Superman in Public Domain

[fantastic_four]

Well no, that's not how it works. There's the 95 year max. It can't be reset or something, or revert to life plus 75. And as for the Shusters, they were late in filing for reclaiming the rights, so in 2013, the Shuster estate is set to reclaim the other 50% of the Superman copyright. Trademarks are a completely different thing, which DC will own.

 

Why wouldn't it work that way? It wouldn't be a reset; if the courts ruled that Siegel legally own the rights, then individual copyright applies to the date of his death.

 

I haven't been following the Siegel lawsuit, but if DC still owns the Superman trademark, why are they concerned about putting out a new Superman film by the end of next year to avoid a lawsuit from the Siegels? I assumed that meant the Siegels won the trademark back.

[binarysunrise]

Ok, here are a couple of articles that might help those trying to understand this better:

http://blog.newsarama.com/2008/04/08/superman-of-two-worlds/#more-7741

 

Of note:

"The Superman material from 1938 enters the public domain in 2033, 95 years after publication. In principle, this would give the right to anyone to reprint or develop that material."

 

This section is then followed by the big trademark issue. *And* it highlights my issue with the date 2033, since I now believe it to be Jan 1 2034. (I've emailed the copyright office for clarification).

 

For the bigger issue of trademarks, this follow up article is good:

http://blog.newsarama.com/2008/04/09/can-the-siegels-sell-superman-to-marvel/#more-7757

 

Of note:

"As DC’s own lawyers have argued, trademark law arguably protects the distinguishing elements of the Superman properties in ways that can effectively prevent the distribution of competing Superman material. The Siegels, of course, disagree."

 

And finally, this article shows how much of the Superman character has been trademarked:

http://www.brittonpayne.com/Marvel/SuperStudWonderWench.htm

 

Of note, DC's lawyers in this case stated that all the elements of their trademark trace back to the 1938 version, which the Siegel heirs now have partial rights to. So courts will probably have to separate and settle this - if this gives the Siegels part ownership of the trademarks, this might clarify what can be safely used when Superman enters the public domain. Or maybe not. A later article mentions that DC's "lawyers will most likely argue that any attempt to exploit the public domain Superman material infringes or dilutes its trademarks."

 

Either way, my main interest in all of this is just to figure out an accurate date for the copyright termination

[fantastic_four]

Ok, here are a couple of articles that might help those trying to understand this better:

http://blog.newsarama.com/2008/04/08/superman-of-two-worlds/#more-7741

 

Of note:

"The Superman material from 1938 enters the public domain in 2033, 95 years after publication. In principle, this would give the right to anyone to reprint or develop that material."

 

The interesting part of that ruling I didn't realize is that Siegel didn't completely win the rights to the Action 1 Superman story, he won half of them and shares them with DC. I wonder what happens if Shuster gets his rights as well, how do they get split between the three?

 

I've never heard of both an individual AND a company co-owning a copyright, so I have no idea which copyright duration applies. I'm not sure the Newsarama guy does either, he never addresses that. I bet there's a precedent somewhere, I'd imagine it's happened with book authors and publishing companies at some point.

 

I forget, when was the very first appearance of Superman--was it Action 1 or was it the daily newsstrips?

[fantastic_four]

Since you have to keep renewing trademarks and I'm guessing the Siegels never did that, I'm not sure I get how they'd have any ownership of it. Maybe they've got a claim that DC's trademark filing prevented theirs, I dunno.

[binarysunrise]

Why wouldn't it work that way? It wouldn't be a reset; if the courts ruled that Siegel legally own the rights, then individual copyright applies to the date of his death.

 

Ok, how it works. When the law changed to extend the copyright term to 95 years, they gave the original copyright owners a window of time to apply for a termination of the rights, in order to reclaim the copyright. Then, "the grant, if it does not provide otherwise, continues in effect for the remainder of the extended renewal term." So 95 years is the limit here.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html

 

I haven't been following the Siegel lawsuit, but if DC still owns the Superman trademark, why are they concerned about putting out a new Superman film by the end of next year to avoid a lawsuit from the Siegels? I assumed that meant the Siegels won the trademark back.

 

The Siegels have won their share of Superman, and the courts have basically been tied up with figuring out what % of profits that means. However, DC has since kept publishing Superman, and the Siegels want to make sure DC is doing everything it can to keep making $ for them. A judge ruled that DC needs to stop dragging its feet on the Superman movie, and get it in production. Again, no issue of trademark here.

 

The interesting part of that ruling I didn't realize is that Siegel didn't completely win the rights to the Action 1 Superman story, he won half of them and shares them with DC. I wonder what happens if Shuster gets his rights as well, how do they get split between the three?

 

Well, the Siegel estate won their 50%. Then in 2013, presumably the Shusters will win the other 50%. But, DC will have the rights to derivative works made between 1938 and 1999. And, their lawyers will claim continued control of the trademark, which seems to be inextricably wrapped up in the copyrights. So DC will probably have some % as well. The simpler case is that a leasing % of Superman to DC will be agreed upon, or even more simpler would be a flat out re-sale of the copyright to DC.

 

I forget, when was the very first appearance of Superman--was it Action 1 or was it the daily newsstrips?

 

They originally made it as a newspaper strip. Shopped it around, and finally DC picked it up, asking them to rework it into a comic book. Action comics #1 was published first, and then they inked a deal with McClure Syndicate to publish it in newspapers. The whole reason the S&S heirs are able to reclaim the copyright is the fact that they created it *before* working at DC.

