The Legal Battle Over Superboy?

[JohnCrichton]

Why'd this start up in the first place? From what I've read it seems like the people trying to win the rights prolly haven't read a comic book in their lives. Sure, maybe they're entitled to some cash or something, but for what reason would they have to rip the name of Superboy from the places that could make it flourish the most and for the fans?

Superboy was one of my favorite DCU characters and I followed him for a long time from issue #0 even.

Infinate Crisis was the first time I'd really gotten back into DCU comic book reading and then we're hit with the ending which royally killed it for me.

Why couldn't there have been made a compromise or something? Why would they even want to make it so that nothing Superboy could ever be created again? I mean, the Superboy in the upcoming Legion of Superheroes being called, Superman just seems wrong.

Is there a website that gives in detail all of why this happened and for what reason?

EDIT: Looks like this spells it out, actually. (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6323787.html)

Looks like Supe's creators were unnecessarily treated like crap and now it's the family's chance to hit back without fear or regret. Still.... seems like a compromise could've easily been come to that'd keep the characters for the fans and more money be put in the pockets of the creators.

[Karkull]

Thank you and goodnight. (http://forums.toonzone.net/showpost.php?p=2125886&postcount=4)

[AdamYJ]

This is quite sucky.

It wasn't good that the Siegel's got screwed over in the first place.

It also isn't good that the Siegel's are taking a copyright and trademark away from a company that held and utilized it for decades.

I mean, what are the Siegel's going to do with it? Especially because they can't use most of the things associated with the Superman canon that comes with it.

I especially find it sucky because of what it means for Kon-El. I mean, he may be dead in the comics, but this also means he probably can't be Superboy in other media also (there go my hopes for a Young Justice cartoon).

I wish the Siegels and DC could just cut some sort of deal.

[Daredevil_2003]

I loathe the 'classic' Superboy. I just hate the idea with every ounce of my being for some reason.

As for the post-crisis one? Eh...I dont find him all that bad but he's no neccessity to me, either.

[Anthonynotes]

I'm the opposite in opinion to the above---I loved the pre-Crisis Superboy myself (find his post-Crisis successor Kon-El as "OK", though)...thus was disappointed to see that they had to change the name of Kal-El in the Legion cartoon to "young Superman" (which I agree sounds stupid when applied to someone who's obviously Super*boy*...).

Wondering how this will affect future projects that need a Superboy character (Kal- or Kon-), though---particularly whether or not they'll be willing to reprint old material of either character (I'd like to see a Showcase Presents edition of pre-Crisis Superboy), or some such future usage; the "young Superman" thing doesn't bode well for either Boy of Steel, I fear...

-B.

[DAISHI]

I'd be bitter too if I were held out of a century's worth of dues.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

Karkull's post (http://forums.toonzone.net/showpost.php?p=2125886&postcount=4) pretty neatly summarizes the issues behind the lawsuit. Fundamentally, this is not a black-and-white, good guy vs. bad guy situation where one party is motivated purely by greed and the other is motivated by pure motives of art and entertainment. Attempting to explain or interpret it in that way isn't going to be very helpful.

If you really want to understand the full context behind the lawsuit, I highly recommend reading Gerard Jones' book Men of Tomorrow (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465036570/qid=1152455438/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-7495203-7074501?v=glance&s=books), which chronicles the history of comic books largely by following four of the people involved: Siegel & Shuster on the creative side, and Jack Liebowitz and Harry Donenfeld on the publishing side. The book punctures a lot of other comic book urban legends that prevail in fandom, and goes a long way to explain why the industry works the way it does.

I think the lawsuit is unfortunate, but both parties are unwilling or unable to receive recourse beyond the courts. Sometimes life works out like that.

-- Ed

[Wonderwall]

Funny, I was always under the impression that Sigel and Shuster didnt create Superboy. But I guess DC just stole the idea from them. Thats pretty damn low.

[Daredevil_2003]

Funny, I was always under the impression that Sigel and Shuster didnt create Superboy. But I guess DC just stole the idea from them. Thats pretty damn low.Or pretty dumb of the former for the way they handled the properties they created. It was a cutthroat world back then just as it is, now. If you've got a hot idea and you dont take care of it you're going to get screwed by the big man. It's wrong, but the creators set themselves up for it, you gotta watch your ass at all times. With Superman, for instance, selling the rights to a unique, new character for $130 bucks with no type of written agreement about future royalties, credits, and what not is the exact opposite of watching your hind quarters. It's more like hanging it out over a pit of starving wild dogs.

[Anthonynotes]

Funny, I was always under the impression that Sigel and Shuster didnt create Superboy. But I guess DC just stole the idea from them. Thats pretty damn low.

From what I've read, originally Siegel and Shuster had an idea for a Superboy in the early 40's, but it would've depicted the kid as something of a jokester (humorous stories); DC at the time declined, but in 1944 (while one of them was in WWII), decided to create Superboy (in a more serious vein), publishing his first appearance (written by someone else) in "More Fun Comics". This was probably one reason for Siegel and Shuster's falling out/lawsuit with DC in the late 40s....

