Siegel and Shuster’s Funnyman

The First Jewish Superhero From the Creators of Superman
Mel Gordon & Thomas Andrae
Review by Kenn Thomas, SteamshovelPress.com

Feral House bills Siegel and Shuster's Funnyman as the "first Jewish superhero" in this anthology that reprints certainly most of that comic book and strip. So the book should appeal to students of both popular American culture and Jewish cultural identity. Text chapters here deal with the history of Jewish humor, including analytical takes concerning self-mockery, inversion, solipsism and materialism sure to deprive the subject of some laughter, accompanied by essays on old Jewish superhero legends and the decline of the modern superhero. Siegel and Shuster created Superman, after all, the quintessential comic book super guy, and this lesser known creation - Funnyman, a crime fighting comedian named Larry Davis - demonstrates more clearly the Jewish roots of their inspiration. Authors Thomas Andrae and Mel Gordon also make a case for a connection between the creation of Funnyman and that of the state of Israel. The book is short on discussing comic books as secular culture in which Jewish tradition stews along with everything else, but in the process of directing this focus here, the authors shed some new light on Siegel and Shuster's legal struggles. They worked harder to retain the rights for Funnyman after the legendary ripping off they received from their publishers over Superman. The comic book industry has been one of those "conspiracy as usual" businesses that routinely deprived its best creators of a percentage of the licensing of their own creations. Recent lawsuits involving technicalities of the changing copyright laws have rectified this only to the smallest degree, and a similar case being fought between Jack Kirby's estate and Disney, which owns the Marvel properties Kirby created, remains a thing to be looked at for a possible victory against this type of conspiracy. Alas, no such legal drama accompanies Funnyman, a character few people know of or care about, and the book dodges any cynical remarks about comics economics and Shylock stereotypes. And while its essays may be overcooked, it does reprint an obscure and well-done piece of comics history and so is a must for the geeky bookshelf.

DC Universe Goes Back to Zero

The Mayan calendar begins anew in December 2012, but DC Comics is doing the same this August. The reasoning isn't some complex astro-science way beyond modern man's understanding, but a plot to sell more comics.
DC is rebooting it's universe, starting with Justice League # 1, the series that combines Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, The Flash, Wonder Woman and Aquaman. 51 more first issues will follow, with artist Jim Lee (no relation to Stan of Marvel Comics fame) redesigning the costumes of all the heroes.

Perhaps just as groundbreaking, as USA Today notes: "DC is making all of the re-numbered titles available digitally via apps and a DC website the same day they arrive in comic shops. It marks the first time that a major comics publisher has done so with its popular superhero titles."

DC Comics unleashes a new universe of superhero titles
Brian Truitt
5-31-11
http://www.usatoday.com/life/comics/2011-05-31-dc-comics-reinvents_n.htm

Superman: JFK Assassination Conspiracy Buff

Cartoon courtesy of Kenn Thomas & SteamshovelPress.com

Top 10 Movie Plot Holes You Probably Never Noticed Before

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/11/top-10-movie-plot-holes-you-probably-never-noticed-before/
Top 10 Movie Plot Holes You Probably Never Noticed Before
Matt Blum
November 16, 2010

It’s a rare movie that has no plot holes at all. Even movies nearly everyone likes, like Star Wars (I speak of Episode IV, in case that’s unclear), are occasionally rife with them. Of course, for many geeks — myself included — part of the fun of seeing a movie is identifying and discussing its plot holes afterward.

Here, then, are ten plot holes from geeky movies that, in my judgment, are ones that are easy to miss — even though some of them seem pretty obvious once you think about them. Please feel free to add your own favorite plot holes in the comments, and check out the first and second lists of plot holes (AKA “unanswered questions”) we’ve published on GeekDad before. (Note: The list below contains spoilers for the movies listed, out of necessity.)

10. The Matrix - The machines are keeping humans alive for their body heat, right? But they also have nuclear fusion reactors, and (while I haven’t run the numbers) I’d be willing to bet that a single fusion reactor would generate more net energy in an hour than all the humans on today’s Earth would in a day. Plus, fusion reactors are considerably less likely to try to escape, so it’s pretty clear the only reason the humans are still around is so the movie can exist. Oh, and while we’re at it, how come the simulated world everyone’s living in still has computers? Wouldn’t it be much smarter to remove the computers, thus significantly reducing the likelihood of someone like Neo making an appearance?

9. Jurassic Park – The scientists clone dinosaurs from the DNA in the blood in a preserved prehistoric mosquito. The problem is that blood cells in many animals (humans included) don’t carry DNA, and when they do they don’t carry nearly enough that the frog DNA they use to fill in the gaps wouldn’t dominate the bits of dinosaur DNA. Plus, of course, they would have no way to determine which DNA strands came from which dinosaur — and which from the mosquito itself!

8. Spider-Man 2 - Doctor Octavius is trying to find Spider-Man, and Harry suggests he talk to his good buddy Peter Parker, because Pete is always taking photos of Spider-Man. Doc Ock promptly finds Peter and Mary Jane at a coffee shop, and introduces himself by throwing a car at them through the window, which would certainly have killed them if Peter hadn’t been Spider-Man, sensed the danger, and pulled himself and MJ to the floor. But Doc Ock has no idea that Peter is Spider-Man, so why would he try to kill the person he wants help from?

7. Superman & Superman II – It’s just astonishing how Superman conveniently acquires new powers whenever his already-impressive selection of powers is inadequate to the task. In the first film, Lois Lane dies in the massive earthquake caused by the nuclear missile hitting the San Andreas fault. Superman, understandably distraught, suddenly and miraculously not only has the ability to turn back time by flying around the Earth really fast a lot of times, but somehow knows that he has that ability, despite it never having been mentioned previously. Then, at the end of the second film, the same thing happens again — only this time it’s an amnesia kiss. How exactly is he supposed to be able to remove the memory that Clark Kent is Superman, while leaving other memories intact? It’s never explained at all.

6. Star Trek II & Star Trek III - At the end of STII, the Genesis device creates a planet out of the Mutara nebula and the USS Reliant, right? And that’s fine as far as it goes, because scientists do in fact think that planets form out of nebulae. There’s just one tiny little question, though: Where did the sun for the planet to orbit come from? It sure wasn’t there before the device detonated, and if the device could create a star from a nebula, you’d think Carol Marcus would’ve mentioned it.

5. Batman Begins – Ra’s al Ghul (AKA Ducard) and the Scarecrow use the microwave emitter they stole from Wayne Enterprises to vaporize all the water in Gotham City, thus making people inhale the toxin contained therein. A creative idea, to be sure, except that human beings are 60-75% water (depending on age and other factors). So everybody in Gotham should be boiled to death in their own tissues.

4. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith – The final, climactic battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin rages all over and around the river of lava on Mustafar. Then it ends when Obi-Wan leaps onto the bank and tells Anakin he’s lost because Obi-Wan has the high ground. He turns out to be right, as Anakin leaps into Obi-Wans flashing lightsaber. Seriously, though, how does being on high ground matter when you’re both wizards who can levitate objects with your minds, leap incredibly high, and move astonishingly fast?

3. The Princess Bride – When the Brute Squad is cleaning up the Thieves’ Forest, Fezzik finds Inigo and nurses him back to sobriety. He tells him about Vizzini’s death and, more importantly, about “the existence of Count Rugen, the six-fingered man.” That’s great, except… how does Fezzik know Rugen is the six-fingered man? We see Westley notice Rugen’s extra digit, but he’s knocked out and taken directly to the Pit of Despair, so he clearly had no chance to tell Fezzik. And even if Fezzik had seen Rugen, is it really likely he’d have noticed? Fezzik isn’t that bright or that observant. (Incidentally, I looked this bit up in the book, and it doesn’t explain how Fezzik knew, either.)

2. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - This is a problem in the book as well, but it’s in the movie so it counts. Barty Crouch, Jr., disguised as Mad-Eye Moody, arranges for the Triwizard Cup to be a portkey to take Harry to the graveyard in Little Hangleton so that he can be used to bring Voldemort back to life and then killed. He’s in the guise of a teacher at the school, so he had any number of opportunities to make a portkey out of, well, pretty much anything that he could be sure Harry would touch — Harry’s schoolbooks, his shoes, whatever. It’s been argued that Voldemort wanted to keep his existence a secret and make it look like Harry perished during the task, but really, having Harry just disappear without a trace wouldn’t be any more suspicious. And, incidentally, why did he make the cup a two-way portkey? It’s been established that most portkeys are one-use, one-way only. Why not make this portkey one of those, so that Harry had no way to escape?

1. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back – Once Luke starts to figure out that the silly-acting, funny-looking little creature he’s with is in fact Yoda, Yoda’s mood changes. He criticizes Luke (legitimately, it must be said) and argues that Luke shouldn’t be trained to be a Jedi. Obi-Wan has to argue with him to get him to change his mind. Really, though, what choice does Yoda have? He either trains Luke or… what? The Empire wins? Good plan, Jedi Master.

Superman Meets Twilight

Robalini's Note: The cultural poison of the Twilight series continues to infect, this time turning Superman into a mopey emo hipster.  Yes, he still wears a giant "S" on his chest and a cape, but now, he's being ironic...
http://nerdreactor.com/2010/10/27/dcs-earth-one-graphic-novel-makes-superman-look-like-an-emo-vampire/

DC’s Earth One Graphic Novel Makes Superman Look Like an Emo Vampire
10-27-10

First Dante, now the Man of Steel himself has gone emo. DC comics is releasing a new graphic novel called Superman: Earth One. In the novel, Clark Kent is portrayed as “young, hip, and moody”, just like any other emo kid, except for the fact that Kent can fly, has super strength and is faster than a speeding bullet. DC artist Shane Davis will be illustrating the novel, while veteran writer J. Michael Straczynksi will handle the story. Straczynksi has worked on many comic books for both DC and Marvel, including writing for TV shows like Murder, She Wrote and Walker Texas Ranger. Most of the novel keeps to the original Superman story, last son of Krypton, Lois Lane mocking him, but there will be a more contemporary feel to the story.

A Batman: Earth One graphic novel is in the works also, but theres no details on it as of yet.

JMS Recreates "Wonder Woman"

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=26929

JMS Recreates "Wonder Woman"
Kiel Phegley, News Editor
Tue, June 29th, 2010
JMS' run on "Wonder Woman" begins Wednesday

In his just-launched run with DC Comics' original superhero, writer J. Michael Straczynski is planning on reconnecting the character with the American public by letting Superman crossover with real U.S. towns. Wednesday, the writer is launching a similar attention-grabbing, general public-outreaching plan for his run with the publisher's most famous female icon starting with "Wonder Woman" #600.

As announced in The New York Times, JMS and Don Kramer's kick-off story in the jam-packed anniversary issue will present a brand new costume (designed by DC Co-Publisher Jim Lee) and a brand new status quo for Wonder Woman set off by some time-traveling machinations by the Greek gods which will include the previously reported destruction of Paradise Island. Still, with all the changes set for the writer's full time tenure on the title now public fact, a number of new questions arise including what exactly the changes for the character's timeline hold in store for Amazon Princess' mission, whether her new uniform will remain a permanent change and what secret villains stand behind the entire story. JMS answered those questions and more for CBR News.

CBR News: Well, here we are with another big change in the life of yet another DC icon. Before we get into the specifics of the costume change, I wanted to ask a bit about how this series has developed. We know that you didn't come in to the "Wonder Woman" assignment with quite the experience with the character you've had with, say, Superman. What have you learned about her as a character in developing the story?

J. Michael Straczynski: There's a difference between experience with a character and identification with a character. I've been reading "Wonder Woman" on and off over the years almost as long and to much the same degree as I've read "Superman" on and off over the years. That Superman is the guy I've always identified with or aspired toward doesn't detract from her or Thor or any other character I've ever written. I know some fans were concerned that in previous interviews I spoke more about Superman than Wonder Woman, but that's the result of two factors: 1) There were more questions about the former than the latter, which skewed the results and 2) we were keeping a lot of what we were doing with Diana under the radar until we were ready to launch.

In terms of character, I decided to circle in to try and figure out what needed to be addressed and what didn't. Diana is one of the DC Trinity, and should be selling as many copies a month as those other guys. But the book hovers in the low 70s/high 80s, and for the last year or two has been hemorrhaging 500-1000 readers per month. That means that those who are reading are dialing out, and nobody new is checking it out. What this suggests is that the stories are becoming too insular, they're not accessible, and there's nothing going on that will get somebody who hasn't picked up an issue to do so.

