Is it a bird? Is it a 'plane?'s Judge Stephen G Larson

United Press International reports that the heirs of Jerome Siegel, one of the creators of Superman, has won the right to a share in the man of steel’s copyright. Siegel and his co-creator, Joseph Schuster, signed away the copyright to DC Comics for $130 seventy years ago. The decision may pose a challenge to Time Warner’s plans to make new Superman films in the coming years. claims that what this decison actually means may be more complicated than one would expect since the award concerns Superman’s first appearance, and he evolved after that date, with kryptonite and the Daily Planet not coming until later.

The IPKat says this is a toughie. While we might want to reward authors’ whose works have become unexpectedly successful, if we’re too willing to vary assignments retrospectively, entrepreneurs won’t enter them at all and the authors will lose out.

Is it a bird? Is it a 'plane?'s Judge Stephen G Larson Is it a bird? Is it a 'plane?'s Judge Stephen G Larson Reviewed by Anonymous on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 Rating: 5


  1. Seigel has already had quite a bit more than 130USD from DC/Time Warner...(from wikipedia)...

    "Siegel in 1975 launched a public-relations campaign to protest DC Comics' treatment of him and Shuster; ultimately Warner Communications, DC's parent company, awarded Siegel and Shuster $35,000 a year"

    (Incidentally, there's a long history of fall outs/legal disputes between comic artists/authors and the big imprints, see for example Jack Kirby/Marvel - it makes for an interesting area of copyright law)

  2. An interesting post about the decision and comic books can be found on Patry's blog, about 1-2 weeks ago.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.