Controversial Superman Opinions

[superduperman]

Even if he ever did, the restrictions that would be there with regards to licensing, design, products etc would be so limiting on what could be done that it might not be worth pursuing.

This. And even if it ever happened, every comic company will now have their own version of Superman. He'll be like Dracula or Sherlock Holmes. If someone is waiting for him to enter the public domain to make bank, they're going to be disappointed. It would be like Rom outside of Marvel. They own everything else associated with him except the actual character.

[superduperman]

Earth One Superman can still be salvaged if they do it right.

Superman will make a return in Justice League (they put him in the promotional materials)

Rebirth history is a mess and will probably take years to sort out.

Floppies are in trouble and will probably become obsolete in ten years.

DC won't do nearly as much for Superman on his 80th anniversary that they will do for Batman.

[DochaDocha]

If you think DC writers and editors don't respect Superman enough, I think the current condition would end up looking much rosier in comparison than if every other publisher and storyteller got their hands on Superman. While I think DC sort of treats Superman like the Prodigal Son's older brother, at least Superman is still DC's "kid." That's not to say that someone like Marvel or whoever can't occasionally push out a good Superman story, but I get the feeling that at least some people at DC still remember that Superman is still a DC staple, even if they just push him out there like a stupid mascot with no personality, just a recognizable figure to make money off or use to help make money with DC's Prodigal Son(s). So my opinions about copyright law aside, I think Superman's better off only in DC's hands than in everyone's.

Put it another way: at least we only have to settle for DC characters' embarrassing Superman in stories, and not also have to read official stories about how Thor and Hulk and Random Marvel Guy can also one-up Superman.

[manofsteel1979]

If you think DC writers and editors don't respect Superman enough, I think the current condition would end up looking much rosier in comparison than if every other publisher and storyteller got their hands on Superman. While I think DC sort of treats Superman like the Prodigal Son's older brother, at least Superman is still DC's "kid." That's not to say that someone like Marvel or whoever can't occasionally push out a good Superman story, but I get the feeling that at least some people at DC still remember that Superman is still a DC staple, even if they just push him out there like a stupid mascot with no personality, just a recognizable figure to make money off or use to help make money with DC's Prodigal Son(s). So my opinions about copyright law aside, I think Superman's better off only in DC's hands than in everyone's.

Put it another way: at least we only have to settle for DC characters' embarrassing Superman in stories, and not also have to read official stories about how Thor and Hulk and Random Marvel Guy can also one-up Superman.

This. The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence. However, venture far enough you are bound to step into a big ol cow pie, and you'll realise things aren't so bad on your side of the fence. You think Marvel is going to let Superman outshine their heroes? He'd be lucky to make the Great Lakes Avengers back up team and only be brought out to have Spidey or Cap embarrass him.

Plus, how many of us would want to read a Superman where 80 percent of his mythology would be completely off limits?

[stephens2177]

Why is ok to take something that you didn't create and say it's open season on it,because of passage of time?

Btw how would the trademark bologna effect kon-el?

[Tuck]

Why is ok to take something that you didn't create and say it's open season on it,because of passage of time?

Btw how would the trademark bologna effect kon-el?

Because that's how copyright works. Always has. It's only as crazy long as it is now because corporate entities pushed for the legislation to be changed in the early 20th century, and then again later. Before that, it lasted less than 30 years I believe.

The stories of a culture become part of that culture and newer writers and artists - in reflecting their world - are limited in their accurate representation by those limitations. (Go watch The Wonder Years on Netflix. It's really off without all the music rights.)

You actually stifle the arts by allowing indefinite retention of the rights. The works can't be incorporated into a larger canvas, and you allow copyright owners (usually rights purchasers, not the actual creators . . . Superman's creators are 20 years gone) to rest on their laurels rather than get out there and create new works.

The idea behind copyright was to foster the arts by incentivizing writers, artists, musicians . . . letting them sit on a cash cow is the opposite.



Is there really any evidence that public domain productions are more likely to be bad than something produced within a current copyright?

[stephens2177]

Because that's how copyright works. Always has. It's only as crazy long as it is now because corporate entities pushed for the legislation to be changed in the early 20th century, and then again later. Before that, it lasted less than 30 years I believe.

The stories of a culture become part of that culture and newer writers and artists - in reflecting their world - are limited in their accurate representation by those limitations. (Go watch The Wonder Years on Netflix. It's really off without all the music rights.)

