What if there was no Superman

[Sandy Hausler]

This is just a game, but it might be fun.

A few years ago, the Siegel family fought to claw back the rights to Superman. They had a colorable basis to do so under the 1976 Copyright Act, as amended, and, in fact, the Court had found in their favor. Ultimately, the matter was settled, as makes sense. But what if the Siegels chose to take the Superman rights and start their own comic company. And also assume that all derivative characters (Supergirl, Superboy particularly) were found to fall within Siegel's ownership of the Superman rights. What would DC do? Would it create a new character to fill in the Superman role? Would one of their other characters take that role? Interested in what you think might have happened.

Sandy Hausler

[KoriandrJean]

This is just a game, but it might be fun.

A few years ago, the Siegel family fought to claw back the rights to Superman. They had a colorable basis to do so under the 1976 Copyright Act, as amended, and, in fact, the Court had found in their favor. Ultimately, the matter was settled, as makes sense. But what if the Siegels chose to take the Superman rights and start their own comic company. And also assume that all derivative characters (Supergirl, Superboy particularly) were found to fall within Siegel's ownership of the Superman rights. What would DC do? Would it create a new character to fill in the Superman role? Would one of their other characters take that role? Interested in what you think might have happened.

Sandy Hausler

How was the matter settled: I'd thought that the courts ultimately decided DC had won?!

[SJNeal]

I think they would've just filled the holes in their line-up with more Batman books.

As far as in-universe? Another "Crisis" of some sort to explain away all things Superman.

[GreenLanternRanger]

If there was no Superman I would be very sad. Also other heroes would have to work harder to pick up the slack.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

This is just a game, but it might be fun.

A few years ago, the Siegel family fought to claw back the rights to Superman. They had a colorable basis to do so under the 1976 Copyright Act, as amended, and, in fact, the Court had found in their favor. Ultimately, the matter was settled, as makes sense. But what if the Siegels chose to take the Superman rights and start their own comic company. And also assume that all derivative characters (Supergirl, Superboy particularly) were found to fall within Siegel's ownership of the Superman rights. What would DC do? Would it create a new character to fill in the Superman role? Would one of their other characters take that role? Interested in what you think might have happened.

Sandy Hausler

Earth 2 originally took the trinity of the the board and tries to give aspects of those characters to the the jSA so I'd imagine they'd just prop up other characters with those aspects. Although I could see Johns being tasked to bring in a new character to fill Supes's shoes so it could be both.

[JackDaw]

There's a ton of Superman related characters that could never be logically assigned to Siegel/ Shuster copyright, because other creators originated them. The Legion, the New Gods, etc, etc.

DC would need to have a deep ponder on what to do with them, and how to furnish non-Superman back stories for the ones they continued to use.

Once that was decided, I think it would be best for DC to have a total re-boot...and for once it would genuinely be an exciting event, because DC could not just slightly update things, but would need to go for new origins, etc.

It would also be interesting to see how the "pure" Siegel/ Shuster Superman-verse would work out...I think the creators there would have a bigger challenge than those working on slimmed down DC verse.

[Francisco]

Without Superman in the mix DC would do what they're already doing: Focus all their attention into Batman.

[Flyattractor]

Captain Marvel would be putting in Double Overtime.

Good thing he as the Stamina of Atlas.

[colonyofcells]

My impression is that dc can easily live on batman alone just as Sanrio can easily live on Hello Kitty alone. Without superman, dc might concentrate on heroes without super powers and that is more realistic and might actually be better for dc (no more unbelievable stories about god like people). Personally, I prefer Black Canary without super powers.

[Francisco]

It would also be interesting to see how the "pure" Siegel/ Shuster Superman-verse would work out...I think the creators there would have a bigger challenge than those working on slimmed down DC verse.

With total creative freedom and without suits getting in the way I can see Superman and his fandom revitalized and reaching new heights.

[BatmanJones]

According to Alan Davis the answer is The Nail. It's a wonderful read with beautiful art.

[JackDaw]

Long time since I read "The Nail".....but wasn't it Alan Davis speculating on what might have happened if Kents had not adopted Clark, rather than about a world without Superman at all?

[manofsteel1979]

I think if they lost ALL the Superman rights and all the characters,they would have written him out via a crisis style story,give ACTION COMICS to Batman too then move on.

However,DC owns most of the larger Superman lore lock stock and barrel. The only pieces they could conceivably lose is the stuff in ACTION #1,Superman as a book title,Clark Kent as the secret ID who works at a newspaper,Lois Lane ,the original Superman look...and that's it. As I understand it,DC could still have a character called Superman star in Comics because they own the trademark,the Logo etc. Think Captain Marvel. Until the New 52 they used the Captain Marvel name in stories but not on covers. The book though probably couldn't use the Superman name on the cover (perhaps substitute a nick name they own The Man Of Steel), change the suit where it wasn't the Shuster strongman trunks and tights model,drop Clark Kent as a secret identity and either have Lois die,dissapear or retconned out.Everything else would remain unaffected.

Note though that in much of the 2000's and the 2010's,Clark Kent has been MIA much of the time, there have been times we've barely seen Lois, there were long stretches where he hasn't worn the classic suit and even times where he was replaced in his own books for years at a time by variant characters (New Krypton anyone?). I don't think that is a coincidence. Either trial balloons testing plan B approaches if they ever lose the Action #1 copyrighted stuff,or to avoid paying the heirs back royalties.

Also,the heirs could conceivably use their copyrighted material had they won the suit,but they could only use those parts they owned. But no Jimmy Olsen or Perry White. No Lex Luthor. No Metropolis or Supergirl or Kryptonite or Krypto or Fortress of Solitude or....well anything else Superman related.

In other words even if DC /Warner's lost,they still would have won ,as they own nearly most of the iconography of the character.

[dancj]

Long time since I read "The Nail".....but wasn't it Alan Davis speculating on what might have happened if Kents had not adopted Clark, rather than about a world without Superman at all?

Technically yeah, but until the final few pages of the book that amounted to the same thing.

[GlennSimpson]

This is just a game, but it might be fun.

A few years ago, the Siegel family fought to claw back the rights to Superman. They had a colorable basis to do so under the 1976 Copyright Act, as amended, and, in fact, the Court had found in their favor. Ultimately, the matter was settled, as makes sense. But what if the Siegels chose to take the Superman rights and start their own comic company. And also assume that all derivative characters (Supergirl, Superboy particularly) were found to fall within Siegel's ownership of the Superman rights. What would DC do? Would it create a new character to fill in the Superman role? Would one of their other characters take that role? Interested in what you think might have happened.

Sandy Hausler

OK, your mention of 1976 led me at first to think you meant what if it happened back in 1976. But I see now you mean what if it happened a few years ago. Honestly, I think they would just kill him off in the comics and move on.

The only mention of 1976 is the year that the Copyright Act went into effect (taking over for the 1909 version). As later amended, it provided for termination rights, alliowing a copyright holder who had sold or licensed his or her rights to get them back at a later time.

BTW, in looking back at the cases, I see I was mistaken as to how the case ended. On appeal, DC had won. Still, I thiink there was some settlement with the Siegels (but I could be wrong about that).

Sandy Hausler