Copyright Law Under Siege

"As an artist, you have to read this article or you could lose everything you've ever created!

An Orphaned Work is any creative work of art where the artist or copyright owner has released their copyright, whether on purpose, by passage of time, or by lack of proper registration. In the same way that an orphaned child loses the protection of his or her parents, your creative work can become an orphan for others to use without your permission.

Currently, you don't have to register your artwork to own the copyright. You own a copyright as soon as you create something. International law also supports this. Right now, registration allows you to sue for damages, in addition to fair value.

What makes me so MAD about this new legislation is that it legalizes THEFT! The only people who benefit from this are those who want to make use of our creative works without paying for them and large companies who will run the new private copyright registries.

These registries are companies that you would be forced to pay in order to register every single image, photo, sketch or creative work.

It is currently against international law to coerce people to register their work for copyright because there are so many inherent problems with it. But because big business can push through laws in the United States, our country is about to break with the rest of the world, again, and take your rights away.

With the tens of millions of photos and pieces of artwork created each year, the bounty for forcing everyone to pay a registration fee would be enormous. We lose our rights and our creations, and someone else makes money at our expense.

This includes every sketch, painting, photo, sculpture, drawing, video, song and every other type of creative endeavor. All of it is at risk!"

To find out more, read the rest of Mark Simon's AWN article here.

Illustration by Jon Hofferman.

UPDATE: It's worth double-checking, but I've heard that this is old news - that the bill has been voted down already. Can anyone confirm that?

My First Infringement (So Far As I Know)

I got an email today from Josh Moshier, who discovered the above ad for BookRenter.com on Facebook. I've spammed BookRenter with several "cease and desist" emails, and I've filled out an infringement form with Facebook as well! We'll see if I get any response.

UPDATE (1/26): I got a response from Facebook - they want a screen grab of the infringing image, and the URL that the ad links to. I've sent the picture of the ad in my response (thanks again, Josh!), but I don't have the URL. If anyone sees this ad on Facebook again, could you please click on it and send me the page address that it links to? I'd really appreciate it.

UPDATE (1/29): Josh found the URL for the ad (thanks yet again!), so I've sent that along to Facebook. They'd also like to get a screen grab of the entire page where the ad appears, so if anyone out there sees it, please get an image of the whole thing - a screen capture, a digital photo, whatever - and send it along to me. Thanks, everybody!

UPDATE (2/4): Facebook contacted me again to let me know that they can't find any evidence of the ad, so they believe it to be pulled. BookRenter has also written to notify me that the ad has been pulled from their end, so I really think it's gone at this point. Thanks again to everyone for their support!

2004 Article: One Of The Worst Business Deals Ever

SEQUART.COM: Superman's Copyright: The Never-Ending Battle?
Sequential Culture #30 by Julian Darius
10 Aug 2004 at 12:00 EST (updated 11 Mar 2005 at 20:08 EST)

Siegel, Shuster, and their heirs have been trying periodically to regain the rights to Superman since 1947.

With the current focus on the rights to Superman, it is worth taking a moment to discuss the history of the Superman copyright. Just as Superman the character led the way for modern comic book hero, Superman's copyright has been long in dispute and has led the way for other such legal battles. In point of fact, Siegel, Shuster, and their heirs have been trying periodically to regain the rights to Superman since 1947.

Siegel and Shuster

In 1938, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster signed away all rights to Superman, which they had created together as teenagers, to National Periodicals (later DC) for a purported $130. Because Siegel and Shuster had created the character independently, their work did not qualify as work-for-hire; rather, they sold the copyright outright. The character quickly became wildly successful, receiving a radio drama and movie serial. In 1947, with the duo receiving less work from DC, Siegel and Shuster sued the company to regain the rights to their most famous creation.

The judge sided with DC, but he strangely assigned the rights to Superboy, then only recently introduced in More Fun Comics, to Siegel and Shuster -- on the grounds that Superboy was a separate character. The duo reportedly sold Superboy back to DC for $100,000, but DC removed the creators' credits from their characters. Time passed, and in 1966 Siegel again tried to regain the rights to Superman -- and again failed. Again time passed, and both Siegel and Shuster reportedly became destitute.

It all started to change in 1975, when Siegel issued a press release vehemently attacking DC and Jack Liebowitz, the DC employee to whom the two teenagers brought their Superman, and outlining the pair's mistreatment at their hands. DC was gearing up for the much-celebrated 1978 Superman movie and certainly didn't want this kind of scandal surrounding the character. Legendary comics artist Neal Adams led a campaign to help Siegel and Shuster, and DC not only restored the creators' credits for Superman but put the two on a pension.

It was the attention given at this time to the plight of Siegel and Shuster that created the mythic status of their story in the then-fledgling American comics community. The story was no longer the corporate version, but one in which two teenagers created one of the most powerful fictional icons in the world. Except that they sold the rights to the evil corporation in order to see publication. Cue montage of years of destitution and depression. This myth, inscribed deeply in the American comics community (not to mention being an example in every law school class on copyright law), influenced Michael Chabon's Pulitzer Prize-winning The Adventures of Cavalier and Clay. It is equally seen in Rich Veitch's neglected classic The Maximortal.
Joe Shuster died in 1992. Jerry Siegel died in 1996.

