[synch]

I duno he has a mighty nice looking dcuc collection ....

[darthfoley]

zeekzin, on Aug 15 2009, 01:05 AM, said:

Hello everyone,

My name is Solomon Siegal. Kindly place all your Superman related figures in a box and mail them to me immediately. Don't make me come looking for you.

Hee hee!

[Doom Saber]

zeekzin, on Aug 14 2009, 11:05 PM, said:

EldestSon, on Aug 14 2009, 11:14 PM, said:

JeffreyA, on Aug 14 2009, 08:33 PM, said:

What will happen to all the figures with him to and like the Superfriends,JLA cartoon. Also isn't some of Batman's enemies also Superman's like Grundy and Toyman or have they always been Superman's enemies?

It mostly have to do with his origin and characters and places created very, very early on...and even then it's only stuff created in Supes books (so if a villain was created in another book, it wouldn't be included in this).

In any case, no one is gonna come and take your figs away.

Hello everyone,

My name is Solomon Siegal. Kindly place all your Superman related figures in a box and mail them to me immediately. Don't make me come looking for you.

Seeing how some ppl believed in that plasticman accessory joke,I would not be surpised if somebody sends you his figures

[rash]

The Siegels are presently negotiating the newly re-acquired rights with MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT.

[Rollo Tomassi]

rash, on Aug 15 2009, 05:42 PM, said:

The Siegels are presently negotiating the newly re-acquired rights with MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT.

HA! What would Marvel want with receding hairline, squinty eyed 1938 Super Man who can't even fly and bears no resemblance to the iconic hero DC has perpetuated over the last 70 years?

[rash]

Rollo Tomassi, on Aug 15 2009, 09:33 PM, said:

rash, on Aug 15 2009, 05:42 PM, said:

The Siegels are presently negotiating the newly re-acquired rights with MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT.

HA! What would Marvel want with receding hairline, squinty eyed 1938 Super Man who can't even fly and bears no resemblance to the iconic hero DC has perpetuated over the last 70 years?

Easy. It's called "STEP 1"...

[Doom Saber]

rash, on Aug 15 2009, 05:42 PM, said:

The Siegels are presently negotiating the newly re-acquired rights with MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT.

l enjoy how you make things up to the point where ppl believes it.

[GPM in ICT]

I love how people just go off the deep end when it comes to this stuff. I've been following this case, and the Superboy case, for the last couple years and while things have certainly gotten a little more interesting with the judge granting them ownership of more than Action #1 this is what it basicly means: The Seigels now own half the rights to those stories and whatever the judge saw fit to also give to them. Best case scenerio is that nothing happens and the Seigels now get half the moeny that WB/AOL get for different things in regards to Superman. At worst they could take their version of Superman (which is different in some regards to the way Superman is currently portrayed) and either license the right to another company (ie Marvel, Image, IDW, Dark Horse or someone new) and have to pay WB/AOL for that because they own half (from everything I've heard WB/AOL/DC owns the half that Shuster had).

Now I know with the original story in Action #1 Superman boots and the S shield were different and the current design of the S shield didn't come about until the fifties (with slight changes in the 70's and 80's). Superman also didn't fly in those old comics, nor did he have some of the powers that he is known for today, so the Seigels can't use any of that stuff. I'm also not sure about the designs for some characters and whether or not that have those.

More than likely it will all come down to money. Personally I feel like the Seigels are greedy and if they don't take what is offered to them (which I'm sure would be more than enough) then it will prove that point. Mr Seigels was paid three times for the rights to Superman and each time he signed them away. So the fact that his widow and child(ren?) are asking for more money just gets to me. Sure they deserve something, but I don't think that Superman would have been as popular today if it wasn't for DC and their Parents Companies stewardship of the characters. After all during the 30's through the 50's there were other characters that were more popular than Superman. My own personal fear is that the Seigels will just look for a big check and who ever writes that check does something with the character that hurts him the the eyes of the public just for shock value and media attention.

