During the early 1930s, the comic book medium was in its true infancy. Most of the comics at the time were mere collections of the daily "funnies" printed in the newspapers at the time. 1938 ended up being the key year that, at the latest, marked the beginning of the Golden Age of Comic books. Action Comics #1 was published. On the cover was a costumed adventurer who was lifting a car full of hoods over his head and smashing it into a giant rock.
This was the world's introduction to Superman, a character created for National Periodical Publications by Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster. Eventually, NPP would take the initials from its other best selling comic book at the time, Detective Comics, and be renamed DC Comics. Superman was the archetype for the superhero. He had powers beyond those of mortal men and used them to fight evil in the world. His success was such that, in 1939, DC issued a new monthly that, in addition to Action Comics, would spotlight Superman in his own adventures. This monthly was simply called Superman. Even as the comics taste of the public has waxed and waned over the years, Superman and Action Comics are still in publication today.
Superman is now considered a cultural icon. His iconic "S" emblem has adorned all manner of merchandising since the Golden Age of comics and continues to bring in millions of dollars to Time Warner (the present day owners of DC comics). After often being handed to lesser writers, today writers vie for the honor of creating new adventures for this iconic character. Superman has starred and continues to star in cartoons, with "Superman and the Legion of Super Heroes" providing the latest excellent incarnation of the character from the DC Animated Universe of Bruce Timm. The Superman films have also returned untold millions to Time Warner in the form of box office, videocassette and DVD sales, and other merchandising. Superman toys have been sold since the 1930s, and I personally have a collection of Superman Action figures that goes back to the 1960s with the original "Captain Action" Superman set.
all the way through to the newest one released in 2006.
In between, there have been hundreds, if not THOUSANDS, of Superman toys produced and sold to kids. All of these toys lined the pockets of the corporate parents for DC Comics and the shareholders with untold gains.
Now we come to the importance of today's court ruling. What does a seemingly innocent court ruling by a California District court have to do with the character of Superman? Why will this decision likely resound with the corporate directors of many Fortune 500 companies? Well, when Siegel and Shuster worked for DC, they were considered employees of the company. Interestingly, the character of Superman, however, was conceived long before they worked for DC. They were trying to shop the character around, but they were denied until NPP needed a few pages for a new publication, "Action Comics." NPP sent the standard release agreement at the time. They offered to purchase the story for $130; in exchange for this consideration, Siegel and Shuster signed a release granting the company rights to Superman “to have and hold forever.” Forever is a pretty long time, and it was considered standard practice to allow publishers these terms. After all, merchandising and money making from characters was not all that commonplace. Aside from Little Orphan Annie, Popeye, and Betty Boop, the merchandising juggernauts of today were nothing more than minnows at the time. Furthermore, $130 in 1937 dollars was a pretty considerable sum of money (adjusted for inflation, that sum would be the equivalent of $1,911.12 today). One would almost think that the creators were making out pretty well from all of this. The issue here is the unbalanced positions of the parties at the time the contract was issued. Siegel and Shuster did not negotiate the contract with NPP nor were they in equitable bargaining positions. The corporation took advantage of the naivety of these two creators and denied them the rights to a character who would one day become one of the most recognizable on the planet. The $130 consideration was the real world equivalent of Jack's handful of magic beans, but this time the beanstalk leading to the giant's riches did not grow overnight. It took decades of legal battles and the dogged pursuit of justice on the part of the creator's heirs. In the 1940s, a special referee in NY upheld the grant of copyright, and the creators dropped their suit in exchange for a single payment of $94,000. In the 1970s, due in no small part to the new focus on the rights of creators who had been cheated from profiting from their characters, DC awarded both creators annual annuities of $20,000 and then $30,000. Nevermind that "Superman: The Movie", released over Christmas of 1978, would reap untold levels of profit for Warner Communications and DC Comics. Warners at the time probably also had an eye towards a provision of the 1976 Copyright Act. The Act represented the first wholesale change to US copyright law since 1909. Within the provisions of the 1976 Act was a cause of action that allowed heirs to recover the rights of their creations from the corporate owners under certain circumstances. In 2006, this provision allowed the heirs to recover the rights in the character and associated characters for Superboy. Around that same time, references to Superboy disappeared from DC comics almost overnight. During the intervening two years, they killed the then-current incarnation of the character and made another version of the character into a homicidal killer. Revenge of sorts? That case is on-going, for there is an issue concerning whether the current CW series. "Smallville," is based upon Siegel and Shuster's version of Superboy. Are you getting a sense of how big this is?
Today, the Federal District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the heirs of Jerome Siegel owned a share of the Superman copyright. In other words, Time Warner owes the heirs of Siegel a percentage of any profit garnered from their use of the Superman character since 1999. That is a significant amount of money that might also be enough to move the stock values of the company. This battle is not over yet, for the heirs of Shuster are also trying to get rights to the character, something they may be entitled to as of 2013. This means that Time Warner cannot publish Superman comics, create Superman cartoons or movies, or issue Superman related merchandise without a license from the heirs of the creators. This also may have a ripple effect among the heirs of the creators for many popular characters who then worked for large corporations. Who is to say that the family of Ub Iwerks will not attempt to get a royalty from monies owed from his co-creation, with Walt Disney, of the character of Mickey Mouse? What of the rights of Jack Kirby, the co-creator of the Fantastic Four, Incredible Hulk, the X-Men, and Captain America? What of the rights of Steve Ditko, the co-creator of Spider-Man? What about Bugs Bunny, the product of numerous creators (Bob Clampett, Friz Freleng, Chuck Jones, Bob McKimson, and the voice actor Mel Blanc? Can their heirs sue for the rights of the character as well?
Under the terms of the Copyright Term Extension Act (the Sonny Bono Act), copyrights for works extends to life + 70 years for works of an individual author and 120 years (after creation) or 95 years (after publication) for works of corporate authorship. There is a widespread belief that, as some of the more identifiable corporate icons reach these thresholds, there will be yet another extension of copyright term, but this may be challenged as antithetical to the Constitutional mandate that such rights be granted for a fixed time. A change of this level would appear to vest copyright in perpetuity, with few characters every lapsing into the public domain.
In the end, though, we should cheer the victory of the Superman heirs. Though the ruling may slow the flow of Superman-related stories, media, and merchandise, I have a feeling that having someone else monitoring quality would be a bad thing. So many times (see my review of "Superman Returns"), I have bemoaned the fact that the powers that be sometimes cannot see the forest for the trees. Verisimilitude in the treatment of such iconic characters is extremely important. Having another set of eyes watching to insure the proper treatment of Superman is something that, hopefully, will be good for the character. I am also eager to see how this ruling plays out with regard to claims from other creators. The creators are the ones responsible. Isn't it fair that they and their heirs reap the benefits from their creations? Without Siegel and Shuster, we might never have had Batman, Spider-Man, Captain Marvel, or any other super hero. Their contribution to mass media goes far beyond that short comic story they sold for $130. It is just that they be properly rewarded for it.
The New York Times article on the court decision can be found here.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment