The Importance of Seeing Superman

Okay, so I was watching Smallville, which is something abnormal that will cease entirely after the series finale of Angel, and I was annoyed. Angry, even. Furious. I don’t even remember the scene that triggered my drastic change of mood, but something in me just snapped. I yelled a bit at the TV, and almost turned it off (till I realized Angel was about to start and I didn’t have anything better to do). Something changed after that episode, though, and I had to do something.

You see, I sometimes participate in the copyright threads. Not much, I’m mostly a lurker, and not in the file-sharing threads, cause those just get nasty and mean and nothing gets communicated, but I’m a sucker for the threads that deal with the purpose and length of copyrights. Even when I don’t post (which is most of the time), I’m drawn to those copyright threads. And occasionally, yeah, I even feel that I have something to contribute to them.

So there it is, the episode of Smallville, and Clark Kent is acting like a moron, and my head is about to explode, and inbetween the fervent prayers that the hurting finally stop and the good show begin, I realize something. I can’t just sit back lurking anymore. I have to state, once and for all, the truth I’ve been too embarrassed to admit.

The world doesn’t have enough Superman.

Likely I’m younger’n most of the folk on this board, but I’d wager most of us grew up with Superman. My mother tells me that I used to beg to go to sleep in my Superman outfit every night (she says she’d sometimes let me, but I’d have to take the cape off for fear of it wrapping around my superboy neck and choking the life out of me). I loved Superman. I wanted to be him. The strength, the heat-vision, the Fortress of Solitude, the cape & tights, everything. God, as much as it pains me to admit it, Superman I, II, and III were pivotal in my development as a human being (that robo-lady in III can be damn scary when you’re young - unless you’re protected by Superman).

This isn’t intended to turn into a debate about copyright length or somesuch technical issue. This is just a request for more Superman.

So, yeah, okay, I guess it really is a copyright debate. I grew up with this stuff. The people who created it are dead and gone. But the corporation that owns it is still sitting on it, protecting their “property”, such as it is, from infringement.

I’ll insert the obligatory “I realize the importance of copyrights” right here. I do realize. I promise. Cross my heart. But this 90 year retroactive work-for-hire thing just blows my fucking mind. And life of the creator PLUS 70 years? What the hell is that?

Look, I don’t care to write Superman stories myself. I’m not much of a creative, artsytype person. At least, I haven’t been most of my life, and now that I’m trying a little of it myself, just a smidgen, I find that there was probably a reason for that. (Not that I’m giving up, mind. Just that none of you are ever likely to hear of my timid but determined literary exploits.)

All I wanna see is a cultural icon, an integral part of American culture, freed from the restrictions of government sponsored censorship. That’s it. Instead of just one corporation having the right to produce a new Superman movie whenever they feel like getting off their duffs, I want every major studio to be able to put a movie together. Instead of just DC jealously guarding an idea they bought over 60 years ago, I’d like to see every comic publisher get a crack at the Big S Man.

70 years from the 1938 publication of Action Comics #1 is 2008. That year might could’ve been the opening of the floodgates (if you ignore the possible trademark implications, which I don’t even want to think about). Open those gates, and most of the stuff would be terrible, wretched, eye-gougingly bad stories, enough to make Superman III look like Hamlet. We’d have so much Superman, we’d start bleeding from our every orifice, and they’d still make more. And some of it, not a lot, but some of it would be good.

Do we have a right to this much Superman? Damn right, we do. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday very soon we have a right to it. 2008 I could’ve lived with. Not happily, not without a few hissy fits like this one, but I would’ve managed. 2028 is like some sick joke.

I don’t even much like the cape & tights thing, and I haven’t for a long time. (Superman IV didn’t phase me. That’s called progress.) Unless someone talented and British is writing a superhero, it just seems that the genre is limiting both itself and the medium that normally carries it, which is to say comics. But there’s the principle, see. I don’t remember too much from my bygone elementary school days, but I do remember my first grade teacher unjustly writing my name on the chalkboard for something I didn’t do (the humanity!) and my great desire to burn a rectangle out of the chalkboard with my eyes and watch as my name dropped to the floor. The shattering shards as the blackboard hit the floor would’ve proven my innocence.

