That would be awesome if Superman ended up at Marvel...just so the S&S team could stick it to DC! Talk about hilarity!

Personally thou, I would bet DC/Warner will pony up whatever they will have to just to keep Superman right where he's always been. Still, it would be funny seeing Supes pop up someplace else! (Superman on the Avengers anyone?)

EEK! Hashtag check!

Anyway, it'd be pretty dumb for the family to move the character away from WB/DC if they want to see more money made from the property in the long term.

That said, some people do dumb things every now and again.

Well, they get Superman, but wouldn't DC get to keep all (or most) of the side characters and villains. It would be like Superman in a vacuum.

On the plus side though at least if he were licensed to Marvel they would have an excuse to get rid of wretched Superman-ripoff Sentry.

I'm aghast at DC possibly losing Supes. I know the Siegels and Shusters have a valid claim, but this kind of thing makes me glad that comic book companies currently retain the rights to characters created for them by writers and artists. I want to see the creators fairly compensated when their characters reap in the cash, but don't want to see major characters ripped from a comic universe at the whim of estates.

Can you imagine superman going to marvel and starring in avengers 2, sometime around 2015?

What about Superman related franchises... supergirl etc? Are they still going to belong to DC?

I never liked Superman, it's why I don't care much.

What about Dark Horse or IDW or one of the third tier companies. I think they could take the character in a whole new direction.

2014; Captain Marvel's time to SHINE.

What is DC just decided to off Supes in the most horrible way possible in 2013. Just the ruin the character for everyone else.

Superman was a pedephile nazi all this time? Whaaaaaaa?

Well, it's not like Marvel could ever hope to abuse Superman as much as DC has done over the years.

Surely they'll work it all out, but if not, whoever gets him will probably reboot the franchise - kind of like Star Trek.

Not a fan of Superman outside of the good movies and occasional guest appearance on a batman cartoon.

I guess it's nice that it's reverting to the creators, but remember when things eventually passed into the public domain eventually? Ah, Disney's going to keep lobbying until that doesn't happen anymore, ever.

The thing i never liked about superman is that he is all powerful with limitless potential, unless you wield a variation of kryptonite or "magic". Its just not for me.

Pfft, the world will end in 2012, so it doesn't really matter. ;)

I used to be a big fan of Superman when all I knew about him was what I saw on Super Friends and the Christopher Reeves movies. But once I discovered better, more believable characters (Batman, Spider-Man, Daredevil, a handful of X-Men), I completely stopped caring about Superman. Really, he only works in theory as a proper literary character, otherwise he belongs in the Greek Pantheon.

That said, I do think Siegel/Shuster deserve whatever they get in regards to rights and monetary value for creation of the character that was made DC/Warner Bros. so much damn money over the last 80 years. It would certainly be strange not seeing a "Superman" title on the comic shelf, or to see another company's logo in the upper left corner of the cover. But they and their families deserve it.

From what I understand, and I could be wrong here, the copyright for Superman would revert back to the Siegels in 2013, but DC would remain the holder of the Trademark on just about everything that is related to Superman - the suit, the S-shield, the font type used for the name and all the ancillary characters. So, the Siegels could license out the name of Superman to Marvel or Dark Horse, but it would pretty much have to be a brand new character because DC would still own everything else.

One of the other interesting parts of the case was where the judge said that the Siegel estate could sue DC/Time Warner for damages if a new movie is not started/released by 2012, as part of their licensing agreement.

I'm really hoping Time Warner cools down a bit and just offers the Siegels a butt-ton of money sometime soon and lets everyone walk away with some dignity, but something tells me that no matter how much DC offers, it won't be enough.

