Log In Forums Help
Comic Collector Live
Home :: CCL Messageboard
Find Comics for Sale
Items For Sale
All Comics For Sale
New Releases
CGC Comics
Bundled Lots
Store Locator
Search Library
Search By Title
Publisher
Story Arc
Character
Credits
Release Date
Change Request Manager
News & Reviews
Reviews
News
Our Products and Services
Get the Software
Buying Comics And Stuff
Selling Your Comics
Opening A Store
Community
Forum
Store Locator
Member Locator
Welcome Guest Active Topics
Superman legal battle over? Options
JimmmKelly
Posted: Sunday, November 24, 2013 12:05:22 AM
Rank: Vigilante
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/2/2013
Posts: 75
Points: 225
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
I wasn't necessarily replying to any one poster or even just to this thread alone. My point about casting aspersions is a general observation from having seen tons of these threads. Numreous posters like to drag people they don't know through the mud rather than sticking just to the facts of the case.

Also, it's simply maddening to see people suggesting an application of the law in this case that if applied across the board would deny millions of heirs their legal rights. And then they say something like, well if it was me I would count myself lucky--never having been in a comparable situation. It's like people don't realize the import of what they're saying.

If I were to speculate why the families have pursued the case as they have I would hazard a guess that it's: 1) They saw how much Jerry Siegel went through in his lifetime over these claims and they feel they owe it to him to finish what he started. 2) There's a lot of money in it. 3) They are proceeding on the advice of their lawyers.

If folks want to keep flogging a dead horse, that's their prerogative, but I personally made my peace with the whole affair when I recognized that it's simply a legal process that's out of my hands and I shouldn't allow it to affect my enjoyment of comics.



MY FAVOURITE FUNNIES
teh_longinator
Posted: Sunday, November 24, 2013 12:20:40 AM

Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member

Joined: 9/1/2012
Posts: 318
Points: 954
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
JimmmKelly wrote:
I wasn't necessarily replying to any one poster or even just to this thread alone. My point about casting aspersions is a general observation from having seen tons of these threads. Numreous posters like to drag people they don't know through the mud rather than sticking just to the facts of the case.

Also, it's simply maddening to see people suggesting an application of the law in this case that if applied across the board would deny millions of heirs their legal rights. And then they say something like, well if it was me I would count myself lucky--never having been in a comparable situation. It's like people don't realize the import of what they're saying.

If I were to speculate why the families have pursued the case as they have I would hazard a guess that it's: 1) They saw how much Jerry Siegel went through in his lifetime over these claims and they feel they owe it to him to finish what he started. 2) There's a lot of money in it. 3) They are proceeding on the advice of their lawyers.

If folks want to keep flogging a dead horse, that's their prerogative, but I personally made my peace with the whole affair when I recognized that it's simply a legal process that's out of my hands and I shouldn't allow it to affect my enjoyment of comics.



I think the argument is that cousins aren't considered heirs. Spouses and children are, as they should be, but these two men seem to have family members coming out of the woodwork, claiming that because they share a name with (or in some cases not even that) the creators, that they're owed for it? NO!

I can create a bajillion dollar industry today. Does that mean that my nieces and nephews are entitled to whatever I make when I die? NO. My children are. HEIRS! People who are PREDETERMINED to take over.

These people are just greedy, and won't accept that they're in the wrong. Multiple court cases would tell them this.

Cave Comics
I buy comics so that I can sell comics, to buy more comics.

Check out my eBay listings at http://www.ebay.ca/sch/tehlonginator/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=
padreglcc
Posted: Sunday, November 24, 2013 5:09:52 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Approver, CR-Guidelines, CR-Management, DC Host, Forum Admin, Member, Moderator, New Releases Host, Reviews Host, Subscriber

Joined: 5/6/2007
Posts: 4,346
Points: 514,069
Location: Bangor, Michigan
JimmmKelly wrote:
I wasn't necessarily replying to any one poster or even just to this thread alone.

