Since at least eighth grade, I went to my comic shop once a week. In the early years, during the mid-seventies, there was rarely a chance that a comic would sell out, so I could wait until Saturday morning and take the hour or so bus ride to my shop. As I got older, the number of comics being solicited by the Big 2 and innumerable independent companies increased dramatically. Of the latter, my shop ordered one or two, at best, so if I wanted something like Justice Machine, I had to be there on delivery day, starting a decades-long routine. That routine only came to an end about 18 months ago when I found myself unemployed and short of cash. My shop didn't take credit cards--if it had, I would have stayed with it--so, I had to find a new source.
That source was Discount Comic Book Service. I been buying action figures from them at a discount price since 2002, but my comic-shop loyalty kept me from doing more than looking at the discounts DCBS offered. Anyway, come 2005, I submitted my first DCBS order, thus beginning my monthly comic delivery, or as I call it, "end of the month Christmas."
The only problem is is that DCBS can tease me. Usually, the last Wednesday of the month DCBS sends me an auto-generated message informing me that a DHL shipping label has been created, which means my order will be shipping. However, when it will ship, I can never know. With real Christmas, there is never a doubt that come December 25 so will Christmas, but come the DHL shipping label, you can't make as firm a declaration. Sometimes the box shows up on Friday, sometimes the next Monday or even Tuesday. On rare occasions it is the Thursday after the e-mail. So, here I sit, wondering when August Christmas will happen. I'll let you know.
To pass the time, here is a list of what comics I expect to be in the box:
Action Comics ##853-855
All New Atom #14
All New Booster Gold #1
Alter Ego (Aug.)
Amazing Fantasy Omnibus, vol. 1
Amazons Attack ##3, 5-6
Amelia Rules #18
Annihilation Conquest Star Lord #2
Archie & Friends #112
Astonishing X-Men #22
Avengers Initiative #5
B.P.R.D. Killing Ground #1
Bart Simpson Comics #37
Batman ##667-668
Batman Strikes #36
Big Bang Comics Presents Agents of Badge #6
Birds of Prey #109
Brave and the Bold #6
Captain America #29
Clockwork Girl #0
Countdown ##39-35
Countdown to Adventure #1
Daredevil #99
Dynamo 5 #6
Elephantmen, vol. 1 Wounded Animals
Essential Daredevil, vol. 4
Ex Machina Special: Masquerade
Fables #64
Fantastic Five ##3-4
Fantastic Four ##548-549
Fantastic Four and Power Pack #2
Flash #231
Green Lantern #22
Hellboy Darkness Calls #5
Immortal Iron Fist #8
Irredeemable Ant-Man #11
Jack of Fables #13
JSA Classified #29
Justice League of America #12
Justice League Unlimited #36
Justice Society of America #8
Last Fantastic Four Story
Legion of Super Heroes in the 31st Century #5
Maintenance #4
Marvel Adventures Avengers #15
Marvel Adventures Fantastic Four #27
Marvel Adventures Hulk #2
Marvel Adventures Iron Man #4
Marvel Adventures Spider-Man #30
Marvel Masterworks Golden Age Sub-Mariner, vol. 2
Metal Men #1
Mice Templar #1
Mouse Guard Winter 1152 #1
Ms. Marvel #18
New Avengers #33
New Avengers Illuminati #4
New Universal, vol. 1 Everything Went White
Nightwing #135
Nihilist Man And His Amazing Friends #1
Nova #5
Omega Flight #5
Oz-Wonderland Chronicles #2
Powers #25
Previews, vol. XVII #9
Shadowpact #16
She-Hulk #20
Showcase Presents Wonder Woman, vol. 1
Simpsons Comics #133
Spider-Man Fantastic Four #4
Super-Villain Team-Up Modok’s 11 #2
Supergirl #20
Supergirl and the Legion of Super Heroes #33
Superman #666
Supernatural Law Wolff & Byrd: The Movie
Teen Titans #50
Teen Titans Go! #46
The Order #2
The Spirit #9
Ultimate Fantastic Four #45
Welcome to Tranquility #9
Will Eisner’s The Spirit Archives, vol. 22
Wonder Woman #12
And here are the non-comic items:
Classic DC Character #4 The Flash
Comics Gone Ape!
Justice League of America Ser. 1, Black Lightning action figure
Justice League of America Ser. 1, Red Arrow action figure
Justice League of America Ser. 1, Vixen action figure
Marvel Zombies Minimates Box Set
Like I said, "August Christmas."
