I have but 2 questions.

#1) How did he get those photos if it isn't true
and
#2) Way to go Mr. Host for realizing it is superman's back story. I mean, I didn't expect you to know.

I laughed at the DC part. DC doesn't currently own Superman's back story, or they won't in a year or two. The rights are currently being returned to the families of the original creators.

That's pretty cool... I didn't know that.

Gotta love rediculous copyright law. How long before Superman (under the current copyright length) becomes public domain? Like 40 more years or something?

On another notes who's still alive from the family/descendants of the original creators to take control ( and make money probably) of Superman ( or is it just his "backstory/origin")

To be honest I wouldn't put it past Tony to figure out some way to actually be that old.

No, it can't be. That's too stupid.

I think.

well anything about the same age as Mickey Mouse is still protected by copyright law ( generally) because Disney (the company) has been known to lobby for copyright law changes to protects its I*snic*P.

Edit: Holy Crap....

Wikipedia wrote:xtended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.[1] Copyright protection for works published prior to January 1, 1978 was increased by 20 years to a total of 95 years from their publication date.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

One thing to keep in mind with copyright... it doesn't mean the TRADEMARKS aren't protected any more. Just because Steamboat Willie suddenly becomes public domain doesn't mean Mickey Mouse can be used anywhere you want. It just means copying Steamboat Willie isn't illegal anymore.

jerald_parker wrote:Gotta love rediculous copyright law. How long before Superman (under the current copyright length) becomes public domain? Like 40 more years or something?

On another notes who's still alive from the family/descendants of the original creators to take control ( and make money probably) of Superman ( or is it just his "backstory/origin")

Actually, the reason the Superman copyright is being returned to the family of the original creators is because a judge ruled that DC stole the copyright illegally from the original creators, and thus are no longer allowed to use it. So DC retains rights to Superman's ability to fly (that was all theirs), Lex Luthor (all DC as well), as well as anything else they themselves added, they do not own the back story (original), the costume design (original), the man or his alter ego, Loise Lain, or anything else they originally wrote.

It was a huge win for the family, and something both original creators sought during their lives. And the best part is that, if WB doesn't start a new Superman movie by 2011, the families get to sue for damages and more money all over again (the court rules they can claim anything published since 1999, which means Smallville and Superman Returns was big money for them).

It gets a bit tricky, and there are still more court dates coming up in December over the entire thing, but I'm siding with the family. The original creators pretty much got strong-armed into giving up the rights to the character for $130, and DC wouldn't even publish their names on the comic as creators for years.

Not that I mind people getting financial benefits for creating awesome stuff, but again, superman was created a long time ago and yet "his story" still belongs to the creators/descendants. So when do you think individual IP should be public domain? I don't think it should be as long as it is right now but I've never sat down to consider just how long it should be.

gravity wrote:The original creators pretty much got strong-armed into giving up the rights to the character for $130, and DC wouldn't even publish their names on the comic as creators for years.

Meh, that's what they get for signing a crappy contract. Also, they didn't start omitting their names until after Siegel and Shuster sued them in 1947.

gravity wrote:Loise Lain

But what about Lois Lane?

bagheadinc wrote:

gravity wrote:

gravity wrote:Loise Lain

But what about Lois Lane?

A pale female imitation of Superman's gay lover.

If I were developing a subdivision or whatever, I'd HAVE to put in a Lois Ln.

jerald_parker wrote:Not that I mind people getting financial benefits for creating awesome stuff, but again, superman was created a long time ago and yet "his story" still belongs to the creators/descendants. So when do you think individual IP should be public domain? I don't think it should be as long as it is right now but I've never sat down to consider just how long it should be.

Tricky question... as a writer, and an artist, I'd like my published items to benefit myself and my children.

Here is the thing... An architect designs a building and his name is assigned to that design for how long? No one else can build that particular building without buying the blue prints or redesigning it for themselves. An auto manufacturer designs the t-bird, and no one else can make that particular model of car... they have to come up with their own design.

What makes books, characters in comics, movies, etc. etc. etc... any different? Should i get so much for my published novel, then nothing else? Shouldn't my children inherit my legacy?

It's kind of interesting and scary when you look at some of the IP litigation going on for some creations.... Anne mccaffery is well known in many forums for shutting things down for infringing on pern stories. Then there's the new Narnia movies, and the sons of Lewis... star trek, LOTR, etc. etc....

gravity wrote:

jerald_parker wrote:Gotta love rediculous copyright law. How long before Superman (under the current copyright length) becomes public domain? Like 40 more years or something?

On another notes who's still alive from the family/descendants of the original creators to take control ( and make money probably) of Superman ( or is it just his "backstory/origin")

Actually, the reason the Superman copyright is being returned to the family of the original creators is because a judge ruled that DC stole the copyright illegally from the original creators, and thus are no longer allowed to use it. So DC retains rights to Superman's ability to fly (that was all theirs), Lex Luthor (all DC as well), as well as anything else they themselves added, they do not own the back story (original), the costume design (original), the man or his alter ego, Loise Lain, or anything else they originally wrote.

It was a huge win for the family, and something both original creators sought during their lives. And the best part is that, if WB doesn't start a new Superman movie by 2011, the families get to sue for damages and more money all over again (the court rules they can claim anything published since 1999, which means Smallville and Superman Returns was big money for them).

It gets a bit tricky, and there are still more court dates coming up in December over the entire thing, but I'm siding with the family. The original creators pretty much got strong-armed into giving up the rights to the character for $130, and DC wouldn't even publish their names on the comic as creators for years.

What the hell? I would have thought when you got the rights to a fictional character, you would have got everything related to them, not just parts. Has this always been the law? If so, could a scenario occur where they lose the rights to Spiderman's origins and whenever they talk about how he got super powers they have to say something like "one day, he was stung by an atomic bee, but for some reason, gained spider-related powers"?

serindela wrote:What makes books, characters in comics, movies, etc. etc. etc... any different? Should i get so much for my published novel, then nothing else? Shouldn't my children inherit my legacy?

Certainly you should enjoy ownership of it for your lifetime, and your children as well. The part where it becomes questionable is whether your descendants who were born after your death should have exclusive ownership to it. Should, say, the current descendants of Shakespeare be paid royalties for all current use of The Bard's plays, despite none of them having actually been born until nearly three hundred years after Shakespeare's death? And which of them should inherit the rights? All of them? After 12+ generations, a man could conceivably have as many as one million descendants or more--would you have to cut a check to each one of them for 1/1,000,000 of the money? Or do you enforce some rule such as "eldest child inherits"?

I am in favor of granting the creator exclusive ownership for at least 50 years, but beyond 100 years starts to stretch it.