Honestly, I think Siegel and Shuster would be doing the right thing if they released Superman to the Public Domain. He's practically in the public domain already, with such a strong sense of ownership by the fans and people growing up on his stories. The flood of Superman webcomics (most horrible, but some incredible) would be quite the sight to see.

given how dc and Warners for so long have refused to work on a nice settlement with the estates. come 2013 no doubt superman will be headed to a new universe though dc and warners will try and work something out to keep big blue an agreement of sorts

@Korinthian

Don't sell Joe Quesada short, man! Given what Marvel has done to Spider-Man in the last few years, I'm sure they could step up to the challenge of abusing Superman to the point of making all his books an unreadable mess too.

superman sucks, do we rly need to continue this argument?

and i hope dc loses him bc that would make them one step closer to being like marvel, more believable characters. supes was so hard to even relate to or even believe in bc hes a giant walking god mode activated whore. i hope he just stops getting published thanks to the heirs of superman that would make it a great day indeed

Superman in the public domain = Superman Vs. Jesus Vs. Moses Vs. Spaghetti Monster in Battle for the Souls 12 issue mini series. Believe it.

There is nothing to worry about they surely going to reach an agreement. Besides, i had read that could happen just if WB dont come out with a new movie around 2012... anyway i hate super-tonto already.....

Man, why is everybody hating on Supes?

He's FUCKING Superman, Goddammit!

If Superman does leave for Universes unknown I would hope DC would do the following:

Wonder Woman takes on a new secret identity and starts working at the Daily Bugle. At the same time, Lois Lane could realize that she loved Superman not because he was the ideal man but because he was an unattainable man...and then realizes she is a lesbian.

This way DC can still have some sort of sexual/romantic tension at the Daily Bugle, and...well...Lois Lane and Wonder Woman would be hot.

Lots will happen before the deadline - lots of lawyers are going to be the ones printing the money over this - but the idea of DC losing the Big S to another company does tickle my sense of "serves you right...." regarding the way they generally act towards creators. Alan Moore may even get to crack a smile.

It will also worry the hell out of all the piss-brain purists that inhabit so many boards with their closed mind inability to get past the "my DC universe is better than your Marvel universe" (and vice-versa) bullshit that annoys the fuck out of me. That's got to be worth it.

Sean
Isnt it daily planet in DC and The Bugle in Marvel ?

That's what *I* was wondering.

@ EVula: THAT WAS HILARIOUS! LMFAO!

DC doesn't own the copyrights to Wonder Woman, either. They just have permission from the estate of Moulston (sp).

Same thing with Watchmen. DC doesn't own that, but they have the rights to print it until it goes out of print for a specified amount of time and it reverts to Moore.

The Seigel and Schuster estates aren't stupid. There's no way on God's green earth they're going to let anyone other than DC print Superman. They just want to be fairly compensated for the character their grandfathers created.

Although this does put a different spin on the fact that Superman has been removed from both Action and Superman comics.

Ah crap you're right...Daily Planet. I'd like to blame being at work, or Mondays in general...but I really should know better...

I keep hearing the Sentry compared to Superman. And I suppose he is meant to be an analog of Superman, but he seems very different at this point. First of all, his powers seem very ill-defined. Secondly, his personality is TOTALLY different than Supes.

Can you imagine if DC DID loose the rights to Superman? The Superman mythos and all it encompasses has become so ingrained into the DC mythology, DC may be forced to totally reboot its universe . . . like a Crisis only no Superman as a result!

Awwww man, can't he die in like 2010 instead? I don't want for more years of Superman related anything shucks...

Jeebus people. You crafted a pulp hero. Fantastic that he's made a ton of cash, but the deal was that you (whomever "you" is legally defined as) got to milk that cow before setting it out to pasture in the public domain.

You all are LONG overdue to honor your part of the bargain that was in place at the time. Far as I'm concerned you all owe US compensation.

Last I read, while Siegels and Shusters would own the copyright to Superman, DC still has control of the actual trademark for the name Superman. So no, Superman could not be taken to another publisher and still be called "Superman."

Daikaiju said:
"2014; Captain Marvel's time to SHINE."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh you were serious?

ryan said:
"Can you imagine if DC DID loose the rights to Superman? The Superman mythos and all it encompasses has become so ingrained into the DC mythology, DC may be forced to totally reboot its universe . . . like a Crisis only no Superman as a result!"

DON'T GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS!

Hey, Kevin G! That's me!

Are you telling me I'm the only guy who sent this news in? Seriously?

I thought Hyperion was Marvel's Superman?

As others have said, Siegel and Shuster's estates only get the Superman of Action Comics #1. So they do get the suit (but possibly not the modern look of the logo), they get a Superman who can leap really high, go kind of fast, is somewhat strong and can't be hurt by bullets (but can be harmed by artillery shells), they get Clark Kent and Lois Lane and the name of the planet Krypton. Oh, and the origin story about a baby being shot off a dying planet and coming to Earth. That's about it.

The paper in Action Comics #1 was the Daily Star, not the Daily Planet.

Lex Luthor, Kryptonite, the flying, the vision powers, super-breath, all that stuff was work-for-hire, which remains perpetually in DC Comics's control (until it passes into the public domain).

So, yes, it's conceivable that Marvel could get their hands on Superman, but if they tried to make the character anything like the Superman we know today, DC would have grounds to sue them into tomorrow.

Somewhere, Alan Moore's chuckling in front of his computer.

Serves DC right for making every single story have to deal with Superman. I recently picked up Final Crisis, and I nearly threw up when I got to this part where Superman gets inside this giant Superman robot (think Gundam), and beats back the darkness that threatened the Multiverse.

Seriously. What was that?!! The gods created a Superman robot just in case the darkness attacked?! A Giant €£#% Superman Robot?!

Anyways, I'm hope DC loses the rights. Then S/S can turn it over to Marvel! Muhahaha!

I can't wait to watch every Marvel character beat Superman into a pulp... Hehe....

Okay -- this 2013 claim has been bandied about by the Siegel's and Shuster's attorney for years. If he can't make his case for the heirs, Superman isn't going anywhere.

And -- despite outcry in this comments section to the contrary: Superman should stay put.

True Fact: Siegel & Shuster got screwed.
True Fact: Siegel & Shuster were given some compensation by DC in the 70s by way of apology.
Debatable Issue: DC has done fine by Superman since 1937.
True Fact: The Siegel & Shuster heirs DID NOT create Superman, they have contributed NOTHING to the mythology, and aren't out for anything but money.

It's a shame a couple of teenagers got screwed over by a big comic book company back in the 30s, but if National Periodicals/DC Comics had not nurtured Superman, it would be a public domain footnote, vaguely remembered today.

Whatever Judge is assigned to make a final judgment on this case should give the heirs a percentage, slap DC on the wrist, and then award them total rights to the character.

Admittedly, it's a sucky statement on creator's rights, but rather that than consign one of American's greatest comic creations to oblivion.

1...2...3...4! I declare a bidding war!

Let's try to get past the debate about whether Superman is a good character and why people don't like him...

Am I right to assume that this case is about how Siegel and Shusters *HEIRS* want compensation over how their grandfathers were (or were not) "screwed" by National Publications? Um, why should ANY heirs get money for something their grandfathers created?
Do I get any money for a road my grandfather helped pave in 1935? But it's a toll road and still collecting money for the state, so I should get something, right?

I'm all for creative copyrights and I think writers and artists should be compensated, especially if their character becomes as big as Superman. However, why should their children or grandchildren benefit? Let them get their own jobs or create their own characters.

Let the debate about modern copyright laws begin...

I suspect DC will end up cutting some kind of licensing deal with the estates. Something along the lines of the heirs get a cut of everything Supes related for the duration of the deal.

Moving it someplace else would decrease the overall value of the Superman IP in the long term.

@ Starman

Have you even read Amazing Spider-Man since One More Day? It's some of the best Spider-Man writing in the past 20 years. Sure, the path they took to get there was insulting, but the end result has been a return to great writing, art, and ideas from the Spidey creative team.

By all means, hate JQ for his ham-handed way of getting MJ out of the picture, but don't bag on the current team without giving them a chance. They did right by Spider-Man, in my opinion, and I've been reading Spidey since the late 70s (and read all the earlier issues in reprints from Marvel Tales and other sources).