This coincided with my sense that, as happens from time to time with characters, Diana had gotten buried beneath years of mythos, backstory, supporting characters and an environment that required a lot of familiarity from the reader that made it a bit inaccessible to casual readers. There's nothing inherently right or wrong with any of that, in sum or in pieces...Gail in particular was and is a terrific writer and did some great stories during her tenure...it's just a matter of one kind of storytelling that is designed to bring in new readers, vs one that is aimed at retaining the current readers. You need both of those at various points.

What I finally came away with was a sense of a character who had kind of ossified within the pages of her own book not through any fault of her own, but because the world she occupied had constricted around her. As I've noted elsewhere, she became this Ferrari that everybody kept in the garage rather than taking it out on the open road. A Ferrari in the garage is safe...but that's not what a Ferrari is for.

So in the end, it became clear that half-measures weren't going to work. If we really wanted to do this right, we'd have to go all the way to the wall. If Wonder Woman hadn't appeared in 1941, if she appeared for the first time today, how would you design a Wonder Woman for the 21st century and beyond? What would she look like? How would she act? It took off from there.

You're starting this story with our heroine in a place of massive upheaval. While doing something like destroying Paradise Island is a natural dramatic hook, what was the attraction to shaking things up in terms of where it places the character's relationship with society in general? What kind of socio-cultural ground does Diana find herself on after the opening events?

When the Destruction of Paradise Island aspect was announced, everybody assumed it would go the way we've seen before...old hat, and it doesn't really change the character because with or without Paradise Island, she's still the same Wonder Woman. Unless you move the destruction back far enough into the past that Diana was around three, because then it affects how she grows up, who she is, and what she fights for.

So that's what I went for. The timeline has changed in the blink of an eye. The gods – (for reasons of their own, which we will gradually discover, and which may involve both their survival and the survival of Earth itself – altered the past. So we literally have Wonder Woman turning a corner in the story right before mine in 600...and when she finishes turning the corner, the timeline has shifted, and she's now in her new iteration.

We learn that Paradise Island fell when Diana was just a child, when the gods withdrew their protection. Hippolyta and many of the other Amazons died in a last-ditch defense against an army with weapons that could kill even them, while some of her guards and handmaids smuggled a young Diana off the island. She was thus raised in an urban setting, but with a foot in both worlds, courtesy of her guardians and teachers from Paradise Island. They expect her to retake Paradise Island, defeat the army that's still hunting for the escaped Amazons (and Diana in particular), and restore all her people to their previous glory. This is a lot to ask of someone who has no recollection of that world, and obviously has no idea about the timeline shift. (Some of the other Amazons do know about the shift, as we see in #600, and there are others in the DCU who also can sense what happened.)

The result is a Diana who has her more urban aspects, but still carries on the traditions of her people. She's fighting for their survival, as well as her own. She has to be tough, smart, and resourceful, especially since (for various reasons) she hasn't come into her full powers, something that will happen as we go.

Speaking of which, while she doesn't always have the top-level comic sales we associate with some of the other top tier DC properties, Wonder Woman is continually popular in ancillary products marketed to girls and women. How does that broader iconic status affect at all what your take on the book is, and does that popularity outside comics play into your and DC's plans for a change in costume?

If we're going to re-boot the character, I think we can't let the fact that her face in her previous iteration is on ten gazillion lunchboxes. We need to take a long-term approach. This, again, is why half-measures won't work.

There are plenty of reasons for a superhero to change their costume, and in the past you've overseen some that are stylistic facelifts (like with Thor) and ones tied to the character's emotional state (as with Spider-Man's return to black). What is it that precipitates Wonder Woman's change within the story, and how permanent can we expect this change to be?

Form follows function. She has to exist a great deal in an urban setting. So I wanted her to have an outfit that she can close up and pass more or less without notice, or open when she's in a fight to reveal her full appearance. I wanted the outfit to express her own situation, in that she lives in two worlds, which is also in a way the trap in which she's found herself.

I also wanted it functional. As so many female fans have said over the years, "How does she fight in that without all her parts popping out? Where does she keep stuff?" She can keep or shed the jacket, there are pockets, it's tough and serious looking while still attractive. It's a Wonder Woman designed for the 21st century. Not to get all "Project Runway" on this, but what woman wears the same outfit for 60 years without at least accessorizing?

You look at someone like Trinity from the "Matrix" movies, and you see a woman who can be strong, sexy, dangerous and modern. Why can't Wonder Woman be those things?