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
What's the Point of Making Comic Books for Pre-Schoolers, if There Aren't Any Comics for Them When They Are Twelve?
I missed most of the panel at Wizard World Chicago where the new DC super-hero comics for very young kids were announced, so I didn't know that to make room there would be the concurrent cancellation of Teen Titans Go! and Justice League Unlimited. (Well, actually, I knew about the Titans, but the JLU cancellation came as a surprise.) Had I known, I would have asked Jann Jones at some point during the convention (she seemed to always be at the DC booth when I passed it) why DC is abandoning a whole strata of kids in favor of comics for four-year-olds. Justice League Unlimited is one of my thirteen-year-old nephew's favorite comics (and, I'll admit, one of my favorites, too), along with Marvel Adventures Avengers, so where is he supposed to go for his DCU team fix?
It is obvious that Jones and I have a different viewpoint of what is kid appropriate. I admit that I was raised in an atmosphere of allowance when it came to reading or watching just about anything I wanted. My mother believes that a kid will only read or watch what he finds interesting, and I can't disagree. Jones is loath to expose children to "serious issues--cases where if the heroes don’t save the day, it’s implied, or shown[,] that people will die. I think that’s kind of heavy to put on a younger audience."
I appreciate what Jones is saying, and it is a legitimate complaint, though more applicable to the mainstream titles, in my opinion. However, just because adult logic informs us the failure of heroes could mean the death of innocents, that does not mean said deaths be mentioned/shown or having happened at all. How many abandoned warehouses and/or "neighborhoods scheduled to be razed" were invoked by Stan Lee when the Hulk went on a rampage in New York or battled the Thing, thereby negating the casualties an adult understands should be littering the ground. Unless there is a trauma in a child's life, e.g., seeing a family member being hit by a car, most children don't consider fatalities unless there is evidence of such in word or picture.
On the face, this is a good idea. Comic books should be available for any who want to read them (though I am of the opinion that the mainstream comics should always be all ages and "Jonathon DC" would be the imprint for mature readers who have outgrown the mainstream line, but I digress). But where now, my nephew? Where are his comic books? Once, really not so long ago, just twenty-five years or so, at thirteen he would have been more than able to jump into mainstream comics and easily found his comics, the ones that hooked him into the hobby for life. If Jones believes that JLU presented stories more mature than to which the average child should be exposed, what is her opinion regarding the appropriateness of any random mainstream DCU comic for an eleven-year-old wanting something more than vignettes and puzzles? It looks to me like DC has abandoned the whole 'tween demographic with this move. Assuming these comics do hook kindergarten age kids on DC super-heroes, where do they go for a DC comic-book fix when those children are ten years old?
Actually, as I write this, I wonder if Jones's comments reflect more her opinion than an objective evaluation of the now canceled comics. Prior to the Industrial Age, weren't children's stories a way for them to learn about the world without having to experience loss, death, and other negative events first hand? Disregarding its general sanitization of classic fairy tales, at least Disney hasn't found it necessary to "correct" Snow White by making her night in the forest or the witch less scary, or Bambi by having his mother show up at the end, the gunshot having delivered but a flesh wound that required her to go away for a few years to recover. Still, even admitting that I am not as overly sensitive to the potential scarring of a child's psyche (I write this as someone who has been filing PVP away for my child, once she understands that paper wasn't invented just for ripping and chewing), I don't think that there were any stories presented in those comics so mature, even in subtext, that any child, save for the most sensitive, would have been irreparably damaged.
I always considered the JLU title to be a direct descendant of Julius Schwartz's editorial policies. Jones declaration to the contrary, I found that the stories there were safe, just like a Schwartz comic. Each story was filled with heroes acting as such for the non- and early readers while giving older kids and adults the illusion of character development. That formula wasn't considered too harmful for nearly thirty years when it was used in the mainstream JLA comic, in comic books printed during the time when the medium was still considered one just for children, so why is the formula damnable now? In fact, wouldn't that formula, even if I've poorly described it, be the definition for a true all-ages comic book, something to which both companies continually pay lip service to, but never really get around to incorporating into their mainstream comics.
JLU never offered stories dealing with the secret abuse of Star-Spangled Kid by her step-brother; revealed Green Arrow's secret, neglected family; or showed us Elongated Man's the rape and murder of Elongated Man's wife. (Would that I had been spared that in the mainstream DCU.) JLU did, however, present stories that showed that dispite mistrust because of differences, young and old people have knowledge and experience they can offer each other; or that even if you have no blood relations around, as long as you have friends you are never alone. Yes, these are harmful concepts for anyone under 18 to know exist in this world. Actually, I'm wondering if, like alcohol use, access to concepts like those needs to be restricted to people 21 and older. Come right down to it, I'm surprised that such dangerous plots were even allowed for in the JLU comic book.
Now, I understand why Titans Go and JLU are being cut. With no new episodes of their cartoon series in production and infrequent airings of either on Cartoon Network, sales the books have probably peaked and will soon erode. Still, Mattel considers the JLU a viable license, new episodes or not, hence their announced continuation of the JLU action figure line, and it has to pay a licensing fee. I find it interesting the decision makers at DC don't have the same faith in their own product.
Once, I would have taken this announcement as a sign that DC was honestly going to open their mainstream titles to a broader demographic, giving the preschoolers hooked on Tiny Titans somewhere to go when they reach show tying age. No longer am I so naive. I'm sure the abandoning of the audience of older children by DC isn't part of a great marketing plan, but, rather, an illustration of how people in power all too often fail to think through the potential ramifications of their actions.
Where do the four-, five-, and six-year-olds who theoretically will be weaned on Tiny Titans go for comic entertainment when they age past the desired demographic? I guess the stories told in these comics could mature with the readers they attract, until, finally, the Batman in Super Friends loudly declares "I'm the God damn Batman!" and Tiny Titan Robin will be found in sleeping in bed, naked, with Tiny Titan Starfire. Then Winick will take over the Shazam book and Hoppy will come out of the closet and, probably, be HIV positive. Aging with its audience worked for mainstream comics, maturing the storytelling therein to appeal to the entrenched comic fan has really kept the sales numbers stable over the last twenty years. I guess you can't argue with predictable growth every year--oh, wait; I'm talking about comic book sales, aren't I?
Thumbs up, DC. Cancel what even Jones described as "really good, solid books" for comics that unless they are readily and noticeably available in outlets other than comic book stores, probably won't last long enough for a five-year-old to reach his sixth birthday. What DC has really done is open a door for Marvel to attract the kids disenfranchised by DC. Push the Marvel Adventures line to those kids and I bet Marvel will have a new generation of Marvel Zombies under the age of twenty-five.
It is obvious that Jones and I have a different viewpoint of what is kid appropriate. I admit that I was raised in an atmosphere of allowance when it came to reading or watching just about anything I wanted. My mother believes that a kid will only read or watch what he finds interesting, and I can't disagree. Jones is loath to expose children to "serious issues--cases where if the heroes don’t save the day, it’s implied, or shown[,] that people will die. I think that’s kind of heavy to put on a younger audience."
I appreciate what Jones is saying, and it is a legitimate complaint, though more applicable to the mainstream titles, in my opinion. However, just because adult logic informs us the failure of heroes could mean the death of innocents, that does not mean said deaths be mentioned/shown or having happened at all. How many abandoned warehouses and/or "neighborhoods scheduled to be razed" were invoked by Stan Lee when the Hulk went on a rampage in New York or battled the Thing, thereby negating the casualties an adult understands should be littering the ground. Unless there is a trauma in a child's life, e.g., seeing a family member being hit by a car, most children don't consider fatalities unless there is evidence of such in word or picture.
On the face, this is a good idea. Comic books should be available for any who want to read them (though I am of the opinion that the mainstream comics should always be all ages and "Jonathon DC" would be the imprint for mature readers who have outgrown the mainstream line, but I digress). But where now, my nephew? Where are his comic books? Once, really not so long ago, just twenty-five years or so, at thirteen he would have been more than able to jump into mainstream comics and easily found his comics, the ones that hooked him into the hobby for life. If Jones believes that JLU presented stories more mature than to which the average child should be exposed, what is her opinion regarding the appropriateness of any random mainstream DCU comic for an eleven-year-old wanting something more than vignettes and puzzles? It looks to me like DC has abandoned the whole 'tween demographic with this move. Assuming these comics do hook kindergarten age kids on DC super-heroes, where do they go for a DC comic-book fix when those children are ten years old?
