Superman Copyright Decision - My View
Apr. 2nd, 2008 09:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: Apr. 2nd, 2008 02:05 pm (UTC)(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.)
(no subject)
Date: Apr. 2nd, 2008 02:18 pm (UTC)That usually gets them to realize what the reality is.
(no subject)
Date: Apr. 2nd, 2008 03:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: Apr. 2nd, 2008 02:48 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: Apr. 2nd, 2008 03:08 pm (UTC)heeeheeeeheeeeheeeeheeee.
OK, totally agree on the real policy issue. But heeeeheeeeheeeeheeee.
(no subject)
Date: Apr. 2nd, 2008 03:49 pm (UTC)A Fair(y)Use Tale
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo
Which, if you haven't seen it, is amazing.
(no subject)
Date: Apr. 3rd, 2008 01:39 am (UTC)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.