As for Superman... I can't see him in Marvel. He's no fun, and would have to be severely changed to fit in with Marvel. The only way Sentry works is as a mentally defective basketcase. Supes would need to be cut down in power a bit.

dc will retain the licence without a doubt , but just to entertain this conversation , i would love to see superman in the marvel universe...there isn't a marvel hero that has the public love and that much power. thor , hulk and silver surfer are the only A-list heroes that even come close , and one's a god , the other a monster that's a menace in the public eye and surfer just always seemed emotionless and cold...it would be nice to see the few years of public reluctance to this alien thats too good to be true and superman fighting people he has never fought before ( magneto , dr.doom , juggernaut , the skrulls...hell galactus could be the reason he was sent to earth if they started from scratch with the origin )

i always wanted a bad guy draft where marvel and dc trade bad guys for a year or two , just for the sake of new stories...this would be close enough

lotta superman haters in this post

Finally someone that can come to Marvel and make the Hulk STFU once and for all!

Damn, you guys got me all pumped up for nothing! I thought that no-fun fascist was FINALLY gonna die for real! If Brandon Routh plays him again I guess that's the equivalent of death, so I'll wait for the movie!

Static Shock in 2017!

@John: Your argument makes no sense. You're comparing apples and oranges. No, you shouldn't get any kind of royalty for the road; just like your grandfather didn't. It was work-for-hire. But if your grandfather wrote a book and made a contract with a publisher for royalties, that's a different story. Because in most of those deals, the contract survives the creator's death and the rights are transferred to their estate. So, um, yes the S&S heirs should get their compensation. Just like the heirs of tons of other authors with royalties deals.

If Superman goes to Marvel, we might actually get a Superman movie that doesn't suck.

Of course, given Superman's iconic nature, and the fact that he is one the three most universally-recognized fictional characters in history (the other two being Sherlock Holmes and Mickey Mouse, by the way), Marvel can't just drop him into the mix and start from scratch. No, they would have to retcon the entire Marvel Universe to explain that Superman has always been around and interacting with the Marvel characters.

Heh, Heh. I'm such a kidder. Marvel would never do anything like that, would they.

Oh, wait......

And as for DC, they'll just deal with the loss of Superman in their standard fashion: with a 147-issue "Crisis" covering 17 different monthly titles that will end with yet another massive, incompatible and completely unnecessary reboot of the DCU.

Go ahead...say they WOULDN'T do it.

I don't want Marvel to buy Superman, mostly because I don't like Superman.

Warner/DC will definitely pony up the bucks for Supes. They might even see more of a profit in doing so.

Superman in the Marvel Universe? I just don't see that working out very well in anyone's favor. DC loses Superman. Marvel pays through the ass for a character that doesn't really fit the universe they've created. Siegels and Shuster get lots of money in the short term, but their characters loses viability due to mishandling and they lose a lot of long-term potential.

That's insane. Maybe they'll make a deal in 2014 for them to keep Superman for another 5 years. Besides, Superman belongs DC. He's been with them for like 71 years now! 71 years!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's what should happen......

Marvel buys Superman but has a secret deal with DC (shhhhhh)

Fanboys go FRICKIN' NUTS about superman coming to Marvel.

He's there for a year or two and then DC dramaticaly (and according to there secret deal) buys back Superman who triumphantly returns to the DC universe. Fanboys go FREAKIN' NUTS!

I love BOOBIES!

@MadnessMonk

Are we talking legally, or ethically?

Legally, yeah. They and theirs will probably get royalties for a long time to come, public domain having long since been circumvented. In recent times however, the ethics of this has started to come into question. I remember reading a couple of years back about how Neil Gaiman was rathere sickened about how the far-removed descendants of authors of now classic works were making themselves general p.i.t.a's and killing things like non for profit public readings of their works at libraries and such, and how he was setting up his estate such that his works will revert to public domain end of discussion after a generation or two because he didn't want that to happen with anything he'd written after he passes on.

Superman's one of the most important, recognizable characters in the history of fiction, you can be sure they'll work this one out as quickly as possible. They'll just have him disappear for a while if the case gets protracted - he'll lose his powers for like a year thanks to some cosmic threat or something along those lines. For God's sake, DC is owned by AOL/Time Warner, they can just write a blank check and be done with it.

