Comments on: New Superboy ruling http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/08/05/new-superboy-ruling/ The News Blog of Comics Culture Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:17:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v= hourly 1 By: Mark Tague http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/08/05/new-superboy-ruling/#comment-20819 Mark Tague Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:25:15 +0000 http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/08/05/new-superboy-ruling/#comment-20819 The legal ramifications are what they are. And the outcome based on narrow readings of the law will probably favor of Time Warner. But, oh how I hope that it is decided for the Siegel heirs, so that up in Comic Book Heaven, the sorely maltreated St. Jerry, can look down and smile in contentment of true financial recognition for the founding of an industry. In the words of Marvin Gaye "Can I get a witness? Somebody, somewhere, saying it ain't fair." The legal ramifications are what they are. And the outcome based on narrow readings of the law will probably favor of Time Warner. But, oh how I hope that it is decided for the Siegel heirs, so that up in Comic Book Heaven, the sorely maltreated St. Jerry, can look down and smile in contentment of true financial recognition for the founding of an industry. In the words of Marvin Gaye “Can I get a witness? Somebody, somewhere, saying it ain’t fair.”

]]> By: Fox http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/08/05/new-superboy-ruling/#comment-20818 Fox Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:48:31 +0000 http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/08/05/new-superboy-ruling/#comment-20818 I don't think so Chris. Spawn and Medieval Spawn are different characters altogether. If Spawn and Medieval Spawn were both the same guy (Al Simmons) you'd have a derivative character. However, one is Sir John of York, the other is Al Simmons, plus you have two other unique characters created (Angela and Cogliostro) in the bargain. Both may be Hellspawns, with similar powers, but the two have different origins; and Angela and Cogliostro had no parallel characters in the title anywhere at that time. (this all happened in Spawn #9, remember) Superboy is a derivative character, in my opinion. He is the younger Superman, Clark Kent. His powers are the same, he is simply a younger version, and the story he first appeared in was nothing more than an exploration of the sorts of things Superman may have dealt with as a boy, which shape his future. I don’t think so Chris. Spawn and Medieval Spawn are different characters altogether. If Spawn and Medieval Spawn were both the same guy (Al Simmons) you’d have a derivative character. However, one is Sir John of York, the other is Al Simmons, plus you have two other unique characters created (Angela and Cogliostro) in the bargain. Both may be Hellspawns, with similar powers, but the two have different origins; and Angela and Cogliostro had no parallel characters in the title anywhere at that time. (this all happened in Spawn #9, remember)

Superboy is a derivative character, in my opinion. He is the younger Superman, Clark Kent. His powers are the same, he is simply a younger version, and the story he first appeared in was nothing more than an exploration of the sorts of things Superman may have dealt with as a boy, which shape his future.

]]> By: Chris http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/08/05/new-superboy-ruling/#comment-20817 Chris Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:31:49 +0000 http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/08/05/new-superboy-ruling/#comment-20817 I'm curious if the eventual decision in this case will have any impact on the Neil Gaiman vs. Todd McFarlane lawsuit involving Spawn and Medieval Spawn. I’m curious if the eventual decision in this case will have any impact on the Neil Gaiman vs. Todd McFarlane lawsuit involving Spawn and Medieval Spawn.

]]> By: Michael Grabois http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/08/05/new-superboy-ruling/#comment-20816 Michael Grabois Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:54:21 +0000 http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/08/05/new-superboy-ruling/#comment-20816 It’s not just the name, it’s the character. If they rule that Superboy is a separate character from Superman, then the Siegels can reclaim their copyrights and get profits off the comics and the Smallville show. I read through the whole thing and it’s not too bad for a non-lawyer. I summarized it on the <a href="http://adventure247.blogspot.com/2007/08/superboys-super-lawsuit-update.html" rel="nofollow">Legion Omnicom</a> in a few more words than Trexler did, and came to the same conclusion. They’ve got 30 days to prepare documentation on a single point: was the version of Superboy as published in “More Fun” #101 derivative of Superman (DC wins), or since the original proposal was not work for hire, was there enough copyrightable material in the original proposal that ended up being published (Siegels win)? (sorry for the duplicate post, please remove the first one) It’s not just the name, it’s the character. If they rule that Superboy is a separate character from Superman, then the Siegels can reclaim their copyrights and get profits off the comics and the Smallville show.

I read through the whole thing and it’s not too bad for a non-lawyer. I summarized it on the Legion Omnicom in a few more words than Trexler did, and came to the same conclusion. They’ve got 30 days to prepare documentation on a single point: was the version of Superboy as published in “More Fun” #101 derivative of Superman (DC wins), or since the original proposal was not work for hire, was there enough copyrightable material in the original proposal that ended up being published (Siegels win)?

(sorry for the duplicate post, please remove the first one)

]]> By: Michael Grabois http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/08/05/new-superboy-ruling/#comment-20815 Michael Grabois Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:53:06 +0000 http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/08/05/new-superboy-ruling/#comment-20815 It's not just the name, it's the character. If they rule that Superboy is a separate character from Superman, then the Siegels can reclaim their copyrights and get profits off the comics and the Smallville show. I read through the whole thing and it's not too bad for a non-lawyer. I summarized it on the Legion Omnicom (http://adventure247.blogspot.com/2007/08/superboys-super-lawsuit-update.html) in a few more words than Trexler did, and came to the same conclusion. They've got 30 days to prepare documentation on a single point: was the version of Superboy as published in "More Fun" #101 derivative of Superman (DC wins), or since the original proposal was not work for hire, was there enough copyrightable material in the original proposal that ended up being published (Siegels win)? It’s not just the name, it’s the character. If they rule that Superboy is a separate character from Superman, then the Siegels can reclaim their copyrights and get profits off the comics and the Smallville show.

I read through the whole thing and it’s not too bad for a non-lawyer. I summarized it on the Legion Omnicom (http://adventure247.blogspot.com/2007/08/superboys-super-lawsuit-update.html) in a few more words than Trexler did, and came to the same conclusion. They’ve got 30 days to prepare documentation on a single point: was the version of Superboy as published in “More Fun” #101 derivative of Superman (DC wins), or since the original proposal was not work for hire, was there enough copyrightable material in the original proposal that ended up being published (Siegels win)?

]]> By: V. Smith http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/08/05/new-superboy-ruling/#comment-20814 V. Smith Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:04:07 +0000 http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/08/05/new-superboy-ruling/#comment-20814 Dammit, I just want the name Superboy to be mentioned when appropriate. Why are they still goign through all this for just a name? Dammit, I just want the name Superboy to be mentioned when appropriate. Why are they still goign through all this for just a name?

]]>