193Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThe law has this thing called "termination rights". So...you know...they actually do still have a claim in this case.Originally Posted by db8coach
Wait...should I have put "the facts:" in front of that?
The law has this thing called "termination rights". So...you know...they actually do still have a claim in this case.
Wait...should I have put "the facts:" in front of that?
_______________________________________________
Note to Management: As long as you disregard your own rules, generally ignore the complaints of your audience and insult them through the articles you publish, you'll not have my traffic.
RIP Jens :(
[url=http://www.schwapponline.com]SCHWAPP!!![/url]
[url=http://www.facebook.com/realemployeerights]My stab at pro-worker propaganda[/url]
it may seem that he's right, but surely he can't be?????
Warning, the above post may contain traces of sarcasm, or have been written in an environment where it may have come into contact with sarcasm.
All opinions expressed represent the opinion of the author and not those of Bleeding Cool. Those guys have appalling taste.
My name is Steven Tudor, nice to meet you.
Stuff on ebay
Wow. Just, wow. Case closed.
Oh, I don't know... Maybe the Thanksgiving dinner for the homeless that my mother organizes every year that I help with? Or the events I participate in for Make-A-Wish Foundation with my R2-D2 and friend's Batmobile? Or maybe the $100 check I write to Catholic Social Services EVERY WEEK (which goes towards all kinds of needy families)? The question is, what do YOU do? I assume from your posts, absolutely nothing... except maybe let a friend borrow your copy of the latest Green Lantern comic.
I don't hate corporations at all. I work for one. I even worked for a Time Warner company, and have no I'll feelings in that regard. What I do hate is when corporations explicitly take advantage of "the little people", especially on an individual level, and when they exploit and mistreat the talent and creators who actually built many of their valuable assets. Anyone with an iota of human empathy should despise that.
As far as this situation, I'm actually NOT on the blood-sucking lawyer's side and it does look like DC was willing to provide a fair settlement to all. So good on them. Your attitude, however, is appalling. "Who gives a crap about the people who actually created Superman or their families... as long as I get my funny books!" And you post stuff like this publicly, without any sense of shame. Yikes.
How exactly am I being hypocritical? Please explain. Or were you just pulling something out of thin air because you're a myopic DC pole-squatter who's unashamedly selfish and I called you out on it?
STAR WARS ROAD TRIPS! Follow our latest endeavors and adventures!
There's nothing about this post that isn't hilariously fucking idiotic.
Lemme guess: you haven't helped the homeless, so you're assuming the rest of us haven't?
_______________________________________________
Note to Management: As long as you disregard your own rules, generally ignore the complaints of your audience and insult them through the articles you publish, you'll not have my traffic.
RIP Jens :(
[url=http://www.schwapponline.com]SCHWAPP!!![/url]
[url=http://www.facebook.com/realemployeerights]My stab at pro-worker propaganda[/url]
I like the implication that I haven't "done some reading." Dare I suggest that YOU "do some reading" to find out how National/Jack Leibowitz treated Siegel and Shuster before the Superman movie came out and Neal Adams publicly shamed them into doing what was right? I wouldn't be that presumptive.
My point was entirely based on the fact that DC is not totally in the right in this matter. Nor are they totally wrong. To be honest, I don't know quite where I stand on it. But please don't assume that someone "hasn't done the reading" because they put up a simple line warning about the integrity of a scummy lawyer. 25 years of reading about the backstage politics of comics, from books like The Comic Book Heroes to mags like TCJ, Alter Ego and CBA to blogs like Danny Boy and even here, let alone my research into matters of copyright reversion for other matters might prove you wrong. But I wouldn't want to stand in judgment on you.
For what it's worth, I do agree that Levitz, Kahn, et al did mend fences as much as possible. I know about the Great DC Convention and Kahn's efforts to have those two men treated well in 1976. I know about Levitz' outreaching to the families. I know what was posted on Danny Boy (just like you!) about the settlement that was to be reached. My main concern here is that Toberoff is not acting in anyone's interests other than his own, which was all my reply suggested. Better the devil you know, I suppose...
Be more careful before you jump to a conclusion next time, please. Especially about whether someone has done reading.
Last edited by DJ_Convoy; 07-19-2012 at 07:39 AM.