In terms of the new costume itself, you're getting a hand from DC Co-publisher Jim Lee. The look is very modern, but I was wondering if there were specific ideas about Wonder Woman's look that you wanted to put in place or whether Jim took off totally on his own?

It's all the stuff above. It was a long process, because the initial instinct is to go only in baby steps, so I had to kind of keep shaking the birdcage. I wanted the leggings/pants, I wanted her looking tough, and I had specific ideas about the bracelets: I wanted the outside solid, tied on the inside, looped over a finger possibly, with a script W on the outside so that when she crosses them in front of her you get the WW combo. And when she hits someone with that outer edge, it leaves a W mark. This is a woman who signs her work, to tell those who destroyed her people that she's now one more person closer to the guy in charge.

Gradually, she will become aware of the alternate timeline, and the question becomes, can she change it back to what it was? Should she? And if she does, what are the consequences?

And while today we're seeing Jim's take on the new look, Don Kramer will be tackling Diana's new duds come press time. What's been your impression of how Don handles the character and her world in general, and how has he made the new costume work on the page?

I think it looks terrific. Don has really gone to the wall with this book, the level of detail, the mythic feel of it, it's freaking amazing. It's one thing, as you say, to do a pinup that doesn't move. But in the book, she has to run, fight, and have dramatic/character moments, and the outfit as realized by Don works in all of those situations.

Within the story itself, behind the scenes are our mysterious villains. We've heard teases of something called the Keres, and after reading up on their Greek myth origins, they seem to be a creepy addition to her rogue's gallery. What is the nature of the threat behind all this, and how do the Keres play in to that?

We have four concentric circles that will eventually reveal the face of the enemy. The first and most obvious one is the army that's after her, and the guy who runs that operation. Fairly non-supernatural seeming. The Keres are on the next level up, indicating that there's more going on than meets the eye. She has to get past them to find who's pulling their strings...and gradually work her way to the hand behind it all, and the reason for all this. I spent a lot of time researching the Greek myths that haven't been used in the book to date – how many times can Hercules be the bad guy? – to give her a fresh rogue's gallery, one that can stand alongside the rogue's gallery of any other hero in the DCU.

Just as we wrapped our last talk on Superman, I was curious of what your larger ambitions were for where you plan to take Wonder Woman by the end of this story. When all is said and done, how would you like people to view Wonder Woman differently than they do now?

My goal is to get more people reading the book, and to reinvigorate the character by making her modern while remaining a role model. I'd like her to be accessible to a wider range of people, because she's a great character and deserves it.

"Wonder Woman" #600 by a bevy of creators including the new team of Straczynski and Don Kramer is in stores Wednesday from DC Comics. And for more Wonder Woman goodness, be sure to check out CBR's Wonder Woman hub!

Comic Book Creator Seek to Recapture Copyrights

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125349626919226359.html

Heirs of Comic Book Creator Seek to Recapture Copyrights
By LAUREN A.E. SCHUKER
SEPTEMBER 21, 2009

The heirs of late comic-book creator Jack Kirby served 45 copyright-termination notices to Marvel Entertainment Inc., Walt Disney Co. and other Hollywood studios relating to comic-book characters and stories created by Mr. Kirby, including "X-Men" and "The Fantastic Four."

Mr. Kirby's four children are seeking to recapture as early as 2014 copyrights to characters he created. Those creations and co-creations are currently owned by Marvel. But if the heirs gain control of the copyrights, they could license them without Marvel's permission, or at least secure a share of the profits generated by those characters.

The heirs served the notices under the auspices of the U.S. Copyright Act, which permits authors and their heirs to terminate old copyright grants after a long waiting period, allowing them to recapture the rights for their own use.

A spokeswoman for Disney said: "The notices involved are an attempt to terminate rights seven to 10 years from now and involve claims fully considered in the acquisition."

Disney last month agreed to acquire Marvel for $4 billion.

In a federal court lawsuit that hasn't been fully resolved, the heirs of "Superman" co-creator Jerry Siegel recently recaptured limited rights relating to the original "Superman" from Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros. and DC Comics.

—Ethan Smith contributed to this article.

Write to Lauren A.E. Schuker at lauren.schuker@wsj.com

Secret Identity

http://www.secret-identity.net/preview.html

Secret Identity:
The Fetish Art of Superman's Co-creator Joe Shuster
On Sale April 1, 2009. Hardcover. 160 pages.