I apologize for taking your post personally. Since it followed mine and didn't quote from any other post, I assumed you were speaking to me...that was a bad assumption. In retrospect, even if you had been speaking to me, I shouldn't have lost my cool like that. I humbly ask your forgiveness.

“One of the most sincere forms of respect is actually listening to what another has to say.” ~ Bryant H. McGill

Please make sure you read and understand the Forum Rules here.
padreglcc
Posted: Sunday, November 24, 2013 5:14:15 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Approver, CR-Guidelines, CR-Management, DC Host, Forum Admin, Member, Moderator, New Releases Host, Reviews Host, Subscriber

Joined: 5/6/2007
Posts: 4,346
Points: 514,069
Location: Bangor, Michigan
teh_longinator wrote:

I think the argument is that cousins aren't considered heirs. Spouses and children are, as they should be, but these two men seem to have family members coming out of the woodwork, claiming that because they share a name with (or in some cases not even that) the creators, that they're owed for it? NO!

I can create a bajillion dollar industry today. Does that mean that my nieces and nephews are entitled to whatever I make when I die? NO. My children are. HEIRS! People who are PREDETERMINED to take over.

These people are just greedy, and won't accept that they're in the wrong. Multiple court cases would tell them this.

Cousins absolutely can be considered heirs, as can nieces and nephews, grand kids, siblings, even strangers. I actually read a news article this week about a guy who left his estate to his cats. Without knowing all the specifics of the Superman cases, I have no idea who Seigel and Shuster named as heirs. The courts, however, don't seem to think it's these cousins.

“One of the most sincere forms of respect is actually listening to what another has to say.” ~ Bryant H. McGill

Please make sure you read and understand the Forum Rules here.
RubberMalletComics
Posted: Sunday, November 24, 2013 2:05:15 PM

Rank: Supporting Cast
Groups: Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 10/7/2013
Posts: 49
Points: 398
(NOTE: I am not specifically pointing to anyone discussing in this topic, but a general statement whenever these property disputes arise, as it comes up at our store whenever these articles are published (or about The Watchmen, Captain America, etc)

I find it strange that people talk about the "greedy families" who don't have a leg to stand on with these ownership disputes. No one mentions the "greedy corporation" ... since that's what corporations are supposed to be.

The legal system is trying to determing who "deserves" the money that Superman produces ... and the corporate lawyers are probably more tenacious than a greedy family. I don't see a clear cut villian or hero in the lawsuit ... I just see a parnership (between company and individuals) that started flawed and was never attempted to be fixed to the satisfaction of either side.

If corporate law maneuverings hadn't led to them personally being able to own creative properties, then ownership of Superman would have relegated to the public domain some years after the death of the person who was the actual owner of Superman.

But corporations are in many ways immortal, and that's why very few things pass into the commons these days. Corporations are "persons" and can own stuff ... and they rarely die.

Maybe that's good, but I know the intent of making creative works public domain was to acknowledge that things created within a community owed at least part of their creation to the community, and that once the creator moved on, it eventually entered the public domain to enrich the community that creator was a part of.

The creator of a work gets all he/she/they can from the creation, and then members of the public can do as they wish with it from then on.

I read a lot of comics every week, and I really do enjoy them. But I do wonder if the corporate behemoths are a blessing or a curse to my favorite form of literature.

Maybe if Marvel and DC didn't have the giant corporate machine behind them there wouldn't be this awesome decades-spanning history of super-heroes, maybe comics would have withered and died entirely long ago.

Or maybe super-heroes would have come and gone and come back again like other fads do in other mediums. Maybe comics would have elevated to a form equal to other literature much faster if the characters were truly allowed to change in more than superficial ways.

I honestly don't know. But property ownership - and the money a property can make - isn't ever a cut and dried issue.

Rubber Mallet Comics
822 Wyoming Avenue
West Pittston, PA 18643
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

This page was generated in 0.138 seconds.

ADVERTISEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
All images on comic collector live copyright of their respective publishers. © Copyright 2008, MidTen Media Inc. GOLO231