 

Since you have to keep renewing trademarks and I'm guessing the Siegels never did that, I'm not sure I get how they'd have any ownership of it. Maybe they've got a claim that DC's trademark filing prevented theirs, I dunno.

 

Again, DC has retained the trademark to the Superman elements this whole time. The lawsuit, and the public domain stuff, all refers to the copyright. *But* since DC admits that the trademarked Superman elements are based upon the 1938 Superman, S&S have some grounds to file a partial ownership to the trademarks (and thus give them more leeway to use their copyrights effectively). But that'll be another court case, and to further murky the waters, there's a advertisement logo of Superman, from before the publication of Action Comics #1 that the heirs are unable to reclaim because they filed the paperwork too late. So DC will argue that their trademarks are based upon that.

[fantastic_four]

I haven't been following the Siegel lawsuit, but if DC still owns the Superman trademark, why are they concerned about putting out a new Superman film by the end of next year to avoid a lawsuit from the Siegels? I assumed that meant the Siegels won the trademark back.

 

The Siegels have won their share of Superman, and the courts have basically been tied up with figuring out what % of profits that means. However, DC has since kept publishing Superman, and the Siegels want to make sure DC is doing everything it can to keep making $ for them. A judge ruled that DC needs to stop dragging its feet on the Superman movie, and get it in production. Again, no issue of trademark here.

 

I thought the Siegels only won half of the rights to the strips reprinted in Action 1? As long as the movies don't retell the stories the Siegels wrote and drew--which includes the origin story, certainly a key one there--why does DC care? I'm guessing they're either afraid they know losing the copyright battle on the origin story puts their trademark in danger so they're conceding to them to remain in their good graces as their chosen publisher of Superman stories, or they're planning for the new movie to retell the origin, which would put the story into Siegel's partial ownership.

 

If DC does lose all of their copyright ownership to Action 1 to the Shusters, I can't see why they'd have rights to any Superman trademarks at all originally developed by Siegel and Shuster or why the corporate copyright duration would apply. Seems like a lawsuit DC is destined to lose.

[binarysunrise]

I thought the Siegels only won half of the rights to the strips reprinted in Action 1? As long as the movies don't retell the stories the Siegels wrote and drew--which includes the origin story, certainly a key one there--why does DC care?

 

Now you're getting to the crux of why copyright is important. Just looking up a bit about "derivative works." The right to create derivative works is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holders.

 

One article explained that "the creator of the derivative work cannot use any part of the underlying work without the permission of the copyright proprietor"

 

So basically, in order for DC to use Superman, they'd have to license it from whoever owns Superman (in this case, the Siegel estate has a 50% ownership of it). So part of the current court case will be to determine how much $ DC owes the Siegels for using Superman from 1999 (when the heirs reclaimed the copyright) to the present.

[stevescu1]

I think binarysunrise answered all the questions that were asked of my post. As it stands right now, the 1938 version of Superman would hit the public domain on January 1st, 1934, just as the original version of Popeye, is now public domain in the UK. Anyone can make new works featuring that version of Superman at that time, that is why companies want to keep extending copyrights. If it was just Action 1 going into public domain, its no big deal. How much does DC make off that single comic at this point?

 

DC could lose the copyright in the US to Superman completely in 2013. However, the trademark issue would still be out there, and nothing any US court decides is going to have any meaning for their international trademarks anyway. DC losing the copyright wont mean much, as they'll still hold that all important trademark. In the end, if DC loses the case, they'll have to buy the remaining years of copyright back from the heirs. There is really no one else they can sell it to.

 

This whole issue stems from copyright lengths were increased. When Seigel sold the copyright to DC, he was paid based on the copyright being his for whatever the term was when it was sold. When the length was extended, it gave creators a way to reclaim their copyrights, as they were paid oroginally based on it being X number of years, and now it is 95 years. The most recent extension is what has allowed the Shuster heirs to make their claim in 2013 (originally only immediate family members could make a claim, but with the extension that was changed as well).

 

Anyway, the reason DC would still have the trademarks even if they lost the copyrights are simply because trademark and copyright law is different. Trademarks have no end date, and can only expire from non use.

[binarysunrise]

So now that we've addressed the major issues once more....

 

Let's get back to my original question then. Why when everyone cites this impending issue, is the date 2033 used? It seems that 2034 would be more accurate.

[stevescu1]

So now that we've addressed the major issues once more....

 

Let's get back to my original question then. Why when everyone cites this impending issue, is the date 2033 used? It seems that 2034 would be more accurate.

I think people are just doing simple math, not realizing that really 2033 is the last year of protection, and the true public domain date is January 1st, 2034.

 

Even if Superman falls into the public domain, I think the trademark issue will scare anyone from doing anything. To use Popeye again, he is public domain in most of the world now and nothing has come of that.

[binarysunrise]

So now that we've addressed the major issues once more....

 

Let's get back to my original question then. Why when everyone cites this impending issue, is the date 2033 used? It seems that 2034 would be more accurate.

I think people are just doing simple math, not realizing that really 2033 is the last year of protection, and the true public domain date is January 1st, 2034.

 

But all my knowledge on this comes from reading internet articles written by lawyerly types. Especially all the great explanations from Jeff Trexler at Newsarama. They should be the people who know this like the back of their hand. Often he's written "The Superman material from 1938 enters the public domain in 2033..." which is why I question my own conclusions on this.

[binarysunrise]

Ok, just heard back from the copyright office. Indeed, Superman "would enter the public domain on Jan. 1, 2034." Amazing that everyone has the date wrong...