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


Or pretty dumb of the former for the way they handled the properties they created. It was a cutthroat world back then just as it is, now. If you've got a hot idea and you dont take care of it you're going to get screwed by the big man. It's wrong, but the creators set themselves up for it, you gotta watch your ass at all times. With Superman, for instance, selling the rights to a unique, new character for $130 bucks with no type of written agreement about future royalties, credits, and what not is the exact opposite of watching your hind quarters. It's more like hanging it out over a pit of starving wild dogs.
I don't know...it's easy to make statements like that in hindsight, but a lot harder in context. Superman had already been rejected in a few different formats when National Publications agreed to take a chance on him. The Great Depression and Prohibition-spawned organized crime were both going on full-swing. Comics of original material, rather than reprints, were a new phenomenon, competing with a number of new publishing initiatives (some of which were created primarily as fronts for laundering mob money or using the vast quantities of paper that hid the hooch being carried over the border from Canada). The choice given to the artistic talent at that time was to take the deal the company offered you or not work at all, and the Depression ensured that there were plenty of people who were willing to shut up and take your spot if you caused too much trouble.

Look at all that in sum, and "take the money and run" doesn't seem like such a bad idea any more. Besides, I think the deal S&S got was something like a 10-year contract of guaranteed employment. This was a great deal, until one started seeing the thousands and, eventually, millions that DC pulled in from licensing Superman. Over time, the only condition that remained true throughout Siegel and Shuster's career at DC was the "our way or the highway" stance the company took on ownership. Even as late as the 60's and 70's, DC and Marvel would just fire writers and artists who started squawking about wanting more money, better working conditions, ownership of their characters, or even just getting their original artwork back.

This isn't to say that S&S didn't make mistakes on their own, some from their own shortcomings. Siegel apparently had a really nasty habit of keeping things that bothered him to himself until they became unbearable, at which point he would explode, triggering massive and avoidable crises. He also continued to demonstrate a remarkable short-sightedness and far more willingness to compromise than he should have, even after he really should have known better.

Creators who owned their creations were by far the exception and not the rule; Will Eisner owned the Spirit because he ran his own studio and had a proven track record of producing the work before he did the Spirit. William Moulton Marston landed his agreement over Wonder Woman because he was DC's educational consultant before he was a writer, and they approached him rather than the other way around. Bob Kane's rights situation with Batman is almost unbelievably bizarre -- apparently, he managed to get his rights to Batman during WWII years, well after Batman was a major moneymaker for DC, through some coercion of his own involving a not-so-veiled blackmail threat about his draftee status (no, really). It's not coincidental that all 3 of these cases involved veteran creators and not the starry-eyed teenagers that Siegel and Shuster were when they first created Superman.

I'm really not kidding when I say it's worth your time to read Gerard Jones' Men of Tomorrow (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465036570/qid=1152455438/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-7495203-7074501?v=glance&s=books) :D.

-- Ed

[Stu]

The legal problems from DC comics characters creations isn't just debatable with Superman/Superboy, apprantly, there are several people firmly believe that Bill Finger had a much bigger hand in the creation of Batman than anyone ever gives him credit for. It is rumoured that Finger was the original creator of The Joker, Catwoman and even Robin - who's debut apprantly doubled the number of sales on the book.

[Wonderwall]

The legal problems from DC comics characters creations isn't just debatable with Superman/Superboy, apprantly, there are several people firmly believe that Bill Finger had a much bigger hand in the creation of Batman than anyone ever gives him credit for. It is rumoured that Finger was the original creator of The Joker, Catwoman and even Robin - who's debut apprantly doubled the number of sales on the book.

Thus the phrase in comics for anyone who gets screwed, that they got Fingered. That was arguably the biggest injustice in comics.

[Daredevil_2003]

I'm really not kidding when I say it's worth your time to read Gerard Jones' Men of Tomorrow (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465036570/qid=1152455438/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-7495203-7074501?v=glance&s=books) :D.

-- EdYour unhealthy amount of knowledge about comics both on and off the page is staggering to me everytime I see it. :p Thanks for the info and I will definitely be picking up that book. It sounds interesting.

[dtemplar]

Warner Bros. has won the right to appeal, and the trial will begin sometime in 2008.

[Robin2099]

The legal problems from DC comics characters creations isn't just debatable with Superman/Superboy, apprantly, there are several people firmly believe that Bill Finger had a much bigger hand in the creation of Batman than anyone ever gives him credit for. It is rumoured that Finger was the original creator of The Joker, Catwoman and even Robin - who's debut apprantly doubled the number of sales on the book.

Yeah though on some of those everyone disagrees over who created who (The Joker for instance has three people claiming credit for his creation). The worse part with Finger is that Bob Kane talked about how he should of got a byline for creating Batman, but then never did anything to get him that byline.