DO BOYS OWN STORIES?

Someday soon, somebody is going to write a definitive history of comic books. They're going to look back on this strange little industry, which has veered from the ridiculous to the sublime and back again, and straight away they're going to identify the one thing that keeps the whole circus trundling along. It's the same thing, in fact, that drives any creative industry; the one that keeps accountants happy and artists penniless. It's called copyright.

The person or persons who own the copyright to a creative work are the ones who are best placed to capitalise on its commercial potential. It's what motivates them to publish comic books and graphics novels or, as is the current trend, to adapt them to the big screen.

Similarly, if they own the trademark, they can put out merchandise like t-shirts, lunchboxes, and giant-size action figurines with fifty-six points of articulation. But more often than not in the comics biz, the person or persons who own the rights to a character are not the same folks who created it in the first place.

The story of comics is a long, sad story of exploitation. It runs from Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster through Jack Kirby to hundreds more writers and artists whose contributions to the grand tapestry of four-colour lore have gone unacknowledged. It was even the inspiration for Michael Chabon's Pultizer-winning novel THE AMAZING ADVENTURES OF KAVELIER AND KLAY. Recent years have seen the rise to prominence of creator-owned properties, such as Frank Miller's SIN CITY and Mike Mignola's HELLBOY, but they only constitute a tiny fraction of the marketplace. These same individuals would never have had the opportunity to work on their own projects if they hadn't become famous toiling in the service of 'Korporate Komics'.

'The story of comics is a long, sad story of exploitation.' This is an issue where passions run high, because the story is still being played out in the present day. Currently, there are rumours that the rights to two of the most famous and longest running superhero characters in the world, Superman and Superboy, could be returned to the families of the people who created them, the aforementioned Siegel and Shuster.

If true, it would mean that DC Comics could finally reap what it has sown, by being forced to compensate for its treatment of the partnership that started it all nearly seventy years ago. It could also open the floodgates for legal action concerning the ownership of each of the golden age superheroes still published by DC comics, including Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern and the Flash.

According to news reports, the heirs to the Siegel and Shuster estate have filed legal paperwork in two separate motions to terminate the assignment of copyright to Time Warner and, by extension, to DC Comics. This is happening at this point in time because, according to American copyright law, there is a five year window in which creators or their heirs have the opportunity to file for termination of the current copyright holders' grant for characters created between 1939 and 1942.

SUPERBOY'S BRIEFS

The notice concerning Superman won't come into effect until 26th October 2013, but the termination notice on Superboy is due to come into effect on 17th November 2004. Judging by the continued output of Time Warner products like SMALLVILLE and TEEN TITANS, it's doubtful that DC and Time Warner want to stop using the Superboy character any time soon.

These legal shenanigans are just the latest instalment of a battle that's been running for as long as Superman has been in print. It began when Siegel and Shuster sold all their rights to the character to National Periodicals in 1938 in exchange for $130 dollars. After it became such a huge success and they realised that they'd been cheated out of the profits, the duo tried to sue DC Comics (as it became known) in 1947 for a bigger share.

'The Siegel and Shuster estates have filed papers to terminate DC's copyrights.' The judge ruled in DC's favour, but awarded ownership of the Superboy character to Siegel and Shuster because it was a derivative of their original creation that was made without their permission. Despite this small victory, they sold these rights back to DC for $100,000 dollars to cover their legal costs, and the fallout was so great that their names were removed from the credits in the comic books.

The two men were out of work and struggled financially for the next twenty years. Jerry Siegel made another unsuccessful legal bid in 1966, and in an interview given in 1974, when asked to respond to the news that a big budget Hollywood picture starring his creation was being made, he stated, "The publishers of SUPERMAN comic books, National Periodical Publications, killed my days, murdered my nights, choked my happiness, strangled my career. I consider National's executives money-mad monsters. I, Jerry Siegel, the co-originator of SUPERMAN, put a curse on the SUPERMAN movie!"

Soon after, there was a campaign by Neal Adams and others to draw attention to their plight, and in response, DC's parent company, then Warner Communications, tried to avert a public relations disaster by granting Siegel and Shuster small pensions and reinstating their credit for the character. But all this was too little too late.

FAMILY FORTUNES

In 1998, Jerry Siegel's wife and daughter succeeded in their legal bid to regain 50% of the Superman rights, but the trademarks for the character, like the big 'S' insignia and the costume, remained with Time Warner. Negotiations between the two over compensation for nearly seventy years of back profits have yet to be settled, as lawyers haggled over the exact amount of cents per dollar that Siegel's estate is entitled to. Matters took a further twist recently when a representative of Joe Shuster's estate surfaced, where previously it was thought that he had no surviving family, with a similar claim to the other 50% of the rights.

Time Warner's response has been to stall and prevaricate. To concede to any of the claims of the applicants would endanger any number of projects, including the planned new SUPERMAN film, and would establish a precedent for the families of other writers and artists who submitted work-for-hire to make claims about ownership of characters they worked on. This could decimate a whole line of DCU characters in a matter of years. Even independent projects such as those under the Vertigo and WildStorm imprints could be endangered because of the loss of revenue from one of DC's key properties.

Legal experts have suggested that the outcome of the case is likely to go against DC, and that if they wish to continue publishing SUPERMAN comics in the future, they may have to license the rights from the Siegels and Shusters.

It might signal the end of an era for DC comics, but if this whole sorry mess has a lesson, it's that from now on, both publishers and creators are going to need watertight deals detailing their rights before a single word is written or a single line is drawn.

Nearly seventy years after his first adventures gave rise to a whole new industry, Superman is again showing the way forward for comics.

Bulent Yusuf is a freelance writer based in London.

This article is Ideological Freeware. The author grants permission for its reproduction and redistribution by private individuals on condition that the author and source of the article are clearly shown, no charge is made, and the whole article is reproduced intact, including this notice.