Dollars and Legends and Creators' Rights

A couple weeks ago a federal judge ruled that the wife and daughter of Jerry Siegel -- co-creator, of course, of Superman, which he and Joe Shuster sold to DC Comics in 1938 for the sum of $130 -- were entitled to half of the copyright of Action Comics #1.

The judge's ruling, all 70-something pages of it, is complex. It involves work-for-hire, derivative works, more things I don't understand, and it makes the legal manuals I copyedit all day read like picture books. All the explanation I've sought out is equally confusing. So in place of facts, there is fear.

*Gulp.* Someone else might own Superman.

What could the Siegels do with their half of Superman? Would they be benevolent caretakers or would they sell to the highest bidder? Who might that be? Could Superman be sold to -- god help us -- Marvel?

In another publishing house he would no longer be among the characters who help define him. Who is Superman without Lex Luthor? Without Batman? Without Wonder Woman?

Personally, I'm not too worried. Time Warner (which owns DC) would not easily give up their ownership of one of the most popular fictional characters of all time; even if they lost all rights, I'm sure they'd pay any price to get Superman back.

So I don't think this ruling will change anything, at least as far as the fanboys are concerned.

But still I find myself really conflicted about this in terms of a creators' rights issue.

Normally I'm strongly for creators' rights. The recent writers strike was, I think, perfectly reasonable. Before I submit a short story I'm careful to read the publication's fine print to see what rights I'd be giving up, were my story to be published (not that that's been much of an issue... *ahem*).

In general I'm quick to defend the little guy. So shouldn't I be happy that Siegel's heirs might see even a small portion of the hundreds of millions of dollars Superman has generated over the past 70 years? That's surely what Siegel would've wanted.

But in this case, I find myself siding with the faceless company. Siegel & Shuster sold Superman fair and square. It was a bad deal for them given how much he ended up being worth, but they weren't cheated. By the time DC expressed interest, S&S had been turned down by more than a dozen other publishers, and I'm sure they were anxious to get Clark Kent off their hands. $130 probably seemed like a windfall.

But DC, while legally in the right, in my opinion, could've avoided this whole issue by treating the creators of its hottest property with a little respect. S&S fought their whole lives to get some kind of financial recognition from DC. It wasn't until the 1970s, when people who had read Superman comics as children, fans, started taking over management of DC, that S&S got any perks. A stipend of $30,000 a year each for the rest of their lives, and their names on every Superman book. But had DC gone even further, sooner, and made S&S contentedly rich, as they certainly deserved to be, none of this would be an issue now.

So who's right? I have to say, "both." My ideal conclusion would be for the Siegels (and eventually the Shusters) to be awarded a portion of the rights to Superman, which they should happily sell back to DC for whatever they're worth. DC regains the rights. Superman continues to live in the DC Universe. And Jerry and Joe get to posthumously enrich their families beyond their wildest dreams.

Now this is looking forward a bit, but I'm similarly conflicted about what will happen in 2033, when Superman will enter the public domain. Will he appear on the billboards of every used car lot? Or is that the point where he will transition from property to legend, like Robin Hood and Tarzan have done? I'm sure the answer, again, is "both."