You actually stifle the arts by allowing indefinite retention of the rights. The works can't be incorporated into a larger canvas, and you allow copyright owners (usually rights purchasers, not the actual creators . . . Superman's creators are 20 years gone) to rest on their laurels rather than get out there and create new works.

The idea behind copyright was to foster the arts by incentivizing writers, artists, musicians . . . letting them sit on a cash cow is the opposite.



Is there really any evidence that public domain productions are more likely to be bad than something produced within a current copyright?

So it's a cop out so those "artists" don't have to create their own new things ok,gotcha

[Tuck]

So it's a cop out so those "artists" don't have to create their own new things ok,gotcha

Well, I don't want to put a blanket motivation on something that is the result of a lot of forces over time. But the extensions were more about money than protecting artists. The treatment that Siegel and Shuster got from DC and Kirby got from Marvel can attest to that.

[Jim Kelly]

Given we live in a capitalist world, you need to have things like trademark and copyright to get companies to make this stuff--otherwise there's no profit in it. Even if those companies lose those rights--or individual artists lose their rights--someone has to have a profit motive to get these things out there. They have to be able to claim ownership to reap the rewards. If there's no money to be made--you might get fan-made stuff, which is what we get now anyway--but you're not going to get people investing their money in producing quality material and mass distributing it.

The people who make an ersatz Superman--and let's say the name is generic like Dracula--have to have some other way of claiming ownership. So they all have to go off model to establish their own Superman look. But that's not far different from what the entertainment industry has done with Superman already. There are hundreds of variations of Superman out there now, which are just different enough that someone can claim ownership and monetize the value.

Now, if you say you want a revolution, well you know, we all want to change the world. But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

[Tuck]

Copyright and Patents are a free market restriction. They grant government-protected monopolies. They're necessary for the initial incentive to create the copyrighted or patented work, but they have to be temporary. (Imagine a world with only one car company.)

There's a copyright for League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Someone else couldn't just run with that idea without permission, but Moore didn't have to get the rights for all the individual characters in order to make it.

There are copyrights for the Kevin Costner Robin Hood and the Russell Crowe Robin Hood.

And there is still money in simply producing classic books like Penguin does . . . and plenty of people are waiting for each pharmaceutical patent to expire so they can begin making generics.

[The Kid]

Agreed Tuck. Siegel and Shuster are long long. The people who own Superman now had very little do with the creations made in 1939. Those copyrights should have gone to the public domain when they were supposed to. More recent stuff on the other hand? Well that would still belong to WB and it'd take 50-60 years for it to reach the public domain

It's really only Disney that pushed this by lobbying (*cough bribing) Congress into constantly extending the copyrights so they can hold onto the original Mickey Mouse works

[rui no onna]

Agreed Tuck. Siegel and Shuster are long long. The people who own Superman now had very little do with the creations made in 1939. Those copyrights should have gone to the public domain when they were supposed to. More recent stuff on the other hand? Well that would still belong to WB and it'd take 50-60 years for it to reach the public domain

It's really only Disney that pushed this by lobbying (*cough bribing) Congress into constantly extending the copyrights so they can hold onto the original Mickey Mouse works

Yep. Funny thing is Disney makes lots of money from public domain - Aladdin, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Snow Queen, Snow White, Little Mermaid, Rapunzel, etc.

[TheSeaDragon]

Yep. Funny thing is Disney makes lots of money from public domain - Aladdin, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Snow Queen, Snow White, Little Mermaid, Rapunzel, etc.

true that. And now one relizes how a company that thells so charming stories can so greedy inside....XD

[Zero Hunter]

Agreed Tuck. Siegel and Shuster are long long. The people who own Superman now had very little do with the creations made in 1939. Those copyrights should have gone to the public domain when they were supposed to. More recent stuff on the other hand? Well that would still belong to WB and it'd take 50-60 years for it to reach the public domain

It's really only Disney that pushed this by lobbying (*cough bribing) Congress into constantly extending the copyrights so they can hold onto the original Mickey Mouse works

The thing I have never liked about the whole copyright arguement is a lot of thing people are saying should be in public domain like Superman or Mickey Mouse have been in constant use pretty much since they were created. I could see it if they had not been used in say a decade or two then being public domain, but when a company has continued to put new things out constantly then I don't agree that they should lose the rights to it.

[adkal]

Depending on the version (so depending on the nature of his powers and molecular structure), it shouldn't be possible to teleport Superman the Star Trek way.

Wormholes, stargates, etc are fine, but the JLA teleporter shouldn't work on him - so he would have to fly to the satellite or moonbase or wherever.