[ARROW]

Quote

More than likely it will all come down to money. Personally I feel like the Seigels are greedy and if they don't take what is offered to them (which I'm sure would be more than enough) then it will prove that point. Mr Seigels was paid three times for the rights to Superman and each time he signed them away. So the fact that his widow and child(ren?) are asking for more money just gets to me. Sure they deserve something, but I don't think that Superman would have been as popular today if it wasn't for DC and their Parents Companies stewardship of the characters.

I disagree.

On the issue of creator rights and entitlements, the Seigel and Shuster estates have made a case that says they should gain from their creation.
They've gained a pittance in comparison to what National Periodical publications, and DC/Time -Warner have gained over the years.
Part of this decision is the assertion that if a creator is removed from decisions regarding their creation, then fair compensation is warranted for that loss of control.
The Seigel and Shuster estates are not being greedy in this, they are seeking their just due.
They created the character of Superman from "whole cloth" so to speak, and sold it to National Periodicals without representation that would have advised them that they could be entitled to future proceeds.
This kind of decision is possible, and even practical, nowadays because of the legal wrangling over real and intellectual property rights.
40, 50, 60, 70 years ago..............it was a simple business contract matter because the length and breadth of marketing the character was limited to specific kinds of media. No-one could conceive of the multitude of other ways in which the character could be sold now, so the courts today have taken that into account.

[Flounnderr]

ARROW, on Aug 16 2009, 02:26 PM, said:

Quote

More than likely it will all come down to money. Personally I feel like the Seigels are greedy and if they don't take what is offered to them (which I'm sure would be more than enough) then it will prove that point. Mr Seigels was paid three times for the rights to Superman and each time he signed them away. So the fact that his widow and child(ren?) are asking for more money just gets to me. Sure they deserve something, but I don't think that Superman would have been as popular today if it wasn't for DC and their Parents Companies stewardship of the characters.

I disagree.

On the issue of creator rights and entitlements, the Seigel and Shuster estates have made a case that says they should gain from their creation.
They've gained a pittance in comparison to what National Periodical publications, and DC/Time -Warner have gained over the years.
Part of this decision is the assertion that if a creator is removed from decisions regarding their creation, then fair compensation is warranted for that loss of control.
The Seigel and Shuster estates are not being greedy in this, they are seeking their just due.
They created the character of Superman from "whole cloth" so to speak, and sold it to National Periodicals without representation that would have advised them that they could be entitled to future proceeds.
This kind of decision is possible, and even practical, nowadays because of the legal wrangling over real and intellectual property rights.
40, 50, 60, 70 years ago..............it was a simple business contract matter because the length and breadth of marketing the character was limited to specific kinds of media. No-one could conceive of the multitude of other ways in which the character could be sold now, so the courts today have taken that into account.

I agree Whole Heartedly with the above statement. Siegel and Shuster are owed a 50% share in all income Warner/DC makes from Superman. It is not about greed, it is about just compensation for creator rights. In the 1930's alot of these characters were concieved as one shots. Noone imagined it would grow and thrive past a 2-3 years in magazines. Superman in name and likliness are an industry onto itself, from movies, figures, rollercoasters, cartoons... it has reached far beyond any thought possible. Warner/DC should be thankful that Shuster had no heirs for his half of the share, which allows them to hold their 50%.

All this means in the end is DC will continue to publish Superman and the Siegle family will get a larger portion of profits then before. They deserve to profit as much as DC and i'm glad the legal system recognizes it.

[yojoebro82]

rash, on Aug 15 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

The Siegels are presently negotiating the newly re-acquired rights with MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT.

No. If it were to this point, mass media would have already reported on it. The fact that there is no story of any major changes/moves that will affect us, the fans makes me not worry too much about anything.

Til then this is just one big "What if Supes went to Marvel?" thread.

[hoganvibe]

I think it's great when families of creators are able to get compensated for money due to them. I only wish that Seigel and Shuster were alive to see this.

