SIEGELS SUE SMALLVILLE'S SUPERBOY

[DoctorZero]

It will be interesting to see how this comes out.  I suspect they will end up paying the Siegels money for Smallville to continue.

[TELLE]

I think so too --is Smallville made by a separate production company or does Warnets own most of it?  How do those things work?

The Comics Reporter has links to 3 separate articles by Mark Evanier about the case --Evanier is very knowledgeable.

http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/mark_evanier_on_superboy_and_siegels1/

[Klar Ken T5477]

Warners owns it

[MatterEaterLad]

Huh, with WB and UPN merging and sorting out shows, I wonder if the ad revunues are strong enough for Smallville to think its worth it...

[Great Rao]

Looks like the whole thing is going to go to a jury.

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,18747,00.html

[TELLE]

The people will decide, then.  Too bad Jerry and Joe often faced only judges and lawyers.

[TELLE]

Journo Heidi MacDonald parses the latest news:
http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/04/siegels_regain_superboy.html

A few months later, Siegel agreed to provide Detective Comics with a new Superboy comicstrip and submitted a plan that was turned down. Siegel unsuccessfully attempted several more times to pique Detective's interest in Superboy before entering the Army in 1943.

But Detective began publishing Superboy comics in 1944 while Siegel was stationed in the Pacific, resulting in a 1947 lawsuit in which New York state court Judge Addison Young found Siegel to be the sole owner of Superboy. In 1948, Siegel reached a settlement with National Comics Publications (predecessor of DC Comics) in which he sold ownership of Superboy and Superman to National.

Well that ends that, then, right? Not really, because the new copyright laws enacted in 1976 allowed original copyright holders to regain their rights -- a provision specifically created for authors who had signed "bad deals."

So in late 2002, Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson served the standard two-year notice they were terminating the 1948 grant of the Superboy copyright.

But in August 2004, DC Comics notified Siegel and Larson it was denying the validity of the termination notice and asserting it would "vigorously oppose" any attempt to exploit the Superboy copyrights. Siegel and Larson filed their suit two months later.

So, to sum up exceedingly briefly, Siegel and Larson have regained the copyright to Superboy. Warners intends to appeal, naturally, and now the crux of the argument will be whether SMALLVILLE depicts a young Clark Kent, or the specific character of Superboy.

It's of some note that this story has ben kept exceedingly quiet, unlike other, less meritorious claims for copyright by older comics creators. It's widely believed that negotiations have ben ongoing between the Siegel heirs and DC Comics execs who have been supportive of Superman creators Siegel and Joe Shuster in the past.

Finally, it's being noted around the web today that in the latest issue of Infinite Crisis a whole bunch of Superboys have been killed. Coincidence? Or a prudent plan since the Siegel's claim to Superboy always appeared strong? U decide.

We'll have more on this after we digest a few hundred pages of legal brief we have sitting here.

[TELLE]

and then writes an article for Publisher's Weekly, including an interview with the Siegels' lawyer:

http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6323787.html

Contacted by PWCW, the Siegels' attorney, Marc Toberoff, gave his own take on why the copyright termination clause was included. Toberoff says that the clause was not added to wreak havoc on the publishing world, but to protect authors. Fifty-six years is a long time, says Toberoff, and in order to clear all the hurdles necessary for a copyright grant termination to take effect, there has to be a lot of money at stake to survive the economic war of attrition that the legal battle will cause. Toberoff said the Siegel decision could be significant—with more creations coming up for copyright renewal, publishers may try to sweeten the pot to keep authors or their heirs from filing.

and more about Infinite Crisis:
 

But it doesn't end there. On February 2, 1998, Siegel and Larson filed a termination of grant for Superman "and 2,607 other titles," which would have taken effect on April 16, 1999. Joe Shuster had no children, but his nephew and executor, Mark Peary, also filed for termination of grant, which would take effect on October 26, 2013. DC had argued in the past that because the Siegels did not own more than 50% of Superman, the termination was not valid, but it is speculated that this is the subject of ongoing negotiations.


While the legal battles go on behind the scenes, real-world repercussions are already being felt. Perhaps expecting the court decision to go against Time Warner, DC recently killed off several versions of Superboy in its Infinite Crisis miniseries.


For Joanne Siegel—who was the model for Lois Lane—and Laura Siegel Larson, the March 23 decision provides some vindication after a very long battle. Or as one legal observer put it, "It's the first good news they've had in 50 years."