Also, I always love to see nerds complain about how Superman is boring or hard to identify with or unrealistic or God knows what excuse these pissant little nihilists can come up with just because the character is inherently optimistic. Go back to your Marvel Zombies and Blackest Night, virgins.

By the way, Sentry? Totally a Miracleman/Marvelman rip. Bit of Triumph in there, too.

it's good to know who says bad things about Superman because that means you can safely disregard their opinion for anything for the rest of forever.

it's good to know who says bad things about Superman because that means you can safely disregard their opinion for anything for the rest of forever.

I can understand the I-don't-like-Superman-so-I-don't-read-his-books-and-don't-care-how-this-turns-out" approach, but the I-hate-Superman-and-hope-this-means-he-never-gets-published-again-and-all-his-comics-spontaneously-combust-and-all-his-stupid-fans-cry-tears-of-blood-as-they-watch-their-families-killed-in-front-of-them approach leaves me thinking a bunch of people are just dicks.

I like Marvel Man's approach, if a character is used to much in one universe, they should be sent over to the other company to have the shit kicked out of them.

Sorry Spider-Man and Wolverine, it's going to be a rough time for you.

Do we have to listen to Marvel Man's advice, it's hard to take the word of a dumbass fanboy.

@ Jared

Thank you for acting like a complete idiot. You can stop now, apologize, and then go sit in a corner to think about why you decided to insult someone over the Internet.

Anyways, aside from that, thanks Henry! It would really help sell comics (for both companies), as well as please fans! (Or, at least some)

I'm Kevin G, too, but the not the one that sent in the tip. :-D

Oh My God I did not know that, this is not good, I think everything will chance if that happens.

Hey, the sooner DC gets down, the better. I am getting sick of their comics.

Besides, 'supes is a dick.

C'mon, The Shadow, you know DC would never actually...Jesus, I can't even make my fingers type it. They'd have Superman blowing homeless guys for nickels in the final issue. And not just to spite Marvel. For the nickels.

Though I would like to see Captain Marvel take center stage, it wouldn't be the jolly C.C. Beck version, so forget that. He'd be angsty Freddy Freeman, the Keanu Reeves of the DC universe.

As for John's grandfather and the road he paved, that road was never the property of his grandfather, so it could not be inherited. A copyright IS deemed to be property and can be passed along like a house or a fat bank account. I don't endorse that, but there it is.

This is what I think will happen
The Siegels and Shusters will sell or license Superman to Marvel Entertainment.
Warner Brothers is extremely attached to Superman because of the money the Superman character generates.
So Time Warner will just acquire Marvel Entertainment.
Marvel will agree to this if Time Warner agrees to keep Marvel comics and DC comics separate divisions for a specific amount of time, lets say 5 to 10 years.
This way everyone is happy. And the money keeps flowing in.

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe/2009-01/msg00056.html

Someone else touched on it a bit but the reason nobody is going crazy about it is because it doesn't affect anything. The Siegel and Schuster estates will ONLY be getting the copyrights to the content that Siegel and Schuster created. None of this is even relevant to Superman as he is now, DC owns the trademarks for EVERYTHING Superman related anyhow, so nobody else can sell a comic with Superman in the name. They also own the modern Shield design and several of the older ones (but not the original). DC would even have the right to sue the licensee if Superman flies or uses heat vision, because that's not included in the copyrights that the Estates would be getting. A good 90% of his supporting cast would be unusable as well.

This means that nobody is going to want to license Superman from the Estates anyway. Companies would want to market the Superman name, which they wouldn't be able to use. They can't use the supporting cast, and they can't even use his now traditional powers. They would be getting a reporter named Clark Kent who can jump over buildings and is bullet proof and faster than speeding bullet.

Which is why DC isn't worried. The Siegels would be making more money with their current deal with DC (which is more than any of them deserve because they had nothing to do with it anyway, they're just GREEDY heirs who want free money) than any license agreeement that they could get for their content elsewhere.