Actually, as I write this, I wonder if Jones's comments reflect more her opinion than an objective evaluation of the now canceled comics. Prior to the Industrial Age, weren't children's stories a way for them to learn about the world without having to experience loss, death, and other negative events first hand? Disregarding its general sanitization of classic fairy tales, at least Disney hasn't found it necessary to "correct" Snow White by making her night in the forest or the witch less scary, or Bambi by having his mother show up at the end, the gunshot having delivered but a flesh wound that required her to go away for a few years to recover. Still, even admitting that I am not as overly sensitive to the potential scarring of a child's psyche (I write this as someone who has been filing PVP away for my child, once she understands that paper wasn't invented just for ripping and chewing), I don't think that there were any stories presented in those comics so mature, even in subtext, that any child, save for the most sensitive, would have been irreparably damaged.
I always considered the JLU title to be a direct descendant of Julius Schwartz's editorial policies. Jones declaration to the contrary, I found that the stories there were safe, just like a Schwartz comic. Each story was filled with heroes acting as such for the non- and early readers while giving older kids and adults the illusion of character development. That formula wasn't considered too harmful for nearly thirty years when it was used in the mainstream JLA comic, in comic books printed during the time when the medium was still considered one just for children, so why is the formula damnable now? In fact, wouldn't that formula, even if I've poorly described it, be the definition for a true all-ages comic book, something to which both companies continually pay lip service to, but never really get around to incorporating into their mainstream comics.
JLU never offered stories dealing with the secret abuse of Star-Spangled Kid by her step-brother; revealed Green Arrow's secret, neglected family; or showed us Elongated Man's the rape and murder of Elongated Man's wife. (Would that I had been spared that in the mainstream DCU.) JLU did, however, present stories that showed that dispite mistrust because of differences, young and old people have knowledge and experience they can offer each other; or that even if you have no blood relations around, as long as you have friends you are never alone. Yes, these are harmful concepts for anyone under 18 to know exist in this world. Actually, I'm wondering if, like alcohol use, access to concepts like those needs to be restricted to people 21 and older. Come right down to it, I'm surprised that such dangerous plots were even allowed for in the JLU comic book.
Now, I understand why Titans Go and JLU are being cut. With no new episodes of their cartoon series in production and infrequent airings of either on Cartoon Network, sales the books have probably peaked and will soon erode. Still, Mattel considers the JLU a viable license, new episodes or not, hence their announced continuation of the JLU action figure line, and it has to pay a licensing fee. I find it interesting the decision makers at DC don't have the same faith in their own product.
Once, I would have taken this announcement as a sign that DC was honestly going to open their mainstream titles to a broader demographic, giving the preschoolers hooked on Tiny Titans somewhere to go when they reach show tying age. No longer am I so naive. I'm sure the abandoning of the audience of older children by DC isn't part of a great marketing plan, but, rather, an illustration of how people in power all too often fail to think through the potential ramifications of their actions.
Where do the four-, five-, and six-year-olds who theoretically will be weaned on Tiny Titans go for comic entertainment when they age past the desired demographic? I guess the stories told in these comics could mature with the readers they attract, until, finally, the Batman in Super Friends loudly declares "I'm the God damn Batman!" and Tiny Titan Robin will be found in sleeping in bed, naked, with Tiny Titan Starfire. Then Winick will take over the Shazam book and Hoppy will come out of the closet and, probably, be HIV positive. Aging with its audience worked for mainstream comics, maturing the storytelling therein to appeal to the entrenched comic fan has really kept the sales numbers stable over the last twenty years. I guess you can't argue with predictable growth every year--oh, wait; I'm talking about comic book sales, aren't I?
Thumbs up, DC. Cancel what even Jones described as "really good, solid books" for comics that unless they are readily and noticeably available in outlets other than comic book stores, probably won't last long enough for a five-year-old to reach his sixth birthday. What DC has really done is open a door for Marvel to attract the kids disenfranchised by DC. Push the Marvel Adventures line to those kids and I bet Marvel will have a new generation of Marvel Zombies under the age of twenty-five.
Trying to find the best mix of colors
I know that that shouldn't keep me from posting, but it will. I like the background color, but I don't know if it can work long term unless I can find colors that I think are the best complements. I'll get it eventually.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
New look
As part of what I hope will be more frequent postings, I've jumped on the three-column bandwagon. I wanted this kind of layout since 2005, but it didn't exist as freely as they do now. I tried to create one, but my self-taught html skills were not up to the task.
Friday, August 24, 2007
What Do You Know?
The place is still here.
Dusty though.
I guess I'll clean it up and see what happens next.
Dusty though.
I guess I'll clean it up and see what happens next.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Who Owns Superboy?
For a lot longer than I thought it would, this topic has been brought up lately. Most often, I read that the reason DC killed off Conner Kent was because the company can no longer use it, but now I am reading the backside of that as people ask how can there be a Superboy and the Legion of Super-Heroes program this fall if DC no longer owns the rights. Below is my attempt to pull everything together and show that it isn't as cut and dry as some think:
(1) DC has not lost the right to Superboy. The fact that there will be a SUPERBOY and the Legion of Super-Heroes cartoon this fall is proof enough that Time Warner, DC's parent company, feels secure in what owns. I do not deny that it could be saber rattling on DC's part, but it costs too much money to produce a new television show that it would never have gone into production in the first place had anyone in legal thought there was a chance it wouldn't make it on air.
Beyond that, in 52, hasn't Superboy and Krypto just been reinserted into Superman's past? (I ask because I have my copies of the first four issues, but haven't read them yet.) If Time Warner thought it was going to lose Superboy soon, as many have speculated because of Conner's death, I don't think legal would have allowed DC to return the character to prominence in that way.
(2) DC has never really owned the rights to Superboy. Not ever; at best they were leasing the character. The reason is that Siegel, as a freelancer, approached DC on his own with an idea for a Superboy character. How much of the traditional Superboy he pitched then is still up in the air, but because Siegel and Shuster created Superman and brought it to DC (in other words, were Lana Lang, Pete Ross, Krypto etc. Siegel's creations, too, or did he bring just Superboy), any derivatives from the Superman concept they created separately or together were still their property unless they licensed or sold the rights. DC didn't bite at the offer, but in 1945, with Siegel in the Army and Shuster basically blind, DC started running Superboy stories without the permission of either man. In 1947, when Siegel returned from his tour, he and Shuster promptly sued DC for the rights to Superman and, basically, for copyright infringement for DC's use of Superboy. In 1948, the court ruled that DC owned Superman, based on the contract the pair signed many years earlier, but that they owned Superboy. They granted DC the rights to Superboy for $94,000 and DC thought the problem was solved and they owned the character completely.
However, what no one could have predicted, was that in 1976, the Copyright Act would be totally revamped. When that happened, a provision was included that allowed creators of any creative work who had signed their rights away a chance to terminate the agreement when the first term of copyright came up for renewal, provided they gave the licensee notice. This is what the Siegels did. Time Warner, of course, contested the termination notice; IMO, probably not because it thought it was right--there is too much case law supporting the 1948 decision--but because it thought it could outspend the Siegels and force a settlement.
The March 23, 2006, decision did nothing but affirm what everyone already knew: the Siegels own Superboy.
(3) Yet, if the Siegels own Superboy, how can I state that Time Warner still has the rights to Superboy? I say this because Time Warner owns the things that really matter, the trademarks. It owns the S-shield trademark, it owns the Superboy trademark, it owns the Smallville trademark, it should own the Clark Kent trademark, but it has been some time since I last checked the PTO Website and I can't remember. DC owns every single thing that is marketable about the character; what do the Siegels get if they own Superboy, but cannot use the name on the cover of a comic book or license it for a toy? I suggest nothing.
Now, please understand that trademark law is very different from copyright law. Trademark law is consumer protection law in place to prevent someone from using another's more famous, more respected trademark on their shoddy merchandise, which could confuse consumers. Copyright law is in place to protective creative works.
Think about it in this way: Anyone can create a comic book story with a character named "Superboy." Names in and of themselves cannot be copyrighted. However, if in that story the Superboy character copies dialog or drawings from earlier Superboy comic books that DC published, then DC could sue for copyright infringement. Now, if the Superboy character looked and acted nothing like any of the permutations DC has presented over the years, let's say a physically challenged Latino for whom the name "Superboy" was used as an insult, then there could be no copyright infringement, but "Superboy" could not be used on the cover of the comic because Time Warner owns the right to use that trademark on comic books, just as it owns the right to use it on action figure packaging, for instance.
