Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject: Re: Superman Heirs getting their rights back
I certainly hope not. I hope they have the decency to let movie makers make movies. I can understand why they would want the rights to Superman, but I also hope "they" themselves realize that Superman is such a huge part of the comic/movie industry that taking him out of even part of it would be just...wrong. Let's hope.
I'm glad to see Warner loose a little control, but personally, I think it's time these properties went to their rightful owners. All of US!!! By way of Public domain.
There are few things more iconic in American culture than Superman, yet officially we are all denied the kind of access to it that we have to something like Frankenstein, or other pulp works.
The reason we have copyright is outlined in Article I, section 8, Line 7 of the Constitution.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
But the reason it was "limited" was in recognition of the fact that no one can truely own an idea, and that in a democracy, everyone must be capable of accessing the same base of knowledge in order to make an informed decision when voting.
Thanks to "Disney" laws extending that "limited" time to well beyond any humans life span, we are effectively denied the right to our own culture.
Another way of looking at it is, Superman's popularity is the greatest added value to the property, and that value was added by our culture. Why should a company, or even an individual have exclusive perpetual limitless rights to profit from the work WE have done making that property popular?
you made some good points but think about everyone with a video camera making there own version of a superman movie and releasing it now all of the sudden we get a gay, pedifile, animal loving anti government, racial, dictator as a hero, that could influence a kids life.
The laws were ajusted to help the owners of the original art from being ripped off and to also preserve the life and character of the art.
yes there are those that would stay true to the idea of the character but then there are others like alex roth that inject thier own ideas of what the character should be.
you made some good points but think about everyone with a video camera making there own version of a superman movie and releasing it now all of the sudden we get a gay, pedifile, animal loving anti government, racial, dictator as a hero, that could influence a kids life.
The laws were ajusted to help the owners of the original art from being ripped off and to also preserve the life and character of the art.
yes there are those that would stay true to the idea of the character but then there are others like alex roth that inject thier own ideas of what the character should be.
Ummm... copyright hasn't stopped ANY of the above from happening already! All it's done is cause the names to be changed. Gay superheros abound, Lucile Ball as Super Lady, and all the tight wearing heros who followed in his footsteps can all be claimed to have been based on Superman. I agree totally with Limited Copyrights as they were first intended. But seriously, corporate ownership of ideas is a VERY BAD THING!
with the name changed the identity is changed
and being based off is not the same as every tom and jerry being able to use the original for profit think about it without those laws some else could make money off of your creation without worrying about giving you anything even credit.
If anything copyright laws should be made stronger.
with the name changed the identity is changed and being based off is not the same as every tom and jerry being able to use the original for profit
Actually more damage has been done by the "vision" of corprate copyright holders than by all the distorted fan fiction ever made.
Seigel and Shuster are both dead. Who besides them should really be allowed to dictate the "life" of their character?
In a world where any one can create a story about Superman, the only people who have that control... is US! We control which lines of evolution "The" Superman takes through the stories we consume, and through the value we add to it as popularity. I trust our collective wisdom, tempered with our reverence for these characters over the guided and forced "wisdom" of those who have stolen "ownership" of them, and who whore them out for profit.
Some of the greatest modern stories of our heroes are in fact not part of their canon characters. Kingdom Come, Dark Knight Returns, The Ultimates.
So the world already can tolerate the divergent paths these characters can take.
Quote:
think about it. without those laws some else could make money off of your creation without worrying about giving you anything even credit. If anything copyright laws should be made stronger.
You're confusing the right to accreditation with the right to profit. The two are not one in the same. In fact in this age where almost all art is stolen from the artist under "work for higher", Copyright has become the sworn enemy of creativity.
The there is no free market for ideas be cause we have allowed our public domain to pirated from us. Instead we have a tyranny of Copyright, trademark and patent making sure access is limited to those with money to afford it.
While the tools of creation have been democratised, the natural right to create a derivative work (and all human knowledge IS a derivative work), has been confiscated for use only by those who can afford to pay for the right.
you can't copyright an idea because it is not tangible and yes many works of art are created under the guise of "work for higher" but you as the artist also have rights and the best way to protect those rights is the use of contracts.
If you or the employeer can not come to an agreement then don't create the work otherwise its your own fault for not protecting yourself.
...the best way to protect those rights is the use of contracts. If you or the employer can not come to an agreement then don't create the work otherwise its your own fault for not protecting yourself.
Nice dream, but the fact is that the Employer always has the advantage.
Contracts are meaningless unless you also have the money to pay for the lawyers needed to defend them. Even then... if your working for some one like Warner, or another Monster corporation, they have more and better lawyers than you can ever afford.
We're back to the same dilemma. Only the wealthy can afford to use a contract to defend their rights, and back it up. Which means only the wealthy can claim any ownership over the work they create.
At the lower end of the spectrum and given the global market, some will work cheaper, and will give up their rights because they want to do silly things like eat and live indoors.
The system as it stands make the artist a slave from the moment he decides to try and follow his creative impulse.
And the laws allowing this are in diametric opposition to the intent they were originally created for.
They END creativity instead of encourage it.
Last edited by Ratteler on Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:49 am; edited 1 time in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Profile
Search
Memberlist
Log in to check your private messages
Usergroups
FAQ & TOS
Log in
