SMALLVILLE's Future In SUPERBOY Court Case?

[JayBee74]

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,18747,00.html

[BGarrett7]

Re: SMALLVILLE's Future In SUPERBOY Court Case?

Wow, that is a very interesting argument.

[JayBee74]

Re: SMALLVILLE's Future In SUPERBOY Court Case?

SUPERBOY has been through a few legal battles. Alexander Salkind, the producer of the first three SUPERMAN movies, owned certain rights to the character of SUPERMAN. He was the producer behind the excellent live action SUPERBOY series of 1988-1992. The series would have been extended to at least a fifth and sixth season, but Warner Brothers stepped in and filed a lien against the series halting future production. This was most likely done to open the door for the lightweight LOIS AND CLARK. Good news-the dispute has been recently settled and the first season of SUPERBOY will be out on DVD in June!

[aukevin]

Re: SMALLVILLE's Future In SUPERBOY Court Case?

I've had a couple discussions about this with people and the whole thing irritates me. First off, I find it crazy that their is a separate copyright for Superboy and Superman. But aside from that, I don't think Smallville should be pulled into this case. I realize that the Siegel's feel like they have gotten a bum deal on Superman dealings in the past, but come on.

I have honestly never thought about Smallville's Clark as Superboy. He is Clark Kent who is later to be Superman as in modern day comics and the Christopher Reeve movies. You want Superboy, go see the 80's show. Superboy is a teenage Superman in a Superman suit. The modern Superman in the comics and the Superman in the movies, from which I feel Smallville is basing its show on, was never a teenage superhero in a Superman suit. He was just Clark Kent with super powers that were kept hidden much like the Clark in Smallville. If Smallville built the show like the 80's Superboy show, then they would definitely have a right to it, but Smallville isn't about Superboy, it is about the modern Superman as a teen. Some people might not be able to see the difference, but I see it and IMO the suit against Smallville is wrong.

The biggest thing about the case that bothers me is the rumors of how it will affect the comics. One of my favorite characters, Conner Kent, aka Superboy, was killed in action a couple weeks ago, as the article states, and people can't help wonder if it had anything to do with this ongoing case. I wonder how far it carries. Does this mean that if the Siegels win this case, do I have to worry about losing Lana Lang and Pete Ross in the comics as well since they first appeared in a Superboy comic, and from the articles it seems like they are tied into the Superboy copyright as well. They only show up every now and then but they are very important to Clark.

Anyways, as it has to do with Smallville, I hope there is just a settlement is reached and the Siegels can get some money for some of the episodes of Smallville from the point in which they re-acquired the license and the whole thing is over with. But I do sympathize with Time Warner for having to defend this and it stinks that they will probably have to give up some profits of the show.

[JayBee74]

Re: SMALLVILLE's Future In SUPERBOY Court Case?

Considering the pittance that Siegel and Schuster got for thier creation of SUPERMAN, I don't feel too sorry for Time Warner. From a legal standpoint this will be a tough call.

[MassNole]

Re: SMALLVILLE's Future In SUPERBOY Court Case?

Call it hunch, this gets held up on appeals long enough for Smallville to go off the air.

[JayBee74]

Re: SMALLVILLE's Future In SUPERBOY Court Case?

I say a settlement will be reached before SUPERMAN RETURNS comes to the big screen.

[writinguy]

Re: SMALLVILLE's Future In SUPERBOY Court Case?

A little cash will make it all go away.

[CMH]

Re: SMALLVILLE's Future In SUPERBOY Court Case?

I've had a couple discussions about this with people and the whole thing irritates me. First off, I find it crazy that their is a separate copyright for Superboy and Superman. But aside from that, I don't think Smallville should be pulled into this case. I realize that the Siegel's feel like

All good points (including the rest of your post).

I guess the question is this.

If Smallville is a story about Clark Kent as a teenager before he became Superman, then what is Superboy if it isn't the same?

You can't say Superboy is a story about Clark Kent as a kid. Because a kid becomes a man and it must be assumed that Superboy becomes Superman therefore making them the same character. And if Superboy is Superman then the Superman in Smallville is also Superboy.

Wow, tough call for that judge to make.

[MassNole]

Re: SMALLVILLE's Future In SUPERBOY Court Case?

All good points (including the rest of your post).

I guess the question is this.

If Smallville is a story about Clark Kent as a teenager before he became Superman, then what is Superboy if it isn't the same?

You can't say Superboy is a story about Clark Kent as a kid. Because a kid becomes a man and it must be assumed that Superboy becomes Superman therefore making them the same character. And if Superboy is Superman then the Superman in Smallville is also Superboy.

Wow, tough call for that judge to make.

That looks like a law school exam question.

[JayBee74]

Re: SMALLVILLE's Future In SUPERBOY Court Case?

All good points (including the rest of your post).



You can't say Superboy is a story about Clark Kent as a kid. Because a kid becomes a man and it must be assumed that Superboy becomes Superman therefore making them the same character. And if Superboy is Superman then the Superman in Smallville is also Superboy.

Wow, tough call for that judge to make.

That's not what's in question here because the two [Superman, Supereboy] were established as seperate properties when National (DC) kept the Superman rights and Schuster/Siegel got the Superboy rights. At what point will the Superman rights come into question? Wasn't the original $130 payment by National to Schuster/Sigel for the rights to Superman considered a copyright transfer, therefore subject to the 1976 copyright law?

[CaptainZombie]

Re: SMALLVILLE's Future In SUPERBOY Court Case?

I just hope all this legal hoopla goes away soon enough.

[CMH]

Re: SMALLVILLE's Future In SUPERBOY Court Case?

That's not what's in question here because the two [Superman, Supereboy] were established as seperate properties when National (DC) kept the Superman rights and Schuster/Siegel got the Superboy rights. At what point will the Superman rights come into question? Wasn't the original $130 payment by National to Schuster/Sigel for the rights to Superman considered a copyright transfer, therefore subject to the 1976 copyright law?

I understand that.

But, even if they are two seperate entities it must be assumed that SuperBoy was created as a younger version of Superman.

I could write up a story right now about a 16-year old character named Laura Craft. The character could be an adventurous with a strong English accent and eventually have some reason as to why she may want to slightly alter her name to hide from a government conspiracy. Stupid, I know, but you catching my drift?

For anyone to tell me that Laura and Lara are obviously seperate entities with no connection would be ridiculous. Superboy and Superman have a connection. They are indeed seperate characters in their own right, but they are in relation to another in more than just an idea.

[JayBee74]

Re: SMALLVILLE's Future In SUPERBOY Court Case?

For anyone to tell me that Laura and Lara are obviously seperate entities with no connection would be ridiculous. Superboy and Superman have a connection. They are indeed seperate characters in their own right, but they are in relation to another in more than just an idea.

Having a connection and being a seperate entity are two different things. That being said, I never understood the original ruling. I'm glad Siegel and Schuster got something out of the deal, but a character who is the same copyrighted character at a younger age-how could the judge have ruled against National?

[CMH]

Re: SMALLVILLE's Future In SUPERBOY Court Case?

Having a connection and being a seperate entity are two different things. That being said, I never understood the original ruling. I'm glad Siegel and Schuster got something out of the deal, but a character who is the same copyrighted character at a younger age-how could the judge have ruled against National?

Yea, I think that's what confuses me the most.