• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

any news with BECK ownership Captain Marvel because Siegel heirs awarded Action

Started by MR.COMICBOOK,

4 posts in this topic

MR.COMICBOOK

MR.COMICBOOK

Posted
Posted

with Siegel heirs awarded Action Comics #1 copyright, I wonder how this would play with C.C. Beck heirs(if any) taking a shot with Captain Marvel?

Wouldn`t it be a irony that D.C. Comics who sued and put Fawcet out of business would also end up losing not just Superman but Captain Marvel as well?

also while we are at it what about Bob Kane and Batman(same time frame)? never hear anything about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
adamstrange

adamstrange

Posted
Posted

CC Beck didn't bring Capt Marvel to Fawcett but did contribute to the development of him at the request of Fawcett. There may be grounds for a claim, but I don't think it's as strong as Siegel/Shuster/Kane and some others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zonker

Zonker

Posted
Posted
with Siegel heirs awarded Action Comics #1 copyright, I wonder how this would play with C.C. Beck heirs(if any) taking a shot with Captain Marvel?

Wouldn`t it be a irony that D.C. Comics who sued and put Fawcet out of business would also end up losing not just Superman but Captain Marvel as well?

also while we are at it what about Bob Kane and Batman(same time frame)? never hear anything about that.

 

Shuster & Siegel is a very special case. Because they created the Superman material that eventually wound up in Action #1 on their own time as a prospective comic strip for syndication, the contents of Action #1 were not initially work-for-hire. So that's why the judge has granted (partial) copyright to the heirs for the contents of Action #1 only. Superman stories in Action #2 and following were all locked down as works-for-hire, as were I believe all subsequent super-hero creations. (Though I think Joe Simon may also be disputing Captain America's status as a work-for-hire). Eventually courts may decide creators deserve more than they currently get for works-for-hire, but that is another whole discussion unrelated to the Siegel & Shuster Action #1 ruling.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing