"William George Ferguson" <wmgfrgsn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:9gf2v3d0d977rrlt7pds06ov811nr9j3gb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:59:19 GMT, "windowwasher"
> <windowwasher@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>>Re the Siegels. Why since 1999, William? Did they assert rights
reversion
>>then and it wasn't honored? Being a nonlawyer it seems unjust to me that
>>one
>>can sell all rights and then call a mulligan after the fact. Didn't
Siegel
>>sell all rights in perp. He didn't assign the copyright under contract
did
>>he?
>
> Siegel and Shuster sold all rights forever and ever amen. Congress,
since
> then (1976 to be precise), passed a law that specifically allows heirs
in
> certain cir***stances to recover copyrights which had been transferred
> during the original holder's life. Using that law, the Siegals filed
> legal
> papers to revert the rights to Superman in 1999. Last week's ruling was
> upholding an earlier judgement.
>
> Under the law as I understand it (and AINAL and all that), Siegel
couldn't
> call a mulligan. His heirs could, however, end the arrangement he had
> agreed to. Note that they didn't negate DC's rights to the character
for
> the last last 60 years, only a ****tion of the rights since they filed to
> revert the rights in 1999 (because of a later deal struck between DC and
> Shuster, his heirs can't do the same until 2013). Also, the court's
> ruling
> was only on the rights signed over by S&S for the ideas in the story in
> Action Comics #1. It remains to be seen how much claim they have on
> anything developed after that. They may have a ****tion of the rights
for
> Superman, Clark Kent, Lois Lane, and certain other characters, but not
> have
> the rights to, say, Lex Luthor, who didn't come along until Action
Comics
> #23 (although Siegel and Shuster wrote and drew that story, so they also
> created Luthor, just not in Action Comics #1).
>
Thanks, William.
|
