@saint_wildcard:
lol u waht to to post a list of beat downs beouse it is like superman 3 batman 14
Superman is the first Superhero (at least in modern terms).
I mean, he is Superman.
i am so tryed of this superman is good just becose he is superman no other reasion, batman is the best superhero there has ever been he the the best selling hero out selling superman and the justice league there was even a time when dc only printed batman comics and made money keep the complay from crashing
dc comics does not even own superman the
Video games
Main article: List of Superman video games
While Superman is largely considered to be the archetypal superhero, and the flagship character of DC Comics, he has enjoyed virtually no success in video games. A variety of Superman video games have been released, starting with 1978's Superman for the Atari 2600, none of which have been commercially successful. One of the most notorious examples is the 1999 game for the Nintendo 64, simply titled Superman (although often erroneously called Superman 64 due to the tradition of N64 games putting the number "64" at the end of several titles), which is largely considered to be one of the worst games of all time.
Copyright issues
As part of the deal which saw Superman published in Action Comics, Siegel and Shuster sold the rights to the company in return for $130 and a contract to supply the publisher with material.[58][59][60]The Saturday Evening Post reported in 1940 that the pair was each being paid $75,000 a year, a fraction of National Comics Publications' millions inSuperman profits.[61] Siegel and Shuster renegotiated their deal, but bad blood lingered and in 1947 Siegel and Shuster sued for their 1938 contract to be made void and the re-establishment of their ownership of the intellectual property rights to Superman. The pair also sued National in the same year over the rights to Superboy, which they claimed was a separate creation that National had published without authorization. National immediately fired them and took their byline off the stories, prompting a legal battle that ended in 1948, when a New York court ruled that the 1938 contract should be upheld. However, a ruling from Justice J. Addison Young awarded Siegel the rights to Superboy. A month after the Superboy judgment the two sides agreed on a settlement. National paid Siegel and Shuster $94,000 to drop all claims. The pair also acknowledged in writing the company's ownership of Superman, attesting that they held rights for "all other forms of reproduction and presentation, whether now in existence or that may hereafter be created",[62] but DC refused to re-hire them.[63]
Jerry Siegel, with wife Joanne and daughter Laura in 1976. Joanne and Laura Siegel filed a termination notice on Jerry Siegel's share of the copyright of Superman in 1999.
In 1973 Siegel and Shuster again launched a suit claiming ownership of Superman, this time basing the claim on the Copyright Act of 1909which saw copyright granted for 28 years but allowed for a renewal of an extra 28 years. Their argument was that they had granted DC the copyright for only 28 years. The pair again lost this battle, both in a district court ruling of October 18, 1973[64] and an appeal court ruling of December 5, 1974.[65][66]
In 1975 after news reports of their pauper-like existences, Warner Communications gave Siegel and Shuster lifetime pensions of $20,000 per year and health care benefits. Jay Emmett, then executive vice president of Warner Bros., was quoted in The New York Times as stating, "There is no legal obligation, but I sure feel there is a moral obligation on our part."[61] Heidi MacDonald, writing for Publishers Weekly, noted that in addition to this pension, "Warner agreed that Siegel and Shuster would henceforth be credited as creators of Superman on all comics, TV shows, and films."[60]
The year after this settlement, 1976, the copyright term was extended again, this time for another 19 years for a total of 75 years. However, this time a clause was inserted into the extension to allow authors to reclaim their work, reflecting the arguments Siegel and Shuster had made in 1973. The new act took effect in 1978 and allowed a reclamation window in a period based on the previous copyright term of 56 years. This meant the copyright on Superman could be reclaimed between 1994 to 1999, based on the initial publication date of 1938. Jerry Siegel having died in January 1996, his wife and daughter filed a copyright termination notice in 1999. Although Joe Shuster died in July 1992, no termination was filed at that time by his estate.[67]
In 1998, the copyright was extended again with the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. This time the copyright term was extended to 95 years with a further window for reclamation introduced. In January 2004 Mark Peary, nephew and legal heir to Joe Shuster's estate, filed notice of his intent to reclaim Shuster's half of the copyright, the termination effective in 2013.[67] The status of Siegel's share of the copyright is now the subject of a legal battle. Warner Bros. and the Siegels entered into discussions on how to resolve the issues raised by the termination notice, but these discussions were set aside by the Siegels and in October 2004 they filed suit alleging copyright infringement on the part of Warner Bros. Warner Bros. counter sued, alleging that the termination notice contains defects, among other arguments.[68][69] On March 26, 2008, Judge Larson of theUnited States District Court for the Central District of California ruled that Siegel's estate was entitled to claim a share in the United States copyright. The ruling does not affect the International rights, which Time Warner holds on the character through DC. Issues regarding the amount of monies owed Siegel's estate and whether the claim the estate has extends to derivative works such as movie versions will be settled at trial, although any compensation would be owed only from works published since 1999. Time Warner offered no statement on the ruling but does have the right to challenge it.[70][71] The case was scheduled to be heard in a California federal court in May 2008.[72]
A similar termination-of-copyright notice filed in 2002 by Siegel's wife and daughter concerning the Superboy character was ruled on in their favor on March 23, 2006.[73] However, on July 27, 2007, the same court issued a ruling[74] reversing the March 23, 2006 ruling. This ruling is currently subject to a legal challenge from Time Warner, with the case as yetunresolved.[70]
A July 9, 2009, verdict on the case denied a claim by Siegel's family that it was owed licensing fees. US District Court judge Stephen G. Larson said Warner Bros. and DC Comics have fulfilled their obligations to the Siegels under a profit-sharing agreement for the 2006 movie Superman Returns and the CW series Smallville. However, the court also ruled that if Warner Bros. did not start a new Superman film by 2011, the family would have the right to sue to recover damages.[75] Warner Bros hired David S. Goyer to write the script and Christopher Nolan to produce in 2010.[76][77]
On January 10, 2013, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a 2001 agreement that the Siegel family had reached with DC Comics was still legally binding, thus quashing the 2008 decision in favor of the Siegels. This effectively ensured DC Comics' sole copyright to Superman.[78]
so yes dc comics stole superman
marvel was made by stan lee
so who is the better company??
Log in to comment