You might see the Siegels' problem in the long run. So, they have ownership of Superboy, what can they do with it? They can't take it to another comic book company since all the elements that make the character Superboy, some of which I listed three paragraphs above, are trademarks owned by Time Warner. They can't use the familiar costume on the comic book cover because that would infringe Time Warner's trademark. They can't use the name on the cover for the same reason. Licensing the character for toys or movies is cut short because none of the familiar elements that identify the character may be used without infringing Time Warner's trademarks.
The Siegels will probably attempt to have Time Warner's ownership of the trademarks revoked or have themselves brought in as co-owners. If they don't, the Siegels may own Superboy in the pages of a non-DC comic book, but if they S-shield and "Superboy" can't be used on the cover, the comic might as well star any generic character with super powers.
When the dust settles, the Siegels should be willing to settle; Time Warner has been willing to settle for a while. I think the case continues, first, because the Siegels want what they deserve this time as opposed to the token pensions Siegel and Shuster were paid starting in 1978. Additionally, there could be some enjoyment on the part of the Siegels watching Time Warner squirm after how Siegel was treated by the people who used to run DC.
However, there is a possible third reason: this could also be a ploy in preparation for an even more important battle to come over the rights to Superman. Legally, Time Warner and the Siegels own Superman equally, and copyright allows equal owners equal use rights, but the Siegels have been pushed out of that market and they want what is legally theirs. Add to that, a nephew of Shuster's who recently came out of the woodwork claiming a share of the rights, and the battle for Superman could be bigger than the Supermen/Superboy knockdown in Infinite Crisis #7.
UPDATE: Since this was written, it appears that Time Warner is taking a step back, at least with the Legion cartoon. Last week, a new press release was issued that referred to "young Superman" rather then Superboy. At first, I thought that it was just a way for the cartoon to grab the coat tails of Superman Returns and the press release coming out the week the movie was released seemed a little too coincidental. However, even before that, at the New York Licensing Show, Time Warner promoted the show to potential partners without any mention of "Superboy," though the S-shield and a male figure in a Superman/boy was featured prominently. A picture of the promotion signage is shown here (scroll to the bottom of the article). Now, there are rumors that the cartoon is going to have any use of "Superboy" dubbed over with "Superman," while the program for the San Diego convention calls the series "Legion of Super-Heroes" and describes it as "a new Superman-themed half-hour adventure series inspired by the DC Comics series." Ask me now, and I would say that Time Warner blinked.
(1) DC has not lost the right to Superboy. The fact that there will be a SUPERBOY and the Legion of Super-Heroes cartoon this fall is proof enough that Time Warner, DC's parent company, feels secure in what owns. I do not deny that it could be saber rattling on DC's part, but it costs too much money to produce a new television show that it would never have gone into production in the first place had anyone in legal thought there was a chance it wouldn't make it on air.
Beyond that, in 52, hasn't Superboy and Krypto just been reinserted into Superman's past? (I ask because I have my copies of the first four issues, but haven't read them yet.) If Time Warner thought it was going to lose Superboy soon, as many have speculated because of Conner's death, I don't think legal would have allowed DC to return the character to prominence in that way.
(2) DC has never really owned the rights to Superboy. Not ever; at best they were leasing the character. The reason is that Siegel, as a freelancer, approached DC on his own with an idea for a Superboy character. How much of the traditional Superboy he pitched then is still up in the air, but because Siegel and Shuster created Superman and brought it to DC (in other words, were Lana Lang, Pete Ross, Krypto etc. Siegel's creations, too, or did he bring just Superboy), any derivatives from the Superman concept they created separately or together were still their property unless they licensed or sold the rights. DC didn't bite at the offer, but in 1945, with Siegel in the Army and Shuster basically blind, DC started running Superboy stories without the permission of either man. In 1947, when Siegel returned from his tour, he and Shuster promptly sued DC for the rights to Superman and, basically, for copyright infringement for DC's use of Superboy. In 1948, the court ruled that DC owned Superman, based on the contract the pair signed many years earlier, but that they owned Superboy. They granted DC the rights to Superboy for $94,000 and DC thought the problem was solved and they owned the character completely.
However, what no one could have predicted, was that in 1976, the Copyright Act would be totally revamped. When that happened, a provision was included that allowed creators of any creative work who had signed their rights away a chance to terminate the agreement when the first term of copyright came up for renewal, provided they gave the licensee notice. This is what the Siegels did. Time Warner, of course, contested the termination notice; IMO, probably not because it thought it was right--there is too much case law supporting the 1948 decision--but because it thought it could outspend the Siegels and force a settlement.
