Trouble In Smallville
04-06-06 | 10:26 AM
#26
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Originally Posted by Michael Corvin
Interesting, but both Smallville & Lana are represented in the SuperMAN films, how does that fit in?
04-06-06 | 10:32 AM
#27
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: United States of HELL YEAH!!!
This doesnt mean smallville will be canceled, all it means is if they win then WB owes them money. Which they do. DC has been fucking over comic creators for decades now.
It is kind of ironic, because since the show started the fans have been saying get more superheroes, more villians, more things from the superman comic, and because they havent they're getting sued.
It is kind of ironic, because since the show started the fans have been saying get more superheroes, more villians, more things from the superman comic, and because they havent they're getting sued.
04-06-06 | 01:28 PM
#28
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Plano, TX
Another wrinkle is that the stuff that was created after Siegel and Shuster went to work for the comic company may be a work-for-hire and that copyright would be retained by DC Comics.
For example, Superboy #10, which features the first appearance of Lana Lang, appeared in 1950, during the time when the Superboy copyright was controlled by DC. Because of that, Lana Lang is likey owned by DC Comics.
There are other incidents and characters within the Superboy mythos that are still owned by DC Comics even with Siegel's family reclaiming the original Superboy copyright.
Of interest (to me) in the article, the judge in this case --Judge Lew, based his decision after reviewing the rulings of a Judge Young, who sat on a Superboy copyright dispute in 1947. I'm no legal eagle, but if precedent means anything, and this Judge Lew thinks it does, then the Siegel family may have a leg up on The WB.
They do have a leg-up. They (the family) will probably keep the Superboy copyright. Proving infringement will be difficult, however, because of the split between Superman and Superboy (as well as the many years of stuff about the character that was created after DC began their control of the copyright).
For example, Superboy #10, which features the first appearance of Lana Lang, appeared in 1950, during the time when the Superboy copyright was controlled by DC. Because of that, Lana Lang is likey owned by DC Comics.
There are other incidents and characters within the Superboy mythos that are still owned by DC Comics even with Siegel's family reclaiming the original Superboy copyright.
Of interest (to me) in the article, the judge in this case --Judge Lew, based his decision after reviewing the rulings of a Judge Young, who sat on a Superboy copyright dispute in 1947. I'm no legal eagle, but if precedent means anything, and this Judge Lew thinks it does, then the Siegel family may have a leg up on The WB.
They do have a leg-up. They (the family) will probably keep the Superboy copyright. Proving infringement will be difficult, however, because of the split between Superman and Superboy (as well as the many years of stuff about the character that was created after DC began their control of the copyright).
04-06-06 | 02:36 PM
#29
DVD Talk Legend
If they needed to, couldn't they just lose Lana as a character and move it to Metropolis? They'd possibly have to change the name as well, but at that point it would definitely be more Superman than Superboy.
04-06-06 | 03:10 PM
#30
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Michael Corvin
Interesting, but both Smallville & Lana are represented in the SuperMAN films, how does that fit in?
Before that the copyright was held by DC Comics, as I understand it.
04-06-06 | 07:10 PM
#34
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Southside Virginia
Saying an agreement about payment will be worked out assumes both sides are rational *and* that Smallville would still be profitable with somebody else eating at the table. I think those are big assumptions to make.
04-06-06 | 08:41 PM
#35
DVD Talk Godfather
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Originally Posted by DGibFen
There are rumors now that this lawsuit is part of the reason for DC (comic book spoiler)
as part of the Infinite Crisis/One Year Later storylines.
Spoiler:
Entirely false.
04-06-06 | 08:42 PM
#36
DVD Talk Godfather
Originally Posted by Count Dooku
The ownership of the Superboy copyright just became property of the Siegel family in November of 2004.
Before that the copyright was held by DC Comics, as I understand it.
Before that the copyright was held by DC Comics, as I understand it.
