io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 8:02 PM
Fri Nov 27
17 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/09/09
Specifically, the judge noted there was no reversion clause that is normally included in licensing deals for this type of IP. Almost all licensing agreements include a clause that says if the licensee fails to develop the property, the owner gets the rights back. The DC/WB deal for Superman did not have this clause. Meaning WB could sit on the Superman rights without developing them. Additionally, the compensation DC was to receive was entirely contingent on revenues from actually development. So, DC does not receive any money unless a movie is actually made.
The judge specifically noted that it is important for these types of properties, such as comic book properties, to not sit on the shelf collecting dust. The longer they languish without any development, the less they are worth because they fall out of popularity. So the judge suggested that if WB fails to put a Superman movie into development by 2011, Siegel may be able to seek damages.
07/09/09
This "logic" both confuses and infuriates me. This statement, boiled down, is only really saying...we only like movies that do well. We can't do a good job on a movie unless its previous incarnation did well.
Couldn't this same line of reasoning be applied towards the Schumacher films?
...amazing...
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
Second, I don't like how they're comparing Superman to TDK. Warner Bros. are handling Batman and Superman two different ways. Batman has a cartoon, Superman has a crap live action show. Matter of fact, when was the last time batman had a live action show? You can't compare the two.
07/09/09
I've got conflicting emotions here. On one hand, the creators of Superman got fucked royally by WB/DC. On the other, I really hate the multigenerational copyright laws that cause havoc with the creative process and the mooching descendants of the original creators.
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
http://livingbetweenwednesdays.blogspot.com/2007/01/hot-action-comics.html
07/09/09
http://livingbetweenwednesdays.blogspot.com/2007/01/hot-action-comics.html
07/09/09
http://www.wired.com/table_of_malcontents/2007/01/action_comics_t/
EDIT: I didn't see that the comments already linking to the Superman comic were left before me because of this weird new comment system. Is this really supposed to be more INCLUSIVE to the community?
07/09/09
I don't mind editing options or image and video help, but hiding so many comments and moving comments around because of magical star powers is ridiculous. It really segregates the users. I may stop visiting altogether.
Whoever decided this system was "cool" or "better" never took a design class and definitely has a hard on for star-powered commentors.
07/09/09
However, Barda was already captive for sometime before they got their hands on Supes, so it was implied that she was doing favors for some wierd reptilian/ slug-like aliens before- and that's the video Mr. Miracle first sees.
07/09/09
But if you point out I'm wrong again you're "gonna wind up looking like my desk." ;-p
07/09/09
07/09/09
ugh, i can't believe i just did that.
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
As to the "Loosing all control and using maximum power at the moment of orgasm" angle, there are plenty of regular humans strong enough to do serious bodily harm to their partner, but instead of that being the norm, it is instead what lands people in jail or on the Jerry Springer show.
What I find more interesting is why so many people entertain the conclusions of the essay. Is there some deep urge to neuter Superman? Or is it more a desire to keep him "pure" by removing him from the world of Earthly desires?
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
The part of the most recent movie I had the biggest problem with was the idea of him having a child, and particularly with him being some sort of absentee father.
This isn't something limited to just Superman, though. A lot of Doctor Who fans cringe at the idea of The Doctor having "urges".
Maybe it's some sort of idol/father figure thing going on.
07/09/09
As to Superman, I don't know. I always felt like the "boyscout" purity angle had been forced on him by the comics code. In his early appearances he was almost like a super-powered id to Clark's super-ego that was given a liscence to let loose on criminals.
Oddly, I actually liked the bit with the kid in the movie. I thought it was an interesting twist, as well as a statement about the way we over-protect our kids. It's like, he's half Kryptonian, Lois. He probably doesn't need the inhaler.
01/09/09
01/10/09
01/09/09
01/09/09
I don't think it would lead to outright collapse, nor do I think it would lead to some kind of artistic flowering but it certainly would shake things up a lot in good and bad ways.
IP law is a balancing act. We have to continuously adjust things one way or another so that creativity flourishes. If it's only public domain, creativity dies. If everything is straitjacketed in a repressive copyright, patent, trademark regime where only middlemen benefit, creativity dies.
One of best explanations I've seen recently about IP law and what needs to be fixed about it is a web comic called "Bound By Law"
[www.law.duke.edu]
Read it.
01/09/09
01/09/09
Look at Mickey Mouse. Disney's going to hold copyright on that rodent till hell freezes over, but how much of their revenue is actually generated, specifically, by the guy? Almost nothing! He's not in any films, he's not in any ads outside Disney bumpers - and even then only rarely anymore - and he's not a major component of their merchendising branch anymore, either. Hell by the time the mid fifties rolled around, most Disney shorts involved Donald's friends anyway. The Mouse had already taken a back seat. Had they lost him then, it wouldn't have been much of a big deal.
The primary reason copyrights last so long is so that people can protect the potential to make money on it in the distant future. Almost no product ever actually does this, though. And the few times they do, you can trace it back to a lack of imagination or foresight on the creators' part.
01/09/09
01/09/09
01/09/09