The March 23, 2006, decision did nothing but affirm what everyone already knew: the Siegels own Superboy.
(3) Yet, if the Siegels own Superboy, how can I state that Time Warner still has the rights to Superboy? I say this because Time Warner owns the things that really matter, the trademarks. It owns the S-shield trademark, it owns the Superboy trademark, it owns the Smallville trademark, it should own the Clark Kent trademark, but it has been some time since I last checked the PTO Website and I can't remember. DC owns every single thing that is marketable about the character; what do the Siegels get if they own Superboy, but cannot use the name on the cover of a comic book or license it for a toy? I suggest nothing.
Now, please understand that trademark law is very different from copyright law. Trademark law is consumer protection law in place to prevent someone from using another's more famous, more respected trademark on their shoddy merchandise, which could confuse consumers. Copyright law is in place to protective creative works.
Think about it in this way: Anyone can create a comic book story with a character named "Superboy." Names in and of themselves cannot be copyrighted. However, if in that story the Superboy character copies dialog or drawings from earlier Superboy comic books that DC published, then DC could sue for copyright infringement. Now, if the Superboy character looked and acted nothing like any of the permutations DC has presented over the years, let's say a physically challenged Latino for whom the name "Superboy" was used as an insult, then there could be no copyright infringement, but "Superboy" could not be used on the cover of the comic because Time Warner owns the right to use that trademark on comic books, just as it owns the right to use it on action figure packaging, for instance.
You might see the Siegels' problem in the long run. So, they have ownership of Superboy, what can they do with it? They can't take it to another comic book company since all the elements that make the character Superboy, some of which I listed three paragraphs above, are trademarks owned by Time Warner. They can't use the familiar costume on the comic book cover because that would infringe Time Warner's trademark. They can't use the name on the cover for the same reason. Licensing the character for toys or movies is cut short because none of the familiar elements that identify the character may be used without infringing Time Warner's trademarks.
The Siegels will probably attempt to have Time Warner's ownership of the trademarks revoked or have themselves brought in as co-owners. If they don't, the Siegels may own Superboy in the pages of a non-DC comic book, but if they S-shield and "Superboy" can't be used on the cover, the comic might as well star any generic character with super powers.
When the dust settles, the Siegels should be willing to settle; Time Warner has been willing to settle for a while. I think the case continues, first, because the Siegels want what they deserve this time as opposed to the token pensions Siegel and Shuster were paid starting in 1978. Additionally, there could be some enjoyment on the part of the Siegels watching Time Warner squirm after how Siegel was treated by the people who used to run DC.
However, there is a possible third reason: this could also be a ploy in preparation for an even more important battle to come over the rights to Superman. Legally, Time Warner and the Siegels own Superman equally, and copyright allows equal owners equal use rights, but the Siegels have been pushed out of that market and they want what is legally theirs. Add to that, a nephew of Shuster's who recently came out of the woodwork claiming a share of the rights, and the battle for Superman could be bigger than the Supermen/Superboy knockdown in Infinite Crisis #7.
UPDATE: Since this was written, it appears that Time Warner is taking a step back, at least with the Legion cartoon. Last week, a new press release was issued that referred to "young Superman" rather then Superboy. At first, I thought that it was just a way for the cartoon to grab the coat tails of Superman Returns and the press release coming out the week the movie was released seemed a little too coincidental. However, even before that, at the New York Licensing Show, Time Warner promoted the show to potential partners without any mention of "Superboy," though the S-shield and a male figure in a Superman/boy was featured prominently. A picture of the promotion signage is shown here (scroll to the bottom of the article). Now, there are rumors that the cartoon is going to have any use of "Superboy" dubbed over with "Superman," while the program for the San Diego convention calls the series "Legion of Super-Heroes" and describes it as "a new Superman-themed half-hour adventure series inspired by the DC Comics series." Ask me now, and I would say that Time Warner blinked.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Testing the waters
Somewhere between unemployment, arm operations, and finishing the basement, I've had time to do some thinking. One of the things I came to understand is that I take too damn long to write anything. I don't think I used to be like this. I'm sure that it is something I caught in law school and can't shake. So, I've made a promise to worry less about correct grammar, spelling, pointers to supporting documentation, etc. and just write within a set time limit.
That was easy. Let's see how it goes when I start writing about something that contains facts.
That was easy. Let's see how it goes when I start writing about something that contains facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)