Joe Shuster died in 1992. Jerry Siegel died in 1996. For what it's worth, both received tributes in DC publications at the time.

Revoking the Copyright, Part One

In 1998, Joanne Siegel (Jerome's widow) and Laura Siegel Larson (his daughter) filed the papers necessary to terminate Jerome's assignment of copyright to DC. As copyright law had extended the length of copyrights, it had also provided a means for creators to terminate their transfer of copyright -- a means of not forcing people who signed under state-of-the-law X to abide by state-of-the-law Y. Thus, 56 years after the transfer of copyright, creators have a five-year window of time to file for that transfer's termination. This allows the present copyright holders all they could have received under the old law, while still allowing the original holders to prevent their transferred copyright from being extended without compensation. The Siegels' revocation, were it to be legally upheld, would have taken effect sometime in 1999 -- and would have applied to 50% of the rights to the character.

The story took on a life of its own as people began sorting out the complex issues involved. It soon became clear that Shuster had left no children and had no heirs to file similar papers, leaving DC indisputably with Shuster's half. DC had also trademarked many aspects of Superman's appearance, and these would not transfer back with the copyright.

The story also lead to widespread speculation, particularly on the internet. Many pondered the result of splitting the rights 50 / 50: would that leave both co-owners to freely produce Superman material, or would both have to agree on any Superman material? Some wondered whether the Siegels would set up a rival company to produce alternate stories starring Superman. DC's revisions to Superman over the years led some to wonder whether the Siegels should really have a hand in guiding the present Superman. Most felt, ultimately, that the move was really a negotiating tactic with AOL / Time-Warner, owner of DC Comics, in a bid for more money. Indeed, negotiations between the Siegels and AOL / Time-Warner have reportedly been ongoing ever since.
It was a frenzy: some websites actually maintained lists of characters, showing their creation date, window to file, and who might be eligible to file.

The Siegels got the ball rolling. For a time, there was a great deal of press coverage of creators' rights being rescinded. The legal windows to rescind transfer of copyright for Golden Age characters were opening and closing -- with each one, it seemed, getting coverage. It was a frenzy: some websites actually maintained lists of characters, showing their creation date, window to file, and who might be eligible to file. Legal papers were filed for several such characters, each time receiving press coverage. But it all died down, more in a whimper than with a bang.

Revoking the Copyright, Part Two

What we are now experiencing, in terms of comics press suddenly covering the Superman copyright dispute, comes equally out of the blue. Among others, Heidi Macdonald's "The Beat" -- a blog on comiccon.com -- was instrumental in promoting the story this time around.

With Shuster's half also gone, DC would be left with not 50% but exactly 0%.

The reason for this new flurry of press coverage is not news in that case but rather a couple other filings. In November 2002, the Siegels filed separate paperwork to terminate the transfer of Superboy's copyright, effective November 2004. Although Shuster left no children, he nonetheless left an executor: Mark Peary, son of Shuster's sister, who has filed paperwork to terminate the assignment of Shuster's portion of Superman's copyright, effective October 2013. The date corresponds to another window, caused by another legal extension of the duration of copyright, in which creators may revoke copyright transfers -- this one beginning after 75 years. With Shuster's half also gone, DC would be left with not 50% but exactly 0%.

It doesn't help that this time, not unlike the late 1970s, there's a high-profile Superman movie in the works that no one wants to see scuttled.

This time around, the separate issue of Superboy's copyright, stemming from its legal separation in 1947 from Superman's copyright, has led to the most speculation. Many have pointed out that Smallville, the successful TV show on the WB network, is based more on Superboy than Superman. DC's shifting continuity, as always, complicates matters: the present Superboy isn't Superman as a boy at all, but rather a new character whose relationship to the old could be disputed.

If DC were to lose completely the copyright to Superman, as it may well in 2013, the company would lose all aspects created by Siegel and Schuster but not trademarked aspects or derivative characters created later -- with Superboy being a special and separate case. Clark Kent and Lois Lane may well disappear from the DC Universe, but DC might retain Superman and / or Metropolis in some version.
This time around, Superboy's copyright has led to the most speculation.

This time around, the separate issue of Superboy's copyright, stemming from its legal separation in 1947 from Superman's copyright, has led to the most speculation. Many have pointed out that Smallville, the successful TV show on the WB network, is based more on Superboy than Superman. DC's shifting continuity, as always, complicates matters: the present Superboy isn't Superman as a boy at all, but rather a new character whose relationship to the old could be disputed.

If DC were to lose completely the copyright to Superman, as it may well in 2013, the company would lose all aspects created by Siegel and Schuster but not trademarked aspects or derivative characters created later -- with Superboy being a special and separate case. Clark Kent and Lois Lane may well disappear from the DC Universe, but DC might retain Superman and / or Metropolis in some version.