"Two and two continue to make four, in spite of the whine of the amateur for three, or the cry of the critic for five." - James McNeill Whistler
"Second, why would Superman suddenly not be in the media as much? It's not like the heirs are adverse to money so I would think they wouldn't block whatever would make them cash out of spite."
Like I said before, the advantage for Toberoff of signing both the Siegel and Shuster estates and locking up 100% of the rights upon termination, would be that he could block DC Comics from doing anything with the character (something which he would be barred from doing with only 50% of the rights.)
Which means that whatever demands Toberoff might have, monetary or in terms of control of the property in some other way, would have to be met, or the whole Superman Franchise could risk being completely dismantled (at least until the original stories etc. belonging to Siegel/Shuster entered Public Domain, whereupon DC Comics could use its vast Superman library of stories again.)
It is not unreasonable to suggest Toberoff winning might result in no more Superman Comics (or other products), as that is precisely the leverage Toberoff and the Siegel/Shuster estate intended to have at their disposal to increase the offer from DC Comics.
Without Toberoff, the Siegels were only entitled to a sum representing 50% of the profits DC Comics makes from Superman, through licensing it to Warner Brothers and various toy manufacturers etc. and the profits from the books. And once you strip away production costs and overhead that's still a lot of money but probably not far from what they were being offered.
Since there is some degree of vertical integration in Time Warner's business, however, the various components of Time Warner (other than DC Comics) who license Superman for use in movies, TV and product also make a lot of money. The Siegel and Shuster estates, however, do not get any of that profit, just the licensing fee (but it has to be a fair licensing fee, so that no-one gets cheated, that's the law).
So Time Warner stands to lose a lot of money if they lose that property. Especially as Superman is intertwined in so many other DC Comics properties that would also be locked out. And it's part of that money Toberoff is aiming for.
If we consider for instance that whatever the Siegel estate was offered would be between 50% and 100% of what their 50% share would be worth (fairly accounted), Toberoff's involvement means you have to double that just for them to instantly get the same amount of money. Assume that they wouldn't make this deal unless they expected to maybe double their profits. Add to that the cost of litigation and delays and the Toberoff deal has to come out to at least 5 times as much money for the Siegel Estate to "break even". And that's before he really starts squeezing.
If the attempt at getting a summary judgement in the Shuster case fails and that half looks likely to go to Toberoff, it might heavily affect Time Warner stock prices as the time limit approaches, putting a lot of pressure on them to settle. And Toberoff looks to be aiming for a settlement, not a victory. The rights without the WFH parts owned by DC are worth a lot less than initially offered. However, if you look at the filing, DC Comics is also asking the judge to find any agreement between the Shusters and Toberoff void and provide that the Shuster estate can only negotiate with DC Comics until the rights have actually been terminated.
Which means that if they are only partly succesful, they might still be able to swoop in and offer the Shuster estate a solid pay-off that they won't have to share with Toberoff (because they don't have any legally valid agreement to transfer rights to him). And that sum, whatever it is, will probably serve as a guideline for how much the Siegels will get paid as well.
DC Comics have seemed on the ropes a bit with the Siegel Estate, but if they manage to prevail on just a few of the several points outlined here, they can essentially knock the legs out from under Toberoff. Whether that is likely or not remains to be seen.
How is this a "new twist"?
The Legal View: “Breaking” old news in the Superman copyright case*|*The Beat
Why should I waste an argument on a selfish troglodyte? The only thing that he's worthy of is contempt. Its no wonder nobody is creating any characters of any worth for the big two these days since they know the company will screw them over just like every other creator in the past. DC are slightly less cuntish than Marvel but they'll still do anything to protect their precious copyright instead of giving creators and their families a FAIR share.
That's my new arm - I just grew it!
How about because he laid out a well reasoned case that he felt that DC had acted fairly. You don't have to agree with it but it merited a polite response.If you'd been replying to atrocitus then your argument would be fairly applied.
Warning, the above post may contain traces of sarcasm, or have been written in an environment where it may have come into contact with sarcasm.
All opinions expressed represent the opinion of the author and not those of Bleeding Cool. Those guys have appalling taste.
My name is Steven Tudor, nice to meet you.
Stuff on ebay
It is interesting that apparently only what he considers fair is good enough, despite the creators considering their compensation fair initially, and at least one Schuster being quite happy with her payments. It's weird to me that someone would put their own views of fairness ahead of those of the creators' and their families'.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote