• 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.

Warner Bros. wins 'Superman' case, beat Siegel

Started by MR.COMICBOOK,

18 posts in this topic

MR.COMICBOOK

MR.COMICBOOK

Posted
  • Author
Posted
um, is that true that the heirs will outright own Superman by 2013?

 

if so, wowowowowowowowowowowowowowow.

 

surely that's just lawyerspeak.

According to this no if DC makes A new Superman movie by 2012.

This story is probally why Batman will become undisputed king of DC comics and push Superman below him, DC owns Batman 100 percent outright, while now they only have part ownership stake in Superman. If your DC who are you going to promote a character you own 100 percent(Batman) or one that you have to give up half your profits(Superman)?

Also hidden in this mess was in 1994 the copywrite was scheduled to go back to Seigel, guess who got killed in 1993?

So maybe Superman was not only killed for salesboost but for legal issues as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MedicAR

MedicAR

Posted
Posted
Also hidden in this mess was in 1994 the copywrite was scheduled to go back to Seigel, guess who got killed in 1993?

 

I give up. Who got killed in 1993?

 

The shooter on the grasy knoll. It was made to look like a suicide, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr 9.8

Mr 9.8

Posted
Posted
um, is that true that the heirs will outright own Superman by 2013?

 

if so, wowowowowowowowowowowowowowow.

 

surely that's just lawyerspeak.

According to this no if DC makes A new Superman movie by 2012.

This story is probally why Batman will become undisputed king of DC comics and push Superman below him, DC owns Batman 100 percent outright, while now they only have part ownership stake in Superman. If your DC who are you going to promote a character you own 100 percent(Batman) or one that you have to give up half your profits(Superman)?

Also hidden in this mess was in 1994 the copywrite was scheduled to go back to Seigel, guess who got killed in 1993?

So maybe Superman was not only killed for salesboost but for legal issues as well?

hm So if DC ever loses superman, who would DC replace him with? (Miracleman?) :wishluck:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crowzilla

Crowzilla

Posted
Posted
um, is that true that the heirs will outright own Superman by 2013?

According to this no if DC makes A new Superman movie by 2012.

 

Incorrect. The making of a Superman movie will only prove that WB did not get a sweetheart deal, the making of the movie has nothing to do with the ownership of the character.

 

Also hidden in this mess was in 1994 the copywrite was scheduled to go back to Seigel,

 

Siegel was supposed to starting writing publicity material for Superman again in 1994?

I believe you are confusing copywrite with copyright. They are two different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MR.COMICBOOK

MR.COMICBOOK

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Superman "died" in the #75 issue of the self-titled comic book Superman - released November 18th, 1992.

 

:baiting:

 

 

 

-slym

and in 6 weeks it be 1993, they plan things out way ahead. I was trying to make a point that in 1994 Superman's original 56-year-period expired. From 1994 on, DC/WB raked in cash owning a copyright that was artificially extended beyond what they originally paid for. I find it very interesting that the copyright expired in1994 and they killed Superman slightly before that and replaced him with 4 characters who were slightly different.So maybe all this time as we were thinking it was a great gimmick, it might have been done for legal reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr 9.8

Mr 9.8

Posted
Posted

 

 

hm So if DC ever loses superman, who would DC replace him with? (Miracleman?) :wishluck:

 

SHAZAM

 

Didn't DC claim he was exactly the same as Superman?

 

Yes they did. What's REALLY funny is that MARVEL/MIRACLEMAN WAS a rip-off of Captain Marvel.(later named SHAZAM!) :roflmao: Hey, what would happen IF SUPERMAN went to MARVEL? or the Siegal family starts there own indy comic with supes? would DC be forced to stop reprints of everything superman because they would no longer own him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crowzilla

Crowzilla

Posted
Posted

and in 6 weeks it be 1993, they plan things out way ahead. I was trying to make a point that in 1994 Superman's original 56-year-period expired. From 1994 on, DC/WB raked in cash owning a copyright that was artificially extended beyond what they originally paid for. I find it very interesting that the copyright expired in1994 and they killed Superman slightly before that and replaced him with 4 characters who were slightly different.So maybe all this time as we were thinking it was a great gimmick, it might have been done for legal reasons.

 

Except of course for the fact that the Copyright Act of 1976 rendered your above argument moot as the copyright on Superman had already been extended to a static 75 years expiring in 2013.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Drakeprimeone

Drakeprimeone

Posted
Posted

 

 

hm So if DC ever loses superman, who would DC replace him with? (Miracleman?) :wishluck:

 

SHAZAM

 

Didn't DC claim he was exactly the same as Superman?

 

Yes they did. What's REALLY funny is that MARVEL/MIRACLEMAN WAS a rip-off of Captain Marvel.(later named SHAZAM!) :roflmao: Hey, what would happen IF SUPERMAN went to MARVEL? or the Siegal family starts there own indy comic with supes? would DC be forced to stop reprints of everything superman because they would no longer own him?

 

If Superman went to marvel it would be like when Hulk Hogan went over to WCW

 

NWO!!!!

 

 

:jokealert:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing