If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hollywood Reporter)   Judge confirms that just because you're the twice removed cousin of the brother of the uncle of the sister of the hairdresser of the gardener of the creators of Superman doesn't mean you have a legal right to own the character   (hollywoodreporter.com) divider line 17
    More: Followup, Superman, Ninth Circuit, gardeners, Marc Toberoff, Man of Steel, federal judges  
•       •       •

1900 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Mar 2013 at 9:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



17 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-22 09:22:26 AM
That headline makes Grace Jones angry!

25.media.tumblr.com

/not obscure
 
2013-03-22 09:24:32 AM
It's worth a shot.
 
2013-03-22 09:32:02 AM
cdn1.screenrant.com

Approves.
 
2013-03-22 09:35:52 AM

space1999: [cdn1.screenrant.com image 380x350]

Approves.


Damnit!

I will do it anyway...

"What does that make us?"
 
2013-03-22 09:48:33 AM
GRAAAAAACE!
 
2013-03-22 09:51:51 AM

Burr: space1999: [cdn1.screenrant.com image 380x350]

Approves.

Damnit!

I will do it anyway...

"What does that make us?"


ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

/say it again
 
2013-03-22 10:22:22 AM
I guess I feel silly for having actually read it, but no, that isn't what the lawsuit result was.

The judge basically indicated that the lawsuit being brought won't work, because they're arguing about breach in contract which isn't what the lawsuit says.  But the judge did indicate that a breach of contract and subsequent recission could be argued with appropriate notice, etc. But none of that applies to the current enforceability under the current contract.

"The Siegels' breach and repudiation defenses do not affect the enforceability of the agreement, but rather constitute grounds for termination or a breach-of-contract action."

\\ don't forget RIF
 
2013-03-22 10:38:38 AM
I imagine that winning the rights to Superman would feel something like what Homer felt when Hank Scorpio gave him the Denver Broncos.
 
2013-03-22 11:04:49 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-22 11:16:19 AM
FTA: "However, the decision by U.S. judge  Otis Wright to confirm the continued enforceability of the agreement points to..."

Clearly he was bought off, but how?

www.millionaireplayboy.com
 
2013-03-22 11:18:44 AM
images.tvrage.com
 
2013-03-22 11:36:31 AM
Under the original and perfectly reasonable copyright law of 1790, 14 years renewable once, Superman would have been public domain a long time ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790

The whole goal is ... "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Locking up ideas as property doesn't do that, it is a stifling form of censorship. That is why the original term was so short compared to what now is essentially perpetuity, as Disney show up every 20 years with suitcases full of cash to prevent Steamboat Willie from reverting back to the public domain, where it should have been decades ago.
 
2013-03-22 12:41:26 PM

uncoveror: Under the original and perfectly reasonable copyright law of 1790, 14 years renewable once, Superman would have been public domain a long time ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790

The whole goal is ... "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Locking up ideas as property doesn't do that, it is a stifling form of censorship. That is why the original term was so short compared to what now is essentially perpetuity, as Disney show up every 20 years with suitcases full of cash to prevent Steamboat Willie from reverting back to the public domain, where it should have been decades ago.


Amazing that they were that sensible back then. In fairness though, it should be the life of the creator and that's it. Let the creator's kids and big corporations make their own way.

It's sad to think that 100 years from now, however entertainment is dished out,  it will still have heavy doses of Mickey Mouse, Star Wars, James Bond, Star Trek, Marvel and DC heroes, etc.
 
2013-03-22 01:01:50 PM
Subby doesn't seem to have the "Super-smarts" required to RTFA.

Actual decision was that the type of lawsuit the heirs were bringing wasn't the correct one.  They were claiming that a 2001 dispute over the settlement had breached and therefore terminated the contract and this was a new case.

Judge disagreed - said that if there was a breach then the heirs were free to make that claim in court, but that's a separate action.  But until they DO file a breach-of-contract action in court, they can't claim that there is no contract.
 
2013-03-22 05:43:51 PM

space1999: [cdn1.screenrant.com image 380x350]

Approves.


Came for dark helmet.
leaving with my two best friends in tact.
 
2013-03-22 07:44:30 PM
The whole thing in a nutshell:

Jerry Siegel co-created Superman. DC paid him for the character, and eventually hammered out a deal where they took the rights to the character. Jerry continued to work for them and collect reasonably large paychecks.

He got married, and had a kid. As he got older, his wife and kid decided they liked living comfortably and began pushing for more of that Superman money. DC didn't have to, but they worked out another deal that gave the estate a nice wad of cash from certain merchandise and from movies.

Jerry died. His wife and daughter kept pushing for more Superman money, despite the fact that Jerry had twice sold all rights. His wife died. His daughter continued fighting for more money from Superman, despite the fact that she had already collected lots of money from the last deal they made (that WB really didn't have to make, but did make to get them out of their hair).

The daughter has spent a fair amount of time trying to convince the comic community that WB is an evil company who drove an old, sick woman to her death, and that we should rally behind her to get her Superman money. This is insulting. We all know she lived a pretty comfortable life, and that her father sold the rights to Superman to provide that comfortable life. She was never poor, and DC didn't screw her father.

Did Siegel have any way to know that Superman would earn as much money as he did for DC? No, and it does suck that he sold for such a low price in comparison, but that doesn't change the fact that Siegel and Schuster DID sell the rights to the character to DC, took the money, and continued to work for them for years under that agreement.

Mostly, I find it offensive when the children of artists claim they deserve money for something that was created before they were even born. How about creating something of your own instead of living on your parent's achievements? She was born long after the character was sold to DC, and she still seems to think DC owes her money just because she won the genetic lottery? F♥ck that!

She made a fortune from the deals the estate made. She's not a poor little orphan whose father was screwed over. She's a wealthy woman who lived a life of luxury because of her father's work. Forgive me if I applaud Warner Bros. this time, because this has been a long time coming. Frankly, I hope they get all of this finished once and for all, and get her off their back. I have no sympathy for her, now.
 
2013-03-22 07:50:19 PM

cefm: Subby doesn't seem to have the "Super-smarts" required to RTFA.

Actual decision was that the type of lawsuit the heirs were bringing wasn't the correct one.  They were claiming that a 2001 dispute over the settlement had breached and therefore terminated the contract and this was a new case.

Judge disagreed - said that if there was a breach then the heirs were free to make that claim in court, but that's a separate action.  But until they DO file a breach-of-contract action in court, they can't claim that there is no contract.


This is the important bit:

The decision follows a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in January that held that, contrary to the Siegel estate's pursuit of terminating a copyright grant, the Siegels made a deal 12 years ago to settle a war over rights.

Basically, they've been trying to terminate the deal they made 12 years ago for a while now, and the court just told them to go f♥ck themselves.
 
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report