All of this could have been avoided if D.C. had just followed by advice and rebuilt the series around Beppo the Super-Monkey.

Pay up, bitchez!!!

@92BuickLeSabre: I would buy that comic.

Short Version: All they wanted is to sue someone's ass to get a piece of the cake.

Speaking of supes. All-Star Superman is a masterpiece. I eat that up. I put mustard on it and eat the fuckin shit.

Short Accurate Version: Laws that helped creators of art and music retain the rights to their work that was questionably taken from them also applies to comics.

@Klappstuhl:
Yeah, the fact that he co-created Superman was just a minor point in their money grubbing scheme!

@Klappstuhl: ...a cake they helped bake. Time Warner could have cut a cheaper deal long ago, but they want to totally dick over Siegel & Schuster even in death. I hope this opens the door to every half nephew of every creator ever to sue them.

No one can own Superman any longer. He is an American Icon that should be available for any artist to use as they desire. Sure, someone came up with idea, but that original idea is now part of the Creative Commons and is part of our culture. Don't fall victim to the Culture of Coroprate Greed that thinks it owns everything. That's how we got into this mess.

Yeah, I'm still not sure I believe that copyright ownership should be transferable in the first place.

@Klappstuhl:
Are you kidding?? Two kids get reamed by a major company and decades later some appropriate redress is finally achieved, and you see this as endemic of the US suing culture. Nice. How long did you work at Chess Records, anyway?

@Jeff-Minor: Please. This is about people who have been ripped off for seven decades finally getting what they deserved. A creator has a right to profit from his work. Let "any artist" create their own damn work.

@Macloserboy (Who Is Finally On Facebook For You Bitches): Yeah, that's the part that bothers me. I'm not sure why it is that Siegel's heir's deserve anything.

I mean, don't get me wrong; I know that DC doesn't really deserve anything, and in a condition in which DC owns the Superman copyright, I think it's reasonable to award partial ownership to the Siegel heirs.

I'm just bothered by the idea that copyright ownership can outlive the artist.

@braak: I am also uncertain how I feel about the idea of IP carrying over until after you are dead. Of course what you run into is the problem that comic creators (for example) don't get pensions for their work, so if one dies that leaves their family in the lurch.

@ElijahDProphet: Hmmm. True. I guess that's something worth considering.

@braak: Well, the copyright system, which worked fine through the mid-20th Century is now being rendered obsolescent in the face of the Internet and on-demand publishing. This is just another in a series of odd copyright rulings which is muddying the waters even further.

Irrelevant personal coincidence: The house I own and live in now first belonged to Jerry Siegel's ex-wife Bella, and their son Michael lived there until his death a few years ago.

@NefariousNewt: I think one of the big problems was that ruling that a property's (errrm, Disney's property's) lapse into Public Domain could be suspended if it was still making money.

But you're right; it's a whole tricky business, and the world is rapidly outpacing the legal system's understanding.

Copyright doesn't exist so that creators get paid for their works. Paying creators is merely a means to an end. Copyright makes sure creators get paid so that creators will indeed be encouraged to create, and their creations can eventually enter the public domain and be used by all.

The whole point is that the works eventually enter the public domain. A point which has been perverted by a bought Congress.

There's certainly no "right" to get paid.

@Macloserboy (Who Is Finally On Facebook For You Bitches): I'm not sure that this is a fair representation of the facts...
they created the original character and a 13 page (I think) comic...
then they SOLD the rights!
the fact that DC (and now TimeWarner) makes boat loads of cash off their creation is not relevant IMO...they SOLD the rights. IP stuff is getting worse I think and the creative commons assholes aren't making it any better by instilling the idea that no one owns anything at all...

I should add that the ability to reclaim the rights is a whole other issue...and one that has a legal process (though perhaps a flawed one) to resolve.
from what I can remember, DC/TimeWarner etc have dealt very fairly with Siegel/Shuster.

@goldfarb: I thought the Creative Commons Assholes were specifically creating properties that no one did own.

@Jeff-Minor: That idea is most definitely not part of the "Creative Commons."

Creative Commons is an entirely separate licensing scheme that's an alternative to traditional copyright. Unless it's assigned by the content creator/owner you can't assume that an idea belongs to the "creative commons."

You can argue that its copyright has expired and the work has passed into the public domain if you want.

Personally, I find the tendency of the courts to extend copyrights beyond the planned expiration date a bit offensive: what's the point in HAVING an expiration date, if Disney can just hire a lawyer to get the damn thing extended at will?

@PhilipFry: Check for Kryptonite.
Hopefully it's Blue Kryptonite, or perhaps if you find some you can name it "Fry Kryptonite" or "Futurama Kryptonite" and add a Wikipedia entry about it.

