As you know, DC is currently fighting to win back some of their rights to materials lost to the families.

Right now I think DC has a fair chance at winning back several key elements of Superman, including his Kryptonian origin. I think one thing DC won't be able to get full rights to is action comics number 1. While DC seems to be taking several steps to minimize the loses and liability to the family, such as claiming they own Superman's colors, and certain edits done after the Authors where hired, there is good chance they might not be able to get Clark Kent back.

This week I found an interesting frame from action comics #8.

	I think DC is weighing in their chances of getting certain pieces of Superman back. And are giving warning that they will not be held hostage to the families.
	If Warner can get back 12 comic strips, as well as ownership of Action comics #4 and Superman 1, they would get back his Kryptonian origins, and most likely Lois Lane (Action Comics no 1. makes reference to a "Lois", not a "Lois Lane"). This means the only major parts Of Superman that DC could lose is Clark.

There were several other interesting occurrences in this article.

Since Superman's coloring was done by other artists, after they bought the rights to Superman, DC might be able to get his costume coloring back. They may also get his S symbol as all work that was done with it was actually created after they bought the rights. Note that in this same issue (AC 8) DC did something rather random. Superman's costume suddenly changed when he touched part of an alien city. Could this be some sort of taunt directed at their opposition (Superman in a non-standard suit with no S symbol)?

Finally, note that there is a possibility that the families will retain their claim to Clark's Job at the daily star. DC does a few interesting mentions. They let us know that Clark is moving on. They even say "our work is done here Clark". But look at the next image: It appears that it is the Daily Planets time to shine. If DC holds onto the rights to the Planet, there really is no major lose if they give up the Star.

Superman points out this is how he "Really Looks", He references his being sent to Earth as a Baby He confirms he is from Krypton He lets us know he is "here to stay" Even makes note of his new suit and how it goes with the cape (Warner lost the red cape to the families) This could be a reflection of DC confidence in Winning back Superman's Kryptonian origins as well as claiming rights on his colorization.

Finally, though this one might be stretching it, another noteworthy message: claiming he is called "Superman". He will use "his powers" for good, but he has "got this". Alone this could be over looked, but when looked at with the rest of the frames, it begs the question of if this is a "straight forward" message. But at least they humbly concede that he will not be jumping over tall buildings anymore.

Anyways, thought I'd have a little fun, could be nothing but you never know.

Here is a site that gives a decent breakdown of who owns what, I've underlined the items I can see DC/Warner winning back

@drgnx: Now you have sacred me... I just can hope they can make it,

@RedOwl_1: Yes, I've been following the case, but it seemed this issue of AC was referencing/flaunting several issues currently being fought over in court, It even ended with his flying to his Kryptonian ship. Could be my imagination but wondered if anyone else noticed. The families are using the same argument that the Kirby's used against Marvel, and DC is using the Marvel case as reference that their relation was indeed Work for hire.

The way I look at it is that even though Shuster and Siegel where the creators, once they sold the rights and went to work for National (predecessor to DC comics), they were pretty much regular artists working on a Character now owned by National and no different than any other artist working for National (on characters they did not own). All that I think they should be able to recover is whatever documents they handed over to DC. I'm not against the families getting back what they are owed, but it seemed the last judge gave them rights that they clearly should not have gotten (if we accept that creators were working for hire after the specified date). I also feel there is one claim DC should not get on A.C. no. 4 because the creators were working for the company as employees and not as co-owners and should therefor be able to retain the script used to create the comics story (for ac no 4 only), but they should not retain rights to the full comic itself.

But I think that DC has the lowest chances of getting Clark back, so interested to know if the fans would really be upset.

@drgnx: The fact next Action Comics issue is going to focus on parallel earths Superman is also suspicious

damn.

GRRR

@hectorsquall: It is not the heirs fault, they are following the law. The issue is their Lawyer. He wants 47% of what the family wins back and has business partners who will help them produce Superman media. They had a deal worked out where DC was going to pay them millions (3 million plus 500K/year + 6% profits plus owed fees for the past few years rumored to be around 20 million), the lawyer came in and supposedly talked them out of it. They fired their old lawyer, after a deal was already agreed on, but before the contact was signed. I'm guessing this lawyer also went to the Shuster heir as well.

Ray Charles kids where offered $500K each on the condition that they did not terminate his contacts or try to claim any more of his estate (they signed contracts), this is because the money goes to various projects that Ray endorsed. 7 of his children took the money and still filed for termination, want to guess who their lawyer is?

Here is more on it.

I don't get why the Siegel's have to be such dcks. Just let DC keep publishing the Superman mythos whether its in comics, TV, or on the big screen. Why would they want to take away Superman from the world? Selfish sons of btches.

@drgnx: Well, this kind of lawyers (not all but a large majority) are just a-holes who only think about money, not about their clients or what is the right thing to do.

I mean, if I was in a similar situation, with my kids, all of their friends and all the people I know who really love Superman, I would have accepted the deal with DC and tell this f-ing lawyer to get outta here before I break every single one of his bones.

The lawyer supposedly talked them out of this deal? I don't think so. If they really were reasonable people, they would have thought about all the people for whom Superman is a really great deal. They could have accepted the DC offer and everyone would have been happy. They got their money, DC keeps all the rights and keeps making movies and publishing comics featuring the character that we all know and love.

The issue is not only their lawyer, it's that they are greedy and they can't expect any sympathy for this.

And about "It is not the heirs fault, they are following the law." I don't agree with this. They weren't forced to follow the advice of this lawyer, and everyone knows that the law isn't perfect. They could have ended this conflict peacefully but they chose to declare a war against all Superman fans and they should be ashamed of themselves.

@hectorsquall: Fair enough, they had a "bone to pick" considering the amount of money they walked away from.