[CaptainTriumph]

My grandfather designed a firetruck for one of the local fire companies several years ago. I don't feel he was properly compensated for his creation. I asked for either the truck back or to be paid for the use of it for the last couple of decades.

Now I've had nothing to do with the creation or use of the truck but I'm his heir so I think I'm entitled to a payout. Thats fair isn't it?

[GPM in ICT]

Alright I did a little research and found a couple of figures that make this interesting. Seigel and Shuster were paid $75,000 in 1940 (which in todays dollar would be $1,097781). In 1946 they were paid somewhere between $94,00 and $120,000 (which today would be somewhere between $988,33 to $1,261,703). Then in 1975 WB agreed to pay each man $20,000 a year for the rest of their lives (Shuster lived until 1992 and Seigel lived until 1996, and in 1975 $20, 000 was worth $76,000 today). So while I'm not sure if I can really say they were paid their fair share, it's not like they never got anything for creating Superman.

[ARROW]

CaptainTriumph, on Aug 17 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

My grandfather designed a firetruck for one of the local fire companies several years ago. I don't feel he was properly compensated for his creation. I asked for either the truck back or to be paid for the use of it for the last couple of decades.

Now I've had nothing to do with the creation or use of the truck but I'm his heir so I think I'm entitled to a payout. Thats fair isn't it?

Depends on the agreement he had to do the job.
If it was a strictly work-for-hire job, then you have no claim, because all rights would go to the client upon payment.
If there was no agreement in place, then you DO have a claim, but the onus would be upon you to prove there was no contract that limits your rights. Also, to secure those rights you would need to be named as a party to his estate.

See, I have specific instructions to my loved ones regarding the dispensation of my creations upon my death-only those named can do anything. Anyone else has no claim, regardless of how close they were to me.

This is how the Seigel and Shuster estates were able to launch this litigation.

[ARROW]

GPM in ICT, on Aug 17 2009, 10:42 AM, said:

Alright I did a little research and found a couple of figures that make this interesting. Seigel and Shuster were paid $75,000 in 1940 (which in todays dollar would be $1,097781). In 1946 they were paid somewhere between $94,00 and $120,000 (which today would be somewhere between $988,33 to $1,261,703). Then in 1975 WB agreed to pay each man $20,000 a year for the rest of their lives (Shuster lived until 1992 and Seigel lived until 1996, and in 1975 $20, 000 was worth $76,000 today). So while I'm not sure if I can really say they were paid their fair share, it's not like they never got anything for creating Superman.

The other artists drawing Superman comics during those years after 1975 (when Seigel and Shuster were getting their $20K annual stipend) were taking home page rates of about $200+ a page. That's $53,000 a year, approx. Superman brought in tens of millions each year via licensing, TV shows and such after 1975, and all Seigel and Shuster got was $20K a year.
Stan Lee, was getting several hundred thousand in annual salary for being the figurehead of Marvel Comics....even though he was not even producing any material ( it was rumoured that some-one else was even ghost-writing the newspaper strip for him) and was spending all his time in Hollywood pursuing his own ventures.

Joe and Jerry were short-changed big time, and deserved more.

[hoganvibe]

CaptainTriumph, on Aug 17 2009, 11:29 AM, said:

My grandfather designed a firetruck for one of the local fire companies several years ago. I don't feel he was properly compensated for his creation. I asked for either the truck back or to be paid for the use of it for the last couple of decades.

Now I've had nothing to do with the creation or use of the truck but I'm his heir so I think I'm entitled to a payout. Thats fair isn't it?

Is that firetruck generating millions of dollars in sales and made many CEOs filthy rich based on it's design? If so, then I think that you are entitled to some serious bank, my friend!

[CaptainTriumph]

hoganvibe, on Aug 17 2009, 05:24 PM, said:

CaptainTriumph, on Aug 17 2009, 11:29 AM, said:

My grandfather designed a firetruck for one of the local fire companies several years ago. I don't feel he was properly compensated for his creation. I asked for either the truck back or to be paid for the use of it for the last couple of decades.