DC should be worried.
If Marvel got the copyrights to the content that Siegel and Schuster created for Superman DC would not be able use the character either and DC would be hurt badly without the superman character.
Why would Marvel want a character they could not use?
Well for one thing it would hurt the competition.
Secondly if Time Warner decided they wanted the full rights to the superman character they would have to deal with Marvel.

"Also, I always love to see nerds complain about how Superman is boring or hard to identify with or unrealistic or God knows what excuse these pissant little nihilists can come up with just because the character is inherently optimistic. Go back to your Marvel Zombies and Blackest Night, virgins."

- Truer words have never been spoken. I'll never understand why the people that don't like Supes because he's "unrealistic" champion characters that are just as outrageous and out there as he supposedly is.

How can anyone bitch about Superman being "too powerful" for the Marvel universe when they've got Thor, Hulk, Silver Surfer, Galactus, Dr. Strange, et. al running around? I wouldn't want to see Superman go to Marvel because they'd ruin him and give some kind of drug addiction or kill Lois Lane or some such nonsense. Not that DC has done such a great job with him, but at least they know how to use the character... most of the time.

@Kay

I hear you, but aren't there other fields where subsequent generations benefit from the success of their ancestors? I don't think it inherently makes those heirs bad, or greedy, or lazy. Just lucky. What moral obligation do they have, exactly, to give up the rights to the works?

What irks me is the counter argument I read that we (the public) somehow deserve the rights to the character (or intellectual property) more than the heirs. We can enjoy it and feel a deep kinship with it. It can be woven into the fabric of our culture. But that doesn't mean it belongs to us in any real and tangible sense.

It's like fanboys talking about how Lucas "screwed up" Star Wars. He can't screw it up -- he's the creator. Whatever form he gives it, that's what it is. You (or I) may dislike his choices, but we have no say in them. We can choose to remain fans or not. And that's about it.

How about this scenario

Could Carl Ichan buy the rights to Superman in 2013??

Marvel overextends itself with its Movie productions.
Billionaire Carl Icahn uses this as an opportunity for a take over of
Marvel Entertainment.
Carl Icahn buys the rights to Superman from the Siegels and Shusters
estates.
Carl Icahn Negotiates a Marvel merger/acquisition with Time Warner
with the intent to take control of Time Warner.
Carl Icahn builds a multi-billion dollar super-hero amusement park
and
casino in Los Vegas.

http://www.woopidoo.com/biography/carl-icahn/index.htm

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_10/b3974059.htm

Comic Wars

• Carl Icahn also hates to talk about Marvel.
Icahn bought a controlling interest in the junk bonds, just before Marvel declared bankruptcy in 1996. Then he tried to woo the banks, the "secured lenders," to support the notion that he should take over the company.

http://www.randomhouse.com/features/comicwars/highlights.html

Just for the sake of argument

If Marvel/Disney got the rights for Superman that the courts awarded to the Shuster’s and Siegels. Is it not possible that Time Warner/DC could make an agreement with Disney/Marvel in which Superman could retain all of his powers and some of his supporting characters like Lois, Jimmy, Perry and Lex. So in essence Time Warner/DC would not have to pay the Shuster’s and Siegels anything and Superman could appear in both Marvel Comics as well as DC comics with all his powers as well as his history.

Is it not possible that Time Warner & Disney are gearing up for a future merger. Think about it. In 2002 CNN & ABC came real close to merging. And talk of Time Warner/Disney seems to pop up every 5 years or so.

Time Warner denies Disney merger talks
http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2120286/aol-warner-denies-disney-merger-talks

ABC/CNN Merger Plans Scrapped
Time Warner pulls out of CNN/ABC merger talks, saying 'potential problems' of such a deal would be too much to handle.
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/1584311/ABCCNN+Merger+Plans+Scrapped.htm

Time Warner is weighing a possible bid for Walt Disney Co.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x359772

Oh and lets not forget that Diane Nelson the head of the newly created DC Entertainment division worked at Disney as director of national promotions for Walt Disney Records