanted to check the facts. My understanding is that DC is expected--if not required--to put the note: "Wonder Woman Created by William Moulton Marston"--just as they do with "Superman Created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster" and "Batman Created by Bob Kane."

This might have been a courtesy at one time, but my understanding is that DC is now committed to making these acknowlegements.

Also what is the creative ownership with the Marston estate these days? It seems to me the family used to have some say in what happened to WW, but at some point they lost that control and now DC can do whatever they want with the character (including not publishing her).

Speaking to Christie Marston she states Dc has to publish Wonder Woman in her own solo book or the rights go back to the family. The Wonder Woman Show did this. I also think 2009 did this as well

[Carabas]

I raised this subject elsewhere and I wanted to check the facts. My understanding is that DC is expected--if not required--to put the note: "Wonder Woman Created by William Moulton Marston"--just as they do with "Superman Created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster" and "Batman Created by Bob Kane."

This might have been a courtesy at one time, but my understanding is that DC is now committed to making these acknowlegements.

Also what is the creative ownership with the Marston estate these days? It seems to me the family used to have some say in what happened to WW, but at some point they lost that control and now DC can do whatever they want with the character (including not publishing her).

Speaking to Christie Marston she states Dc has to publish Wonder Woman in her own solo book or the rights go back to the family. The Wonder Woman Show did this. I also think 2009 did this as well

I am not sure about the Superman situation, but the Batman situation can be summed up like this Bob Kane was a terrible person.

DC is legally required to print the "Batman Created by Bob Kane" because Kane arranged it like that. Nevermind Bob Kane didn't actually create Batman (okay he created maybe 5% of Batman) and that DC by the same agreement is forbidden to credit the guy that really created Batman, Bill Finger.


This is not true. It used to be true but has been resolved since the mid-eighties or so.
DC own Wonder Woman lock, stock, and barrel, and will continue to do so whether they publish her book or not.

[AmiMizuno]

I am not sure about the Superman situation, but the Batman situation can be summed up like this Bob Kane was a terrible person.

DC is legally required to print the "Batman Created by Bob Kane" because Kane arranged it like that. Nevermind Bob Kane didn't actually create Batman (okay he created maybe 5% of Batman) and that DC by the same agreement is forbidden to credit the guy that really created Batman, Bill Finger.


This is not true. It used to be true but has been resolved since the mid-eighties or so.
DC own Wonder Woman lock, stock, and barrel, and will continue to do so whether they publish her book or not.

Carabas no it's not. Christie still states this is true and she is part of the family your not. She states this is still true.

[Carabas]

Carabas no it's not. Christie still states this is true and she is part of the family your not. She states this is still true.

If that were true then the fine print in every Wonder Woman comic would look a whole lot differently.

[Agent Z]

Hey Carabas welcome back.

[AmiMizuno]

Dc owns the creative rights and publishing rights if they publish her

[AmiMizuno]

If that were true then the fine print in every Wonder Woman comic would look a whole lot differently.

But it is true. Christine stated it was true. Dc owns all of Diana and Wonder Woman However and I posted on here a longtime ago in order to countiue with it they have to publish Wonder Woman. go ask Christine yourself

[Silvanus]

But it is true. Christine stated it was true. Dc owns all of Diana and Wonder Woman However and I posted on here a longtime ago in order to countiue with it they have to publish Wonder Woman. go ask Christine yourself

It seems like there might be more than one legal theory about this. The Comics Should be Good website asked Kurt Busiek about this, and he said that although it was true when he wrote the Legends of Wonder Woman mini (before the Perez reboot) that WW had to be published at least 4 times a year or publishing rights would revert to Marston,

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.

--http://goodcomics.blogspot.com/2005/06/comic-book-urban-legend-revealed-1.html

If Busiek was "given to understand" this by DC, maybe their lawyers disagree with Christie's. And if that's the case, we may never have a definitive answer unless a judge has occasion to rule on the question (which presumably won't happen unless DC stops publishing Wonder Woman. So, hopefully we won't find out!)

[Carabas]

But it is true. Christine stated it was true.

That does not necessarily actually make it true.

[AmiMizuno]

That does not necessarily actually make it true.