Now I've had nothing to do with the creation or use of the truck but I'm his heir so I think I'm entitled to a payout. Thats fair isn't it?

Is that firetruck generating millions of dollars in sales and made many CEOs filthy rich based on it's design? If so, then I think that you are entitled to some serious bank, my friend!

The truck saved millions of dollars of property so I should be rewarded for the service it provided.

[MasterJailer]

The Siegel situation is a giant pet peeve of mine. Here's the bottom line... Jerry Siegel willingly sold the character of Superman and was happy to do it at the time. Any hardships he'd experienced afterwards were entirely his own doing. He was an angry little man

Here are a few things to remember...

1. Siegel and Shuster had tried unsuccessfully to sell Superman for years. They'd gotten no where with it. If National hadn't come along and had taken the financial risk to publish this character, the world would never have heard of Superman. There's this perception that Vin Sullivan, the editor at National who'd bought Superman from S&S, was twirling his mustache as they signed the agreement and snickering to himself, "These fools! This Superman is going to be a gold mine! I'm robbing them!"

2. Siegel and Shuster WILLINGLY signed the standard work-for-hire agreement all of National's writers and artists signed at the time. Notable among the few excetions were Bob Kane, who had a lawyer for an uncle respresenting him, and William Moulton Marston, who'd been approached by DC to create Wonder Woman.

3. S&S not only received the initial sum of 130.00 but they also enthusiastically signed a ten year contract with National. For two young cartoonists in '38, this was making it big.

4. As Superman became successful, S&S were awarded what Jack Liebowitz called "tokens of appreciation," in other words, bonuses. Jerry Siegel, however, was an angry little man. He became envious and angry of the money National was making off of Superman. Working from Cleveland, he would make only occasional visits to the National offices in New York. He would show up and demand more money. Jack Liebowitz would throw money at him WHICH HE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DO and Seigel would go back to Cleveland temporarily placated. Once back home though, Seigel, usually spurred on by his equally frustrated first wife, would fume and write Liebowitz crazy angry letters accusing National of stealing from him.

5. Throughout the ten years S&S were under contract to National producing Superman comics, they never pursued any other projects or capitalized on their success with Superman to negotiate deals elsewhere. Seigel went on to create the Spectre and Superboy for National while still complaining that National had robbed him. Their contract was not an exclusive one. They could've found work anywhere.

6. At the end of their ten year contract with National, Siegel had become such a pain in the a$$, that National chose not to re-new the contract. Siegel continued to write scripts for National on a freelance basis for years until he tried unsuccessfully to sue National for the first time.

7. In the sixties, Siegel's wife... this would be the second Mrs. Siegel... begged Jack Liebowitz to give her husband more writing assignments and Liebowitz did so. By the end of the 60's, Seigel would again be writing his angry letters and once again tried unsuccessfully to sue. This time, Liebowitz had enough and fired Siegel blackballed Siegel yet again.

Instead of pioneering new frontiers in creator rights, the Siegel family is making things worse for upcoming comic creators. Now publishers fanatically fear the very situation they have perpetuated and make sure all ownership rights are locked and sealed before they even look at anything!

The Siegel just need to go away!

[CaptainTriumph]

MasterJailer, on Aug 17 2009, 09:15 PM, said:

The Siegel situation is a giant pet peeve of mine. Here's the bottom line... Jerry Siegel willingly sold the character of Superman and was happy to do it at the time. Any hardships he'd experienced afterwards were entirely his own doing. He was an angry little man

Here are a few things to remember...

1. Siegel and Shuster had tried unsuccessfully to sell Superman for years. They'd gotten no where with it. If National hadn't come along and had taken the financial risk to publish this character, the world would never have heard of Superman. There's this perception that Vin Sullivan, the editor at National who'd bought Superman from S&S, was twirling his mustache as they signed the agreement and snickering to himself, "These fools! This Superman is going to be a gold mine! I'm robbing them!"

