THE SIEGELS' FIGHT FOR SUPERBOY

[MattBrady]

As mentioned yesterday, Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson, widow and daughter of the late Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel filed a complaint in US District Court against DC Comics, Time Warner, Warner Brothers Entertainment, and Warner Brothers Television in regards to the rights to Superboy.

In comparison to the Siegels’ Superman complaint, the Superboy complaint is relatively straightforward, due waters that are less muddy, legally. That is, the Siegels’ claim that Jerry Siegel created Superboy and took it to Detective Comics multiple times, to be rejected each time.

In a story well known to Golden Age historians and fans, Siegel went to serve in the Pacific during World War II, and came home to find that, in his absence, and without his permission, Detective Comics created its own Superboy character. While Siegel was found to be the owner of Superboy in 1947-48 court action, he assigned the rights to Detective. It’s the termination of that transfer for which Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson have filed.

Of course, it is interesting to note that DC’s current Superboy has nothing at all to do with Siegel’s original ideas, that is, Conner Kent, a member of the Teen Titans, is not “Superman as a boy.” Rather than rocketing to space, the present-day Superboy was created in a test tube, by blending the DNA of Superman and Lex Luthor. It’s interesting, but of relatively little importance to this matter, as the Conner Kent character was created in 1993 as part of the “Death of Superman” event storyline, nine years prior to the filing of the Notices of Termination by the Siegels, and four years prior to the filing of the Termination on Superman. Although, it is fodder for conspiracy theorists – did DC see this coming down the road as early as 1992-93, and opted to kill the character and create new versions rather than continue to use a character it might (as early as 1999) only own half the copyright to? Probably not – though Superboy is a new creation, the Superman that came out of the other side of the Death of Superman was the same one that went in the front.

On to the complaint…

Click here to read the summary of the complaint as well as DC's response.

[some_bloke]

Action Comics, or Actionable Comics?
You be the judge

First Post!

[Kolimar]

I guess the Siegels will be coming into some money.... even if it is in ten years.

I'm not siding with anyone, really. I can see from the Siegels' POV but this also means trouble for the fans who follow the characters. And imho, DC should have cut the pension and medical benefits immediately after the Siegels filed their complaint.

[kilroy]

im disgusted with how these companies are making so much revenue from these charcters that they dont see fit to share the wealthwith the creators or their heirs. its disgusting and anyone who starts to open there mouths about well this isnt the creator. Its his wife and daughter they should receive what is rightfully due to mr siegel. The fact that whoever in charge at dc that handles this situation and decided to just fu&* the creators family over because he or she can should be ashame of themselves. there would be no superboy if there was first no superman plain and simple

[IvCNuB4]

Well, at least DC's COuntdown may be a good excuse/reason to change Connor's code-name to something else in case DC loses this one

[Terwilliger]

Originally posted by kilroy
The fact that whoever in charge at dc that handles this situation and decided to just fu&* the creators family over because he or she can should be ashame of themselves.

From experience, I suspect the decision to take a harder line is being largely driven by Warner Bros., rather than DC management.

This isn't to say that DC Comics as a company doesn't have a great deal a stake here, and that they're not bound to play the games of legal brinksmanship that any other company would in this situation -- but I think DC management would have preferred to settle this long ago.

[Donald V. Calamia]

I could have sworn that I've read many times that the initial Superboy proposal and story written by Jerry S was NOT Clark Kent as a youngster but an entirely different character. Rather it was the Don Cameron story that first introduced Superboy as Superman as a boy.

I wish I still had the court's decision from the 1940s, as I thought it was even discussed there...but I could be wrong. (Does anyone have access to LEXUS/NEXUS?)

Does anyone ELSE remember this? Or has senility finally caught up with me?

[Chris1]

Originally posted by Kolimar
I guess the Siegels will be coming into some money.... even if it is in ten years.

I'm not siding with anyone, really. I can see from the Siegels' POV but this also means trouble for the fans who follow the characters. And imho, DC should have cut the pension and medical benefits immediately after the Siegels filed their complaint.

Surprised to hear you say that. Morally, that's wrong. Legally, it's not the smartest thing to do either. And of course it's bad PR. Unless you think taking away a widow's pension is going to win DC some fans.

[Darth Presley]

... any particular editorial reason why this Siegel/Superboy article is posted in the "News" forum and the Siegel/Superman article got posted in the "Features" forum?

Informative and interesting articles by the way. Maybe Mr Majestic has a good future ahead of him.

[Vyper]

Since it was mentioned in the article that Siegel's widow is greatly dependent on the medical treatment she's receiving, and, at least according to the article, DC has no legal grounds to end those payments, I wonder if DC's threat to stop those benefits can be construed as a possible death threat?

[DrTzinTzin]

As Warren Zevon said, all those many years ago.

"Send Lawyers, Guns And Money...the shit has hit the fan"

I hope Elizabeth Kane isn't feeling litigious or this could get ugly.

Thank Christ DC doesn't own Courageous Cat and Minute Mouse.

[lex luthor]

I notice that Seigel and Shuster are listed as the creators of Superman/Superboy (not the show itself) in the opening credits of Smallville.

Don't the creators/estate receive funds for that credit listing as well as a percentage of revenue derived from the sales of the DVD's as well as syndication rights of the series?

Maybe I'm having a hard time understanding all this legal mumbo jumbo but if the Seigels' arent looking for complete ownership of the copyright to Superboy prior to the date of transfer then what is the point of all this litigation?

[Batitude]

Originally posted by kilroy
im disgusted with how these companies are making so much revenue from these charcters that they dont see fit to share the wealthwith the creators or their heirs. its disgusting and anyone who starts to open there mouths about well this isnt the creator. Its his wife and daughter they should receive what is rightfully due to mr siegel. The fact that whoever in charge at dc that handles this situation and decided to just fu&* the creators family over because he or she can should be ashame of themselves. there would be no superboy if there was first no superman plain and simple

Sounds like a bunch of WB lawyers got involved in this one.

DC has as a whole done the right thing in most cases. I have no doubt were they able to find an heir to Bill Finger they would not only correct the "Batman Created by..." credit but also pay the royalties that have been held in trust for decades for every reprint of a Finger Story.

This is in contrast to Marvel which is one of the reason's I don't support that company. They deliberatley printed Steranko's S.H.E.I.L.D. overseas to circumvent royalities. They're refusal to pay royalties for the Spider-Man movie to Stan Lee was well documented

Most Egregous however, is that they stop paying ANY royalties for work 5 years after a creator dies. So, at this point, Jack Kirby's family receives NOTHING for all his Marvel work.

For the record DC pays in perpetuity.

[LostScribe]

We'll the contract that his widow signed even states that she is getting the money for their use of the character and trademark. They are already paying her for it. Furthermore it states that if she tries to take the character or claim rights to it then she will cease to get the payment. It's not wrong on DC's part to take it away... she signed it over.

[PatrickG]

I think the issue is NOT whether DC has the comic book rights but whether WB has the television/film rights.

DC may well have rights to publish Superboy comics but that doesn't necessarily afford Millar/Gough Productions the television rights to SuperBOY even if they have the rights to SuperMAN.