TELLE writes:
I say if US law allows it, go for it heirs.
Certainly. If National held out on the Seigels for decades because the law let 'em, it's only fair for the heirs to grab Supes back because the law let's 'em. It works both ways. But it's almost like that legend of the two mothers fighting over one baby. The court's going to have to do a King Solomon and say, either I split this property up into a bunch of pieces that are worthless to both of you, or you guys are gonna have to work together and keep the character, and his value, intact.
It'll be interesting to see how that solution takes form.
But then, I'm not a US citizen.
That's okay, the rest of the world thinks they can run our system better than we do, why should you be an exception?
Anyway, I am a citizen and I don't get a say in this, either, so we're on equal footing.
And I reiterate, the intitial invention is worth all of the added stuff (which I almost love more). And Siegel added some of that, too: wasn't Superboy created in 1945 by S&S --and didn't National refuse them credit even then (Shuster was in the army when it saw print, I think)?
Seigel suggested a Superboy concept that was turned down flat. It was different from the Superboy we grew to know, but it was the same in one important way: it was Superman as a kid (as opposed to a new character entirely). While Seigel was away in the Army, DC decided to do a Superboy strip after all, and the courts decided that was a no-no.
Yes, some of the Superman mythos that was added in later years did come from Jerry, but it came after the transfer of rights. What we're seeing now is the first major test of a recent law allowing the Seigel estate to cancel that 1938 transfer of rights. If honored by the courts, this action will "take back" Jerry and Joe's surrender of all concepts presented in Action #1. It would not, as I understand it, give them any claim to anything created later on by free-lancers (including Jerry and Joe).
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM