Controversial Superman Opinions

[The Kid]

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.

They'd still have the rights to modern stuff that they've been working on. It's only the 1938 version that would initially be up in the public domain

[Tuck]

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.

That's not how copyright law works though.

The issue is really with Mickey Mouse right now because Steamboat Willy is supposed to go into public domain this year (or next, I forget), but Disney is going to try to use trademark to create a de facto permanent copyright . . . which was never the intent of copyright.

What makes it more problematic is the complaints about piracy and the entertainment world's use of annoying DRM that screws with paying customers as well as pushing through draconian laws to protect copyright which enforce statutory penalties on rights violations regardless of the copyright holders ability to show damages . . . which is a end around tort. Normally you have to prove someone actually hurt you in some way to sue. The abuse of Youtube policies and a whole host of generally over-the-top overreactions and ad campaigns to make copyright infringement sound like its on par with armed robbery. The industry is screaming at the top of its lungs for everyone to follow the rules.

But the second the rules don't favor them . . . they want to change them or circumvent them.

[Zero Hunter]

I look at it like this. Disney has spent decades building up the character and still uses him today. To have someone else come in now and be able to do their own Mickey Mouse would be getting the advantage of all that work without having to put in any effort and to me that is not right. Like I said if Disney had not been doing anything with the character for the last 20 or so years then I might be able to see it, but not when the character in question is still being used by the long term owners of the property.

[Tuck]

They only own it because the law says they own it.

When the law says that ownership expires, it expires.

But back to my earlier post. The entire reason (at least for the Framers of the US Constitution (the applicable system here)) the government bothers with issuing copyrights is to foster cultural development. Without ownership rights - it is argued - people have less incentive to create original works. But without those rights ever expiring, the culture become stagnant: going back to the same wells over and over again rather than creating original works (the whole point of granting the rights in the first place). You also stifle other creators. Again, creating an artistic work about the contemporary world, but that cannot incorporate the artistic influences of the world around it, is a little hollow.

The Wonder Years without the real period music doesn't quite work.

There was a video game a while back called Brutal Legend. Jack Black is the world's greatest roadie and he gets sucked into the world of metal and has to defeat some demon horde with the power of rock (it's friggin' awesome). And they got a lot of people and music in it. But Metallica, Iron Maiden, and AC/DC were holdouts (all of whom would still retain copyright for most of their catalogues even under older copyright periods), and you can feel their absence. It makes the game just a little incomplete. Which is my point. If affects what other people can do too.

Imagine if scientists clung to their copyrights like this. We'd be so screwed.

[Jon Clark]

They only own it because the law says they own it.

When the law says that ownership expires, it expires.

But back to my earlier post. The entire reason (at least for the Framers of the US Constitution (the applicable system here)) the government bothers with issuing copyrights is to foster cultural development. Without ownership rights - it is argued - people have less incentive to create original works. But without those rights ever expiring, the culture become stagnant: going back to the same wells over and over again rather than creating original works (the whole point of granting the rights in the first place). You also stifle other creators. Again, creating an artistic work about the contemporary world, but that cannot incorporate the artistic influences of the world around it, is a little hollow.

The Wonder Years without the real period music doesn't quite work.

There was a video game a while back called Brutal Legend. Jack Black is the world's greatest roadie and he gets sucked into the world of metal and has to defeat some demon horde with the power of rock (it's friggin' awesome). And they got a lot of people and music in it. But Metallica, Iron Maiden, and AC/DC were holdouts (all of whom would still retain copyright for most of their catalogues even under older copyright periods), and you can feel their absence. It makes the game just a little incomplete. Which is my point. If affects what other people can do too.

Imagine if scientists clung to their copyrights like this. We'd be so screwed.

Imagine if using Greek myths required getting permission from Homer's heirs? Or if West Side Story had been challenged by Shakespeare's heirs? Or if Shakespeare himself had been assailed by people with the rights to the Hamlet character or MacBeth?