Christ, I remember that. I don’t remember the teacher’s name, I don’t remember who accused me, hell, I don’t even remember if the accusation had actually been false, but I do remember wanting to have heat-vision to burn my name off the chalkboard. That would’ve been badass, and I knew it at seven years old.

I’m not asking for much here. Really, I’m not. Star Wars, for instance, also had a profound effect on my life, and as much as I’d like to see that world liberated from George Lucas’s tyranny, I realize that many wouldn’t find that acceptable. He’s still alive and kickin’, after all.

But Superman? Around since before WWII and yet if any company that’s not AOL/Time Warner even so much as thinks about producing a Supes story without say-so, they’d get hit with a lawsuit faster than a speeding you-know-what. That’s the way it is, and indeed, that’s the way it should be for a time. But the time should expire soon for the Man of Steel, and it’s not going too.

And that’s just… sad.

I know some people aren’t gonna care about more Superman, but damn it, they should. Copyrights give the creators of works the financial security they need, and thus much wonderful stuff is made. But these more-than-lifetime-long copyrights are taking wonderful stuff away, and that’s just not right. Our national superhero, who supposedly epitomizes human values, is a freakin’ alien. DC doesn’t often want to get involved in messy stuff like that, but someone out there probably does. And the day our aspiring author would be allowed to explore such issues is now twenty years further away.

Superman legally belongs to DC, but a very real part of him belongs to the rest of us. And it’s about time that the we’re finally allowed to take possession.

Wow. A long OP that’s actually readable. You should hang in with that writing: Organization like that’s a good thing to build on.

I agree with you. 2028 is a joke, and the next twenty extensions Disney will shove through to keep Mickey under lock and key will be even worse jokes. You’ll probably never live to see Superman come into public domain, and that’s sad.

As to everyone who doesn’t get why we’re bellyaching, think of this: Why should the great-great-grandchildren of a talented person get to reap the benefits of a very distant relative’s labors? 70 years from original publication was arguable, in that it gave the author, the author’s children and possible grandchildren a good start. It enabled the creative person to reap the benefits and pass them on to his offspring. Life + 70 is absurd, because it extends protection to give extremely distant heirs what amounts to a free ride.

From another angle, who are copyrights supposed to benefit? Eternal corporations who can pay peons to churn out endless formulaic drivel, or the people who actually create? I’m not saying that corporations can’t buy rights, but they shouldn’t be able to sit on things for the equivalent of forever. They should be forced to pay new talent to develop new ideas, giving up-and-coming artists a chance and letting the marketplace decide what to do with ideas that have run their course.

Just a factual data point: the thing that prevents new works featuring the Superman character is trademark law, not copyright law. Trademarks are basically perpetual so long as they are renewed.

Copyright law prevents you from making and distributing copies of Action Comics #1. Trademark law prevents you from using the characters DC holds trademarks on in new works.

I agree that copyright terms are too long (I’ve argued in other threads that they should be brought into line with patent terms, and should not be tied to the author’s life), but copyright law isn’t causing the things you’re complaining about.

Why not just make contracts with the owners of Superman?

Other companies can and have contracted with DC Comics to do Superman, as well as other DC Comics characters.

Nowadays, though, this is somewhat complicated by:
(a) DC is owned by Warner Communications, which has perfectly good TV and film production capacities. Why lease out a major American icon when they can just do it themselves?
(b) DC is, from what I understand, an utter bear about contractual approval of portrayals of DC characters. They wanna safeguard their trademarks, their characters, from portrayals they feel could damage or even erode the profitability of these characters. If you’re an independent filmmaker, this translates down to “Time/Warner will have guys on your set, picking apart every costume, every casting decision, every line of the script, every action you call.”

And any time any of these guys gets a bug up his butt about something, for any reason, he can bring your production to a screeching halt.

Who wants to deal with THAT?

Disney’s elimination of its animation studios, & the loss of its Pixar connection, means, at least to me, that Disney ain’t gonna be in a position to lobby like hell come '28ish. The long, slow fall has begun, & it ain’t gonna be much of a loss.

Heh.

You make a good, fine legal point, Dewey, and I can’t fault ya for doing so, because you’re right, of course. Hard to argue against the facts, after all. Had the copyright actually expired in 2008, DC would’ve fought to keep its trademark integrity to the very end.