@darcymcgee: Agreed.

@braak: But then define "making money". There isn't a good answer. While an artist should have a chance to make a living off of their creation (After all, we don't live in a society where money is not required), where should that end? And shouldn't the playing field be level for everyone? I say give someone 20 years, then it's public, and better yet, make it retroactive to 2001. For all the old properties under the old system, their license runs out Jan 1, 2021, no ifs, ands, or buts.

@darcymcgee: I agree...extending copyrights is purely intended to allow copyright owners to continue having the exlusive ability to make money form their properties...imagine the moment when Mickey Mouse passes into the public domain...Disney will loose millions on T-Shirts alone.

@Jeff-Minor:
I realize the CC is different and specific...but they're influence on the overall perception of copyright is huge...and, at least IMO, harmful.

@darcymcgee: Creative Commons, public domain... The point is, ideas that become part of the culture should be there to use. Owning ideas is an abstract concept that only feeds the culture of greed. Creative Commons is an evolving system, but for the most part it's used by people who want to give away there stuff. I say, we should have a set time were ideas become public domain. If the public embraces my idea I should have ten years to milk it for all it's worth. After that it's fair game.

@goldfarb: Mickey Mouse won't pass into the public domain; it already hasn't. That's part of the problem--Disney got a suspension of the public domain rules for its characters because it still makes money on them.

[en.wikipedia.org]

@NefariousNewt: I don't have a problem with the copyright existing as long as the artist is alive--and I don't even have a problem "leasing" copyrights--but I don't think they should be fundamentally transferable. I liked that whole, "once you die, it's fair game," idea. (I think the 50 years part is just to ensure that estates can profit, too, which I generally do not approve of.)

@goldfarb: In what way is it harmful?

Copyright Law you will never see:

"I thought this thing up and hope you buy a copy, so that I can continue to feed my family and my comic book addiction. If you do, thank you in advance; if you don't, well piss on you but I can't stop you. To that end, feel free to take it, recolor it, re-word it, do anything you like with it, except leave it exactly as is and remove my name and put on yours. Do that, and I will hunt you down and kill you slowly and painfully."

If only this meant no more shitty episodes of Smallville.

@braak:
So should we not be able to transfer other property - our homes, wealth, other assets? If I build a house, and then die, should the house go to open auction so the deepest pockets can profit?

I hope some of you lobbying for this no or limited copyright thing actually own copyrights. I've worked with dozens of people who have created art, and they were to a person very protective of their ideas and work, and I don't see why they shouldn't have been.

I would bet that if there was a ten year limit, a lot of things would get published in minimal form, so that the corporations could wait out that short period and then keep all the big money for themselves.

@danwaterhouse: It's an interesting question, though it does suggest that the nature of intellecutal property is concomitant with the nature of physical private property, which it manifestly is not.

Likewise, the condition of "auction," in which a piece of property is returned to private ownership after the death of the author, is completely different from the condition of "public domain," in which the property is available for common use by the public.

I have, after all, worked with dozens of people who've created art also, and many of them had much different opinions about the nature of their copyrights. In fact, I hold a number of copyrights myself--and, while they don't make any money, even if they did I don't think I'd have a problem with them passing into the public domain after my death.

Hm. Sorry, no. Your argument is not compelling; the analogy is false.

@braak:
Why "manifestly not concomitant"? The framers of the Constitution, and the English lawmakers they emulated, obviously thought intellectual property at least somewhat concomitant with other property. So your argument doesn't hold up, either, except as an opinion. The creation of intellectual property quite often leads directly to the creation of physical property, no? How can you completely divorce the two?

I'd like to hear a successful writer opine on this. Has Neil Gaiman addressed it in his blog? He's addressed everything else, as far as I can tell. Wonder how he'd feel about Sandman, which would now be public domain under a ten year law, being churned out as a Cartoon Network series or a Disney series of dvds.

@danwaterhouse: Oh, well, what I mean is: if I own a bicycle, by definition my ownership of that bicycle precludes your ownership of the bicycle. It is one, actual thing, the reproduction of which would require as much resources of the creation of it in the first place--likewise, if I made a copy of my bicycle, I'd either have two bicycles, or I'd give it to you, and then we'd both have bicycles.

Intellctual property isn't the same thing at all. If I own the copyright to Oliver Twist, and I make a copy, I've still only got one thing--the right to the intellectual property. Moreover, that thing is indestructible (that is, no matter how many changes are made to it, the thing that I have the right to essentially does not change), it can be used indefinitely without harming it (unlike a bicycle, which will eventually wear out), and it can be copied indefinitely without harming it.