[rui no onna]

Imagine if using Greek myths required getting permission from Homer's heirs? Or if West Side Story had been challenged by Shakespeare's heirs? Or if Shakespeare himself had been assailed by people with the rights to the Hamlet character or MacBeth?

Hans Christian Andersen and Disney.

Disney takes advantage of expired copyrights when it suits them. Meanwhile, they hold on tenaciously to their IP and try to change laws to benefit them.

[stephens2177]

There should be a middle ground somehow,but I definitely don't side with those who think that it's ok to just take whatever they want from someone who worked their ass off to make something,just because "that's the laws".

[Tuck]

There should be a middle ground somehow,but I definitely don't side with those who think that it's ok to just take whatever they want from someone who worked their ass off to make something,just because "that's the laws".

Modern copyrights don't expire until 70 years after the creator's death.

Who is having their work taken?

[paurru]

My so called "controversial" Superman related comic opinion

The 2005 Supergirl series is great and stories are fun to read through.

The 1990s Matrix Supergirl got dull after the whole Return of Superman. She got pretty much useless after Superman came back after defeating the Henshaw cyborg Superman and Mongul etc. The Steel comic book was way better though than the 1990s Supergirl comic

[superduperman]

My so called "controversial" Superman related comic opinion

The 2005 Supergirl series is great and stories are fun to read through.

The 1990s Matrix Supergirl got dull after the whole Return of Superman. She got pretty much useless after Superman came back after defeating the Henshaw cyborg Superman and Mongul etc. The Steel comic book was way better though than the 1990s Supergirl comic

You really do seem kind of hung up on this one.

[superduperman]

Superman has been rebooted so many times that the suspension of disbelief rule has been violated beyond repair. Does that count as controversial?

[adkal]

Superman has been rebooted so many times that the suspension of disbelief rule has been violated beyond repair. Does that count as controversial?

Nah, it just brings to life the reveal in Superman: Beyond 3D when we see what is on the headstone

[Jim Kelly]

Doesn't time itself dismantle Superman and all the DC characters--except those that exist in real time? If Superman operates according to Marvel time, then his history is constantly being updeated. Therefore an origin story from 1948 has a limited shelf life. The same with an origin story from 1973. This is the thing that broke my mind when I was a teen-ager. I realized that none of it could make any sense--not for a sustained period of time. It's like building castles on quick sand.

It's one of those things that you have to vigilantly ignore when you're reading a comic book or watching one of the movies or TV shows--don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain. As soon as you start thinking about the non-sensical nature of the reality, you're lost.

[Francisco]

DC should bring back Golden Age Superman. It would be awesome to have an outside of continuity series with Superman having adventures back in the 1930's. Reboot action comics Nro. 1. Modern art and writing style but a 1930's setting with 1930's powerset. Crime, racism, war, home violence, workplace discrimination, bigotry, I mean the ugly 1930's. And they should make it so a year in Superman's world equals a year in ours. So characters get to grow old, quit their jobs, get new ones, get married, get divorced and eventually die after having children and stuff.

[Vanguard-01]

DC should bring back Golden Age Superman. It would be awesome to have an outside of continuity series with Superman having adventures back in the 1930's. Reboot action comics Nro. 1. Modern art and writing style but a 1930's setting with 1930's powerset. Crime, racism, war, home violence, workplace discrimination, bigotry, I mean the ugly 1930's. And they should make it so a year in Superman's world equals a year in ours. So characters get to grow old, quit their jobs, get new ones, get married, get divorced and eventually die after having children and stuff.

You know? I actually like this idea!

People keep talking about needing to power Superman down in order to make him more relatable. Problem is, when they try to do it in the main continuity, the fans get real tired of it real tired of it really fast. A standalone story in the style of his Golden Age run may be just the thing to take away the extreme power and just focus on the parts of Superman's personality and motivations that really matter: his status as a champion of the downtrodden.

Done right, I could see this book being THE thing that helps people fall in love with Superman all over again and recognize that it's not his power levels that make him special, it's what he represents.

Seriously, DC! Get ON this one already!