However what if it was true? She has nothing to gain or lose from lying since there is not chance is Dc cancelling Wonder Woman. I mean she is part of the family and knows much more about Wonder Woman than anyone. However, the only way is for Dc not to publish her at all. However Marston still should give credit for making Wonder Woman since many today give credit even though there are people no longer working on that projected. I wonder if Jill a writer who was able to read Marston's paper wrote a book on Wonder Woman and I wonder if she address. However, I will quote on what Christie said on this.

[Silvanus]

However what if it was true? She has nothing to gain or lose from lying ....

I don't for a second think she's lying, and she may be completely right--but who knows? As I pointed out above, Busiek said he was given to understand that the requirement to publish was no longer in force, and if he, as a writer, heard this from DC, then maybe DC's lawyers differ with Christie about whether or not the old "contract," or whatever it was, is still valid.

I can think of several ways in which it could be ambiguous, though of course they're all hypothetical, since I haven't seen the documents (and, perhaps more importantly, I'm not a lawyer!) Maybe other family members sold the family's claims on the character, but Christie doesn't believe they had a right to do so. Or maybe Christie signed on to some kind of agreement with DC, but there's a difference of opinion about what the agreement really meant. I really have no idea--

I'm just pointing out that legal questions are complicated, so it may not be as simple as "if she's not lying, then she must be absolutely right." I respect that she's a family member, but unfortuatenly, that doesn't give her the final say on legal questions (as the families of Superman's creators found out, sadly.). I don't think we'd know for ture unless a judge were to rule on it--which will probably not happen any time soon, because, as you point out, DC will keep publishing Wonder Woman.

So, really, what difference does it make?

However Marston still should give credit for making Wonder Woman since many today give credit even though there are people no longer working on that projected.

I agree that crediting Marston as Wonder Woman's creator is the right thing to do, regardless of whether or not there is still a contract or other legal provision in place.

I wonder if Jill a writer who was able to read Marston's paper wrote a book on Wonder Woman and I wonder if she address. However, I will quote on what Christie said on this.

I don't think this is mentioned in Jill Lepore's Secret History of Wonder Woman, but I have it on Kindle and will check later.

[Darrell D.]

Speaking to Christie Marston she states Dc has to publish Wonder Woman in her own solo book or the rights go back to the family. The Wonder Woman Show did this. I also think 2009 did this as well

Is it? I thought DC bought the rights outright back in the 80s.

[Darrell D.]

I am not sure about the Superman situation, but the Batman situation can be summed up like this Bob Kane was a terrible person.

DC is legally required to print the "Batman Created by Bob Kane" because Kane arranged it like that. Nevermind Bob Kane didn't actually create Batman (okay he created maybe 5% of Batman) and that DC by the same agreement is forbidden to credit the guy that really created Batman, Bill Finger.


This is not true. It used to be true but has been resolved since the mid-eighties or so.
DC own Wonder Woman lock, stock, and barrel, and will continue to do so whether they publish her book or not.

DC signed an agreement with Siegel and Shuster in the 70s (during the promotion for the Superman movie) that guaranteed the pair a pension and the creator credits being restored.
You will also notice that Kirby characters are also credited in other media.

[Jim Kelly]

This came up in regards to the Batman v Superman movie. Since Wonder Woman is in that, I believed there should be a note crediting Marston for creating Wonder Woman--just as there is for Batman and Superman creators. I thought this is a legal thing--because there are many characters who don't get such credits while others do. So it doesn't seem that it comes from the goodness of DC's concrete heart, but rather is something they have to do.

I thought that the requirement to publish WW had gone away. But maybe this is something that simply hasn't been tested. DC might do these things, just to make sure they stay on the good side of creators or their estates/families--they don't want to poke the bear and end up in a legal quagmire.

That's how I always figured the Bob Kane thing worked out--DC could probably challenge the Bob Kane estate and they could probably remove the credit--but that would invite legal action. So they let sleeping dogs lie. The Superman case was different because the creators were fighting to get those rights that Bob Kane and William Marston enjoyed--but it was that case that led to Kane, Marston and other creators getting pro forma credits in comics.