DC will may end up owning everything created after that: All of Superman's later powers, like flight, heat vision, and most of the powers we know today. Plus the Daily Planet. Plus the iconic \S/ symbol. DC will own Lex Luthor, Brainiac, Mxyzptlk, Bizarro, Metallo, General Zod, Parasite, Darkseid, Eradicator, Doomsday, and all the rest of Superman's enemies. DC will own all of Superman's friends and the heroes who look up to him, like Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, the Justice League, the Legion of Superheroes, and on and on.

Half of Superman as we know him today, will be owned by the heirs, and half will be owned by DC comics. If the heirs take their half someplace else, Superman will be torn in two. DC will come up with a new Superman who is not Clark Kent, using the elements that they own. The heirs can take Origin Superman someplace else, but if they do, we'll never see the whole version of Superman again.

http://tinyurl.com/2g6crw

http://tinyurl.com/khshl

http://tinyurl.com/38uh5x

If a worst case scenario happened, I think it could be interesting to see Dark Horse take on Superman and rebooting it.

It's like the big Marvel controversy, suddenly Kirby etc needed "their" work back. When the work was originally done it was disposable, then all these fanboys grew up, declared it precious and started a rumpus.

read the last post I made

...Time-Warner will sell DC, most likely to Disney, just as they are now in the process of dumping AOL.

T-W is not a healthy company with a stock price trading at the equivalent of a new DVD. They no longer self-finance the movie division, but have shoved the expense to overseas investor like Village Roadshow. Television is in a quagmire along with WMG and WHV. Only the cable wing is doing well, which is why they want to move to a usage model akin to gas or electricity.

The value in a media company is its catalog and copyrights. A catalog, as shown by MGM, can be sold easily as long as a new format is on the horizon. But once you get into profit-sharing of copyrights, you're exposing a true bottom line to outsiders where before, you could shift money around to make other aspects look profitable. In other words, if Superman is a loss when it comes to the comic, why print it, because you're not going to be able to offset that cost with a movie when you're splitting profits with several people.

That's got nothing to do with this issue though, and the fact that S&S signed a contract and sold off their rights and this ruling is therefore utter bullshit for all the reasons I (and many others) have already gone into above.

There are many terms in the commercial code that governs contracts and how a contract can be made. In essence, the government tries to outline what is fair and what isn't fair. Everyone posting here benefits from this. If the government did not proscribe an outer limit of fairness then it would be exceedingly easy for a lawyer to get anyone, no matter how smart he thinks me may be, to pay hidden fees or dump dilapidated property on the individual. Again, we all benefit from this.

Now, I have no idea what argument the lawyers made. Maybe the judge made the right decision, maybe he didn't. But, I can guarantee you that no one here has been able to put together a cohesive argument against the judicial ruling.

Sure, a lot of these creators "signed a contract", but did the company that bought the rights on day one ever expect the property to get so mind-bogglingly huge, as did most of the characters being discussed here? If they did, then their original contracts amount to deception and theft, an abuse of power toward people in a weaker economic position. If they didn't expect it, then surely any decent human being would see the reason behind sharing a bit of the unexpected reward, rather than hoarding it. The creators of Superman could have been fabulously wealthy without DC's bottom line being hurt one bit.

And with all that, there are actually regular folks out there who are sympathetic to the mega-corporations? That's pathetic.

Let them make their own property and sell it. Once the creator of a property dies, the property should either fall to whomever bought it from the creator, or it should be become public domain if nobody buys the rights from the creator WHILE HE'S ALIVE.

They also could have sold it for a percentage….but they didn’t.

If DC went bankrupt trying to sell and market Superman should they have been able to sue Siegel and Shuster for selling them a defective product? Of course not…and for every Superman there are hundreds of turds that go nowhere- That’s why they sold it…Twice

Also this is the estate making money - meaning people who had nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the product- so on a whole new level I don’t know how that is “justice”). I mean it’s great being all for the little guy etc. and I would rather see a creative person become a millionaire on his own works than a company, but at some point you have to use your head and realize that unless they were somehow duped the contract is the contract.

I mean by this standard maybe a unique & talented architect should get a piece of the house they designed and sold to you ten years ago if it’s value later soars due to their name….Actually I hope that happens to the judge who ruled on this case.

Then its their own bloody fault and they should not get any money, thats what they get for wanting to cash in on a quick buck back then.

So now others have taken that franchise and made it super successful and the creators offspring are saying, " Hey we want some of that Moola". How the hell is that fair. Now everyone will be at it.

Giger will be asking for a cut of all movies with his Alien design in them.

Etc...Etc

Now dont get me wrong, I am all for the writers and creators getting more money as if it was not for them, nothing would ever come out of Hollywood, but they have to believe in their creation and not sell them out at first sign of a couple of quid. If they do its the good sens of the person buying the rights, its a contract, but in 50 years time their family can coem nack and say, we dont like the deal you made with my grandfather and now we want lots of money off you...Pish

I would agree that this should apply if he contract was not made in good faith or the creator were somehow duped-but that is generally covered in contract law as it is….this is another lawyer dupe…let’s argue (i.e. make money) about something that was a legal, binding, fair, and settled by both parties….Shakespeare was right….we should kill all the lawyers (or least most of them).

And are you saying a company never lost money creating and marketing, and printing a product and otherwise? Really?.... is that what you reeeally think? Maybe you need me to draw you a diagram….cause that’s a mind bogglingly ignorant. position.

Then you go on to bitch about dragging lawsuits out…when the topic here is a Contract SIGNED, FINALIZED, PAID FOR, AND COMPLETED WITH CONSIDERATION BY BOTH PARTIES WHEN THE CHECK WAS CASHED….The only dumb thing is here that there IS a lawsuit to begin with.

Oh and PS Retardama aint gonna be President….unfortunately that means Mc-Lame probably will be…and both morons will probably close Gitmo….this election is going to be between Dumb and Dumber…thanks to lots of 40 IQ voters just like you.