Trouble In Smallville
 

From IMDB Studio Briefing:

A federal judge in Los Angeles has poured Kryptonite over The WB's Smallville, granting a summary judgment to the widow and daughter of Jerry Siegel, one of the two creators of the Superman character. As reported by Daily Variety, the ruling by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew observed that Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson had successfully recaptured the copyright to Superboy in 2004; it also denied a request by Time Warner, Warner Bros, and DC Comics to issue a ruling that Smallville did not infringe on Superboy copyrights. "Enough facts are presented, where this court, contrary to defendants' request, could find that the main character in Smallville is in fact Superboy," the judge ruled. Warner Bros. told the trade paper that it plans an appeal.

This is not a suprise to me. I always thought it was Superboy.

I wonder if this is why there seem to be some of the gossip types who wonder if Smallville will make it to CW.

This is very tricky... especially if lawyers want to play with semantics

• Superboy should, by definition, be a boy. Clark is now 18+ and is played by a 29-year old. Can the courts rule that a "boy?"
• Superboy is usually characterized with a costume and flying dog. Smallville has had neither.
• The story of Smallville is "based" on the traditional Superman mythos, buty everyone can agree they've created a whole new mythos of their own.
• Can the courts prove a difference between a SuperBOY story and and a SuperMAN prequel/young Superman story?

To me, the gray area is too deep for a court to make a black/white decision.

Never followed Superman comics, but was Superboy always just a young Superman or was he another Kryptonian?

Just change the names.

Smallville = Tinyville
Clark = Clarence
Lois = Louise
Lana = Laura Linney ... no wait that won't work
Lex = Lance
Chloe = Chloe ... I knew she was the key to this show

Isn't this more of a Clark Kent show, and not a Superman/boy/anything show?

Don't really think they'll win this case.

Probably one of the reasons why the creators/producers choose to have Clark Kent in this series be "no tights/no flights" was specifically a safeguard for this very reason. If he's not in the traditional costume, it makes it that much harder for some one else to say - "it's Superboy, because he's in a Superboy/man costume."

But I would think,
 

wouldn't they also own Clark Kent,Lois Lane etc, as these characters were created with Superman? So they could sue for that as well. They might as well just settle it really, as the only way to truly get out of it would be for Clark to turn out NOT to be Superman. Which would be REALLY interesting to be honest. Talk about a nutty last season!

GuessWho got skills, will you be my personal lawyer :rock2:

rofl rofl

It's an interesting case. I didn't even know copyright holders and heirs could regain copyright like these woman have. The copyright was sold to National Comics nearly sixty years ago. How can they get it back? And since Superman was sold to National Comics at the same time, why couldn't they get the rights to the adult character back, as well (I guess that could be pending)?

And it is strange to think that the show could be found to infringe, but only since November, 2004 (since DC Comics controlled the copyright prior to that). The fact that they have to rely on stuff past Season 3 only to prove their infringement suit would certainly seem to make it more difficult to win.

Not like much has happened other than Clark and Lana breaking up. Over and over again.

From what little is said above, it sounds like they have *won* and the only recourse would be appeal.

ETA: Based on this link, it would appear that I'm wrong. They only got partial summary judgment. It sounds like WB plans to appeal. This case appears to still have life in it after all.

Yeah, they're attempt to recapture the copyright has been ruled legal and effective (which Warners will appeal). Whether the Smallville show from Season 4 and beyond infringes on that copyright will be a different case.

I heard, a few years back, that once the correct amount of time had gone by, the S&S heirs were going to go after the SuperMAN copyright. Did they try and only get SuperBOY? I'm curious as to what went down.

Also, the creative decision behind Smallville had nothing to do with copyright concerns, it was all creative vision. Superheros weren't an easy TV sell, but Dawson's Creek/X-Files was.

Looking around the Internet, the Siegel family has apparently tried to get the Superman copyright back, as well, but it has not been decided that they have successfully done so, so far.

Apparently, the way the law was written, Shuster's family apparently couldn't reclaim Shuster's half of the Superman character at that time, so that remains with DC Comics regardless of what happens until at least 2013. Siegel's family filed their attempt to regain Siegel's half of the Superman character in 1997, which would've become effective in 1999. Apparently this is still being litigated. I don't know why the Superboy stuff apparently got to court first.

Here's a link to a Variety story that goes into some detail about how the copyright was established and changed hands:

Variety story abour Smallville/Superboy dispute

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.

Plus, there's this note at the end of the article, that the Siegel's lawyer is Marc Toberoff who
$17.5 mil for that crappy Dukes movies!
I'd expect the Siegel family to get a nice fat settlement for Smallville, considering all the money they have wrapped up in the TV series and the relaunching of the Superman movie franchise

Oh man, you don't want to open that can of worms. It'll lead to the multi-verse and all the confussion in that.

If this is their only defense ...

"In their legal responses to the Superboy suit, Time Warner and its co-defendants had contended Superboy was simply a younger version of Superman and that Superboy was "work for hire" solely owned by its predecessors. But Lew said those arguments were unpersuasive in light of rulings made by Judge Young in the 1947 trial."

... TW will be ponying up some cash and then buying the rights (if allowed).

A little bit more reading around tells me that:
(1) Smallville being the name of the town where Clark Kent grew up;
(2) a character named Lana Lang who was the young Clark Kent's love interest; and
(3) the story of Clark Kent and Lex Luthor being friends who became enemies
--all originated in Superboy comic, not the Superman comic, and it's the Superboy comic to which the Siegel family holds the copyright.

Time Warner (et al) claim that this TV series is just a story of the young Superman, a character to which they own the copyright.

But considering that (at least) three such major elements of the TV series are directly drawn from another copyrighted work, Superboy, I don't see how the claims of their defense will hold up.

So what does this mean for retards like me? Does the WB have to stop airing Smallville? Or is it just that the WB has to pay the family the rights to use Smallville?

Its all about the money

This is silly.

I know Siegel & Shuster sold superman for a song and now he's controlled by a media giant and all that but, c'mon.

First of all, I don't know how a court would revert copyright back to the Siegel family from DC Comics (Warner Bros.) in the first place but regardless, isn't everything on Smallville is copyrighted and owned by DC.

Clark Kent
Lana Lang
Lex Luthor
Lois Lane
John & Martha Kent
Smallville
Daily Planet
Metropolis

All these things appear regularly in DC Comics currently with no impact on the Superboy copyright. The other characters are original to the show so, again, no impact.

So I guess the question is: is Superboy an image (kid in tights) or a concept (Superman when he was young & living in Smallville)?

:) I figured it wasn't going to be a simple answer.

Interesting, but both Smallville & Lana are represented in the SuperMAN films, how does that fit in?

Good point. What is represented in Smallville that is not part of Superman mythos and is exclusive to the Superboy mythos, since the judge has made a distinction between the two franschises.

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.

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).

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.

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.

All this means is that a new agreement on payment will be worked out if it doesn't get appealed.

Thanks for answering my limited legal brain. :)

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.

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.

Entirely false.

So the thin argument is that the film was already produced under other ownership so they can't touch 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?

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.

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.

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.

That was their argument that they should keep the copyright to Superboy. That it was merely an offshoot of something the already owned at the time (Superman) and that, even if it wasn't, it was a work-for-hire. The 1947 decision disputed that assertion and the Siegels regained the specific copyright on the very specific character of Superboy.

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).