If they regained control in 2004, Smallville had already produced three and a half seasons, so by that same argument they couldn't touch it, especially, from what I gather from this thread, the debate is about the early seasons.
Right? Or am I reading this all wrong?
04-07-06 | 01:06 AM
#37
DVD Talk Legend
As I understand the explanation of the legal manueverings that I've read, the Siegel's are seeking compensation for Smallville's infringement on the copyright since Nov 2004.
And, one would assume, that if they got that, then a deal would have to be struck for compensation for future seasons of Smallville.
The reason it's worth talking about is just because the judge did not throw out the case as Time-Warner/Warner Bros/DC Comics wanted.
I don't know how the 1947 decision that established the Superboy copyright distinguishes between Superman copyrightable material and Superboy material, but this judge used that decision as the basis for his decision to let the case continue.
That tells me, that he's telling Time-Warner, that the Siegel's possibly, or maybe even probably, have a case, and as I previously posted, the Siegel's lawyer just took $17.5 mil from Time-Warner for The Dukes Of Hazzard, and when you think about all the money that Smallville generates, I would expect the Siegel's to be getting a very large settlement offer.
And, one would assume, that if they got that, then a deal would have to be struck for compensation for future seasons of Smallville.
The reason it's worth talking about is just because the judge did not throw out the case as Time-Warner/Warner Bros/DC Comics wanted.
I don't know how the 1947 decision that established the Superboy copyright distinguishes between Superman copyrightable material and Superboy material, but this judge used that decision as the basis for his decision to let the case continue.
That tells me, that he's telling Time-Warner, that the Siegel's possibly, or maybe even probably, have a case, and as I previously posted, the Siegel's lawyer just took $17.5 mil from Time-Warner for The Dukes Of Hazzard, and when you think about all the money that Smallville generates, I would expect the Siegel's to be getting a very large settlement offer.
Last edited by Count Dooku; 04-07-06 at 01:23 AM.
04-07-06 | 02:06 AM
#38
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Plano, TX
I think the Siegels will eventually get a large settlement, but I personally would like to see it go to trial just to see how much those original Superboy comics actually resemble the Smallville show of Seasons 4 and 5 (and beyond) and how a court interprets the whole thing. I mean, just because they're showing Clark Kent (a character DC is still thought to own at this point) at a young age doesn't automatically mean they're infringing on the character of Superboy that the Siegel family owns.
And hey, just think how many times we'll get to go through this over the next few years. There are quite a few comic characters that were created prior to being brought to comic publishers.
And hey, just think how many times we'll get to go through this over the next few years. There are quite a few comic characters that were created prior to being brought to comic publishers.
04-07-06 | 02:45 AM
#39
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by BigDan
I mean, just because they're showing Clark Kent (a character DC is still thought to own at this point) at a young age doesn't automatically mean they're infringing on the character of Superboy that the Siegel family owns.
But the judge said he studied the 1947 decision, and decided to let the case go forward, which (I remember from every episode of The Practice) means that it's time for the defendants to talk settlement.
04-07-06 | 03:40 AM
#40
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Plano, TX
Originally Posted by Count Dooku
That was exactly Time-Warner's position in asking that the Siegel's case be thrown out.
But the judge said he studied the 1947 decision, and decided to let the case go forward, which (I remember from every episode of The Practice) means that it's time for the defendants to talk settlement.
But the judge said he studied the 1947 decision, and decided to let the case go forward, which (I remember from every episode of The Practice) means that it's time for the defendants to talk settlement.
When it comes to specifically proving that the Smallville episodes from November 2004 forward infringe on that copyright, the Siegels will have to show specifically how the post-November, 2004 episodes of "Smallville" are substantially similar to those original few comics made prior to DC's predecessor gaining control of the copyright.
That's a significantly more difficult task (especially since Warners still currently has control of the Superman copyright. Of course, when they eventually lose that, their argument that their "Smallville" show is based on their Superman copyright will work against them).
04-07-06 | 05:33 AM
#41
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by BigDan
When it comes to specifically proving that the Smallville episodes from November 2004 forward infringe on that copyright, the Siegels will have to show specifically how the post-November, 2004 episodes of "Smallville" are substantially similar to those original few comics made prior to DC's predecessor gaining control of the copyright.
In the DC-published Superman comics, Clark Kent grew up (and went to high school) in Metropolis.
In his ruling, Judge Lew said that, although adjudicating a copyright infringement case would require a closely detailed comparison of what it has previously been established as the story and charcater of Superboy with what is presented on the TV series Smallville, to make this decision, enough facts were presented to the court to convince him that the lead character in Smallville is Superboy.
I would think that remarks like that would put TW/WB/DC in a mood to settle.
Jerry Siegel fought while he was alive for the credit of creating Superman.
Now his widow and his daughter want money. They'll get it.
04-07-06 | 08:48 AM
#42
DVD Talk Godfather
Originally Posted by Count Dooku
In the DC-published Superman comics, Clark Kent grew up (and went to high school) in Metropolis.
This is a great and interesting read.
04-07-06 | 11:43 AM
#43
DVD Talk Hero
Found this on Wikipedia and it gives more weight to the notion that the TV series follws the movies, not the comics, because the location os Smallville being in Kansas originated in the movie.
The actual location of Smallville, like those of other fictional DC Universe cities, originally was never specifically stated in the comics.
Smallville's location varied widely throughout many stories, many of which placed Smallville close to Metropolis and Midvale, home of Supergirl. All-New Collectors' Edition #C-55 (notable for featuring the wedding of Legion of Super-Heroes members Lightning Lad and Saturn Girl and published in 1978) calls Smallville "a quiet town, nestled in the hills just inland from the eastern seaboard." In Amazing World of DC Comics #14 (1977), a magazine with articles on DC Comics characters and series, Smallville was stated to be in Maryland. The Maryland location was supported in the actual comics with a map of Smallville and the surrounding area that was published in New Adventures of Superboy #22 (October 1981), which situated Smallville a few miles west of a large bay very similar to Delaware Bay (the same map placed Metropolis and Gotham City on the east and west sides of the bay, respectively). Smallville was first placed in Kansas in the 1970s and 1980s Superman movies. Superman writer Elliot S! Maggin incorporated the Kansas location into the DC Universe in his 1981 Superman novel, Miracle Monday. Comic writer and artist John Byrne also placed Smallville in Kansas in his 1986 rewrite of Superman's origin.
Smallville's location varied widely throughout many stories, many of which placed Smallville close to Metropolis and Midvale, home of Supergirl. All-New Collectors' Edition #C-55 (notable for featuring the wedding of Legion of Super-Heroes members Lightning Lad and Saturn Girl and published in 1978) calls Smallville "a quiet town, nestled in the hills just inland from the eastern seaboard." In Amazing World of DC Comics #14 (1977), a magazine with articles on DC Comics characters and series, Smallville was stated to be in Maryland. The Maryland location was supported in the actual comics with a map of Smallville and the surrounding area that was published in New Adventures of Superboy #22 (October 1981), which situated Smallville a few miles west of a large bay very similar to Delaware Bay (the same map placed Metropolis and Gotham City on the east and west sides of the bay, respectively). Smallville was first placed in Kansas in the 1970s and 1980s Superman movies. Superman writer Elliot S! Maggin incorporated the Kansas location into the DC Universe in his 1981 Superman novel, Miracle Monday. Comic writer and artist John Byrne also placed Smallville in Kansas in his 1986 rewrite of Superman's origin.
04-07-06 | 11:57 AM
#44
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Draven
Never followed Superman comics, but was Superboy always just a young Superman or was he another Kryptonian?
The short answer is that Superboy was a young Superman -- they were both Clark Kent.