CRAIG YOE has been called "the freaking Indiana Jones of comics" and a "twisted archivist of the ridiculous and the sublime." Publishers Weekly, while they call his work "brilliant" and Yoe "a madman/ visionary," say he is "ruining America's youth."

Secret Identity showcases rare and recently discovered erotic artwork by the most seminal artist in comics—Superman's co-creator Joe Shuster. Created in the early 1950s when Shuster was down on his luck after trying to reclaim the copyright for Superman, he illustrated these images for an obscure series of magazines called Nights of Horror, sold under the counter until they were banned by the U.S. Supreme Court. A murder trial, juvenile delinquency, anti-comics crusader Dr. Fredric Wertham, and the neo-Nazi Brooklyn Thrill Killers gang all figure into this sensational story.

The discovery of this artwork and the story behind it by historian Craig Yoe reveals the "secret identity" of this revered comics creator, and is sure to change the way we look at Shuster and his creations—Clark Kent, Lois Lane, Lex Luthor, and Jimmy Olsen—forever.

The 'Holy Grail of comic books' goes on sale

http://blogs.usatoday.com/popcandy/2009/02/the-holy-grail.html

The 'Holy Grail of comic books' goes on sale
By Whitney Matheson
2-25-9

In April 1938, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster introduced Superman to the masses. From that moment forward, pop culture would never be the same.

Superman first appeared in Action Comics #1, and today it's almost impossible to find a copy of the book. However, miracles do happen, and the valuable issue -- in good condition, no less -- has come to light. (The owner purchased it in 1960 when he was 9 years old. It cost him 35 cents.)

The book goes up for auction Feb. 27 on ComicConnect.com. Bidding starts at $1, and there's no telling how high it will go. Action Comics #1 is estimated to be worth $126,000 in "fine condition," but experts expect it to sell for more.

Aside from the price, several questions surround this big sale. For one thing, will any celebrities get in on the bidding? Could this be Jerry Seinfeld's dream come true?

We'll find out March 13, when the auction closes. If, like me, you can't afford such a precious artifact, read the comic online:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG02/yeung/actioncomics/cover.html

Your Friendly Neighborhood Barack Obama

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b78129_your_friendly_neighborhood_barack_obama.html

Your Friendly Neighborhood Barack Obama
1-8-9
Joal Ryan

Excuse Barack Obama if his Spidey sense is tingling.

The nation's soon-to-be first commander in geek has been tapped—and drawn—to share covers of an upcoming Amazing Spider-Man with his beloved Webslinger.

The issue, No. 583, on sale Jan. 14, finds Peter Parker's costumed self making sure all goes well on Inauguration Day. Not to give away the ending, but celebratory fist-bumps are exchanged, Marvel editor-in-chief Joe Quesada said today.

Obama was not consulted. Fellow comic geek Stephen Colbert was absolutely not consulted.

"The truth is since we put Stephen in an issue [Amazing Spider-Man No. 573], we basically own his ass," Quesada said.

Quesada said the idea for the Obama issue was hatched after reports said the future president collected Spider-Man. The same reports said Obama collected Conan the Barbarian, too, but Marvel doesn't own the rights to that character anymore.

A bipartisan comics fan, Obama has also been known to drop Superman references. And Green Hornet references. And Star Trek references. And…

With such apparent love for fandom, is there any doubt that Marvel's kingpin has a front-row seat at Obama's swearing in?

Well, actually, yeah, there's doubt. In fact, it's not happening—Quesada's not going ("I wish."). Spidey cover or no, Quesada confirmed that Obama hasn't even offered one of his heroes a role in the new administration.

Still, the editor said, "Spider-Man and I are at the ready, if needed."

Ruling Gives Heirs a Share of Superman Copyright

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/business/media/29comics.html

March 29, 2008
Ruling Gives Heirs a Share of Superman Copyright
By MICHAEL CIEPLY

LOS ANGELES — Time Warner is no longer the sole proprietor of Superman.

A federal judge here on Wednesday ruled that the heirs of Jerome Siegel — who 70 years ago sold the rights to the action hero he created with Joseph Shuster to Detective Comics for $130 — were entitled to claim a share of the United States copyright to the character. The ruling left intact Time Warner’s international rights to the character, which it has long owned through its DC Comics unit.

And it reserved for trial questions over how much the company may owe the Siegel heirs for use of the character since 1999, when their ownership is deemed to have been restored. Also to be resolved is whether the heirs are entitled to payments directly from Time Warner’s film unit, Warner Brothers, which took in $200 million at the domestic box office with “Superman Returns” in 2006, or only from the DC unit’s Superman profits.

Still, the ruling threatened to complicate Warner’s plans to make more films featuring Superman, including another sequel and a planned movie based on the DC Comics’ “Justice League of America,” in which he joins Batman, Wonder Woman and other superheroes to battle evildoers.

If the ruling survives a Time Warner legal challenge, it may also open the door to a similar reversion of rights to the estate of Mr. Shuster in 2013. That would give heirs of the two creators control over use of their lucrative character until at least 2033 — and perhaps longer, if Congress once again extends copyright terms — according to Marc Toberoff, a lawyer who represents the Siegels and the Shuster estate.

“It would be very powerful,” said Mr. Toberoff, speaking by telephone on Friday. “After 2013, Time Warner couldn’t exploit any new Superman-derived works without a license from the Siegels and Shusters.”

Time Warner lawyers declined to discuss the decision, a spokesman said. A similar ruling in 2006 allowed the Siegels to recapture their rights in the Superboy character, without determining whether Superboy was, in fact, the basis for Warner Brothers’s “Smallville” television series. The decision was later challenged in a case that has yet to be resolved, said Mr. Toberoff, who represented the family in that action.

This week’s decision by Stephen G. Larson, a judge in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California, provided long-sought vindication to the wife and daughter of Mr. Siegel, who had bemoaned until his death in 1996 having parted so cheaply with rights to the lucrative hero.

“We were just stubborn,” Joanne Siegel, Mr. Siegel’s widow, said in a joint interview with her daughter, Laura Siegel Larson. “It was a dream of Jerry’s, and we just took up the task.”

The ruling specifically upheld the Siegels’ copyright in the Superman material published in Detective Comics’ Action Comics Vol. 1. The extent to which later iterations of the character are derived from that original was not determined by the judge.

In an unusually detailed narrative, the judge’s 72-page order described how Mr. Siegel and Mr. Shuster, as teenagers at Glenville High School in Cleveland, became friends and collaborators on their school newspaper in 1932. They worked together on a short story, “The Reign of the Superman,” in which their famous character first appeared not as hero, but villain.

By 1937, the pair were offering publishers comic strips in which the classic Superman elements — cape, logo and Clark Kent alter-ego — were already set. When Detective Comics bought 13 pages of work for its new Action Comics series the next year, the company sent Mr. Siegel a check for $130, and received in return a release from both creators granting the company rights to Superman “to have and hold forever,” the order noted.

In the late 1940s, a referee in a New York court upheld Detective Comics’ copyright, prompting Mr. Siegel and Mr. Shuster to drop their claim in exchange for $94,000. More than 30 years later, DC Comics (the successor to Detective Comics) gave the creators each a $20,000-per-year annuity that was later increased to $30,000. In 1997, however, Mrs. Siegel and her daughter served copyright termination notices under provisions of a 1976 law that permits heirs, under certain circumstances, to recover rights to creations.

Mr. Toberoff, their lawyer, has been something of a gadfly to Warner in the past. In the late 1990s, for example, he represented Gilbert Ralston, a television writer, in a legal battle over his rights in the CBS television series “The Wild Wild West,” which was the basis for a 1999 Warner Brothers film that starred Will Smith. The case, said Mr. Toberoff, was settled.

Compensation to the Siegels would be limited to any work created after their 1999 termination date. Income from the 1978 “Superman” film, or the three sequels that followed in the 1980s, are not at issue. But a “Superman Returns” sequel being planned with the filmmaker Bryan Singer (who has also directed “The Usual Suspects” and “X-Men”) might require payments to the Siegels, should they prevail in a demand that the studio’s income, not just that of the comics unit, be subject to a court-ordered accounting.

Mrs. Siegel and Ms. Larson said it was too soon to make future plans for the Superman character. But they were inclined to relish this moment.

“I have lived in the shadow of this my whole life,” Ms. Larson said. “I am so happy now, I just can’t explain it.”