Likewise, your owning a copy of Oliver Twist does not preclude me owning a copy of Oliver Twist. Your publication of the same text does not preclude me publishing the same text.

Intellectual property is a legal expression of the desire to own something abstract rather than concrete, which makes a certain amount of sense (though, it should be noted, quite a lot of art was produced before anyone had invented Copyright Law). However, abstract things are, in all practical respects, different from concrete things, so the ownership of one is not a reasonable analogy for the ownership of the other.

I'm interested in this idea of creating physical property from intellectual property--I mean, no one is arguing that if you've printed a book, you shouldn't be the owner of that book, and have the right to sell it. In fact, as it stands, having the copyright for a text is not the same thing as owning all of the books in which that texts appears, so it seems the judicial system has gone to some length to separate the abstract from the concrete for me.

Also, I should point out that the US Constitution itself stipulates that copyrights be limited, and that all art eventually become part of the public domain. So, clearly the Founding Fathers were not in favor of the limitless ownership of intellectual property.

I'm also of the opinion that we need a major overhaul of the copyright laws. My hope is to digital micropayments where a IP-owner can recieve due compensation in such a way that he can survive on selling his/her works in smaller batches. This would enable most creators to skip the middlemen, which in turn would keep down the prices for the consumers.

Sure, if you want to sell your IP because it gives you access to better distribution, legal help, branding etc, that's fine. The problem is that the copyright laws in so many cases stifle creativity and where crafty businessmen use a system they were part of setting up to patent, and hoard, everything under the sun.

I choose to naively beleive in a world where execution of an IP is rewarded by the consumers.

I myself work in the games industry, and there are Non-Disclosure Agreements for everything. Of course a publisher will want to protect their investments, but, if you look at reality, at what games are being published....it's not t-h-a-t inventive, is it?
It all comes down to execution. [well, that and marketing, but that just ties in with the Old System] What games you subjectively view as "better". And the same goes for any media, in my book.

@danwaterhouse: Also, I don't know who said anything about a ten-year law. I was arguing that intellectual property should be non-transferable, and should pass into the Public Domain upon the creator's death.

@braak:
What I mean by intellectual property directly leading to the creation of physical property is this: you have an idea, which is great. But your idea is so special someone wants to pay you to release it as widely as possible. The physical property is thus produced in which you as an artist and idea-person profit (hopefully). Usually the artists cannot handle both the creation of the art and the means of reproducing it. certainly the web is changing that, and as an ex-employee of a major record label I am all for bands having a much more direct participation in the profits they create by making and selling music. And I agree that the web has created the need for an updating of copyright law. I would never argue for a limitless copyright, and think somewhere between the Framers' idea of 28 years and where we are now is fair.

There is something to be said I would guess, were I an artist, to not being alive to see your sweat and toil come to the point where it is open to the public for any mass-market iteration, inspired or offensive, of your idea. Maybe that's the rationale for extending the copyright to beyond the creator's death, as much as allowing heirs to make money.

@braak:
Somewhere upthread, not by you, the idea was expressed for a ten-year limit. I merely used that as a convenient example for my argument. The idea of non-transferability is certainly more palatable, to me anyway.

this could have all been solved if we agreed to settle for the split Red/Blue superman with the electromagnetic containment suit.

@danwaterhouse: Maybe; but I honestly believe that extending the copyright beyond the creator's death is 100% about the fact that a corporate entity is effectively immortal, and can continue to profit off of intellectual property indefinitely.

And it's true; I don't want to deprive artists of the ability to profit from their work; I'm just not especially interested if DC continues to profit solely from that work.

There's a certain amount of merit, I think, in this idea: that if your IP has moved into the public domain and suddenly there are a thousand people making profits on similar knock-offs, that you have won the Art Game.

@braak: ownership of a thing, at least the way I've always thought of it, means that a person or corporation (entity) has /control/ of that thing...
so the idea of IP is perfectly concomitant with the other concept property.
the strange thing about IP is that there is a difference in it's lifespan...if I own a house I can own it for my entire lifetime then transfer that ownership to anyone I want at the time of my death, and so on for that person...but if I wrote Oliver Twist I can't leave it to my heirs in the same way...because there is a general feeling that 'ideas' will eventually benefit everyone...so we give the originator the bonus of exclusivity for a set term then the 'idea' becomes public domain...which is fine with me...
the problem is that this whole system is over complicated, far too easy to abuse...
Onion Gold: [www.theonion.com]

@goldfarb: Yes, but the nature and purpose of control of an abstract idea is fundamentally different from the nature and control of a concrete object.

But, even if all you say is true, I'm not sure why the idea of Creative Commons Copyright undermines the idea of "ownership." How is it different from, say, buying a piece of property and making it usable to anyone that wants it?