But that doesn’t change the artistic implications of the situation. Not even a little bit.

What if the character Hamlet were trademarked today? How many derivative works disappear in a puff of smoke? No, it’s worse than that… they wouldn’t just disappear, they would’ve never existed in the first place. Assuming they didn’t fulfill the capricious standards of the trademark holder: Neal Gaiman’s award winning issue of The Sandman “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” is gone. Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is gone. Every Kenneth Branagh Shakespeare movie -POOOF- never existed. And you know I could go on and on and on…

A lot of ruckus’ll arise when the copyright of that old comic book expires, but if the courts tell us that character Superman will never, ever go the way of Peter Pan and be open game for all creators, then regardless of the legal properness of the case, it’ll be a god damn travesty.

You’re right of course, but I should point out that several authors have done very good things with thinly veiled copies of established heroes (Moore’s Supreme, Gruenwald’s Squadron Supreme, Gaiman’s Marvelman/Miracleman, which is itself trapped in legal hell, but let’s ignore that for the moment). This practice allows for new takes on teh heroes, while still allowing the “original” to continue for those of us who demand precise canon and continuity in our comics.

It would be odd to see many different companies publishing Batman with most of them sucking and few of them having to do with one another. I think the loss of trademarks would forever end long-term continuity in comics (at least for those characters that have lost their trademarks, newer stuff could continue the same way), as each publsiher would be always trying to steal each other’s characters from one another, and would be loathe to alienate crossover fans. Classic characters are static enough already, without that added pressure.

<aside>

I could have sworn that the rights to Peter Pan are still held. I thought the author had bequeathed them to some hospital or other in England.

Am I wrong?

</aside>

If so, I am wrong with you. Much schrechlickheit recently erupted over the merchandising to the recent Peter Pan film from Disney, as the rights are currently held by the children’s hospital in question (willed to them by the author), and Disney agreed to split the proceeds of the film…

…but not the proceeds of the merchandising. Someone at the hospital in question apparently didn’t read the fine print closely enough.

A similar situation is in place, re: Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan, two characters I would have thought would be in the public domain by now. Not only are they not, but the Burroughs estate has been very litigous about keeping people off the Tarzan name and concept…

Ahem…

Sherlock Holmes was created by ** Arthur Conan Doyle**

Tarzan was created by Edgar Rice Burroughs

Tarzan’s name and likeness are controlled by the Burrough’s estate.

Holmes is public domain.

Thank you.

That accounts for the non-tarzan appearance in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, doesn’t it?

Yeah, I was a bit hasty in choosing Peter Pan instead of a better example like Sherlock Holmes. Peter Pan is stuck in public domain limbo. Most of the older works have entered the public domain in America, but not in Britain. And the question of derivative works is still open in America, as the website shows. Lessig, the blogger cited, was the lawyer who argued the Sonny Bono case before the Supreme Court.

I understand that a lot can be done with a copied character that’s very close but still a little different, but there is a valid reason for not wanting to compromise on “close”. When you have the blue suit, the red cape, and the big S on the chest, you get an effect that just cannot be imitated with a close copy. You look at the imitation, and it’s not “Hey, that’s Superman!”, it’s “Hey, that’s someone imitating Superman!” It’s an important distinction.

And dealing with a dozen different conceptions of Batman at the same time would be a bit unsettling at first. But it would be worth it. Just look at all the conceptions of Hamlet, or even S. Holmes for a more recent example. Once the creator has been sufficiently compensated for their effort (which is definitely the case 70 years later *), the absolute best thing to do is open the field to everyone else.

  • It looks to me like I got the length of work-for-hire copyrights wrong as well. From what I’ve read since I wrote the OP, it was 75 years, and now it’s 95 years. Which means 2013 and not 2008 used to be the expiration date for AC#1. And now it’s 2023. ::sigh::

I’m with the OP. Copyright has come a long way from its initial purpose of giving innovators a chance to profit from their work. Now it’s just a tool for big corporations to put a lock on desirable properties, and if that means a lot of work doesn’t get released to the public, well, that’s just too fucking bad, who ever heard of U.S. law taking the public interest into account over that of big corporations?