Superman Copyright Decision - My View

[sdelmonte]

So you probably heard through the geekvine that a judge ruled that the wife and daughter of Superman's co-creator Jerry Siegel are now the owners of half of Superman's copyright (in accordance with a revision to the copyright laws in the late 90s that allows them to file papers to reclaim it under certain circumstances).

Some fans think this is great, a real boost to creators rights. Others think that the Siegels are just being greedy and have no right to anything. While I wholly disagree with the latter and generally agree with the former, I have a minority view: After 70 years, Superman shouldn't belong to anyone. His copyright should have expired by now. Period. Yes, the Siegels are right to want their fair share of the profits that Jerry Siegel was denied by the company that eventually became today's DC. Yes, DC has by and large done a very good job as Superman's stewards. But I am a big believer in the simple idea that copyrights expire.

Superman should be in the public domain. So should Mickey Mouse, and Popeye. So should Batman, after 69 years. But that's not the law of the land anymore, and I doubt it ever will be again. Still, I can dream.

Comments

[muji]

I am hella with you. My experience with this is more for music copyright than anything else, but.

(I should not have to buy a $200 orchestration just so I can get a copy of a flute piece that was written in the 1890's.)

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

You know, I tend to agree with you, but I've also run into people who are so militant about that stance that they think the Siegels should not have sued. To which I say, "Take it as a given that someone out there is going to continue making millions of dollars off of Superman. If that's the case, shouldn't the Siegels have a right to pursue some of that money?"

That usually gets them to realize what the reality is.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Given the reality, it makes sense for the Segals to sue, especially as the original creators could never have anticipated that Congress would keep extending the law. Selling your idea for 23 years plus another 23 years is one bargain. Having that bargain turn out to be for over 100 years is something else.

[wickedtrue.livejournal.com]

I really agree with you, too. It's supposed to 70 years, the life time of the creator so they can benefit, but now it's 120, 150, 200 years of copyright and that's defeating the purpose! It's not about making money for some corporation that bought out the rights from a starving artist. It's about the creator benefiting during their life, and then the public being able to improve from a cultural standpoint once it is released into public domain.

I like to really hope that if I ever manage to create something that is published, I'll make sure the copyright expires with my death.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Excuse me while I cackle at the big boys being bit for once.
heeeheeeeheeeeheeeeheeee.

OK, totally agree on the real policy issue. But heeeeheeeeheeeeheeee.

[agoodshinkickin.livejournal.com]

Your post reminded me of this:
A Fair(y)Use Tale
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo

Which, if you haven't seen it, is amazing.

[the_croupier]

You're getting a very good glass of scotch raised to toast your honor right now.

I couldn't agree more. And once they're all in the public domain, the next thing should be a complete revamping of the copyright system to match it.