2. Siegel and Shuster WILLINGLY signed the standard work-for-hire agreement all of National's writers and artists signed at the time. Notable among the few excetions were Bob Kane, who had a lawyer for an uncle respresenting him, and William Moulton Marston, who'd been approached by DC to create Wonder Woman.

3. S&S not only received the initial sum of 130.00 but they also enthusiastically signed a ten year contract with National. For two young cartoonists in '38, this was making it big.

4. As Superman became successful, S&S were awarded what Jack Liebowitz called "tokens of appreciation," in other words, bonuses. Jerry Siegel, however, was an angry little man. He became envious and angry of the money National was making off of Superman. Working from Cleveland, he would make only occasional visits to the National offices in New York. He would show up and demand more money. Jack Liebowitz would throw money at him WHICH HE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DO and Seigel would go back to Cleveland temporarily placated. Once back home though, Seigel, usually spurred on by his equally frustrated first wife, would fume and write Liebowitz crazy angry letters accusing National of stealing from him.

5. Throughout the ten years S&S were under contract to National producing Superman comics, they never pursued any other projects or capitalized on their success with Superman to negotiate deals elsewhere. Seigel went on to create the Spectre and Superboy for National while still complaining that National had robbed him. Their contract was not an exclusive one. They could've found work anywhere.

6. At the end of their ten year contract with National, Siegel had become such a pain in the a$$, that National chose not to re-new the contract. Siegel continued to write scripts for National on a freelance basis for years until he tried unsuccessfully to sue National for the first time.

7. In the sixties, Siegel's wife... this would be the second Mrs. Siegel... begged Jack Liebowitz to give her husband more writing assignments and Liebowitz did so. By the end of the 60's, Seigel would again be writing his angry letters and once again tried unsuccessfully to sue. This time, Liebowitz had enough and fired Siegel blackballed Siegel yet again.

Instead of pioneering new frontiers in creator rights, the Siegel family is making things worse for upcoming comic creators. Now publishers fanatically fear the very situation they have perpetuated and make sure all ownership rights are locked and sealed before they even look at anything!

The Siegel just need to go away!

You'll get no argument from me...I don't think they're are owed a dime.

[ARROW]

Quote

Instead of pioneering new frontiers in creator rights, the Siegel family is making things worse for upcoming comic creators. Now publishers fanatically fear the very situation they have perpetuated and make sure all ownership rights are locked and sealed before they even look at anything!

Uh, the Seigel and Shuster case has been a boon for creator's rights because of all the litigations.
Its not stopped the acquisition of creator own-ed material, not by a long shot. Its actually made the process safer because BOTH sides now have specific rights that need to be addressed--especially in deals made in the last 25-30 years. Before the 1980's royalties for creators were minimal, and had to be negotiated individually and only if the publishers went for such deals. Nowadays, they ink since things as a matter of course, just so the rights are secured for both sides--and so no costly spats come out of the arrangement.

[hoganvibe]

I'm amazed that people would side with a corporation that has made millions, if not billions on a character rather than giving a SMALL PORTION back to the creators. Bear in mind that this only covers the first two weeks of the newspaper strip and a few Action Comics and Superman books. Stuff that they had created before the works-made-for-hire contracts were signed. I doubt if this will even make a blip to the everyday comic collector, as both parties benefit for doing business as usual.

DC & Marvel has a closed policy about looking at creator owned property. If you try to send it in, they throw it in the trash without looking at it. If you are trying out as an artist, you have to sign a waiver saying that if you are not submitting artwork of copyrighted characters then you can not sue them if characters resembling the one in your submission appears in their property at a later date. This has been their policy for at least 15 years and this judgment has no weight on that policy.

If nothing else, the creation of Image Comics was a wakeup call for publishers to lock in ownership rights.