Right before the Man of Steel celebrates its 70th birthday, a federal court judge has ruled (.pdf) that the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerome Siegel could claim an ownership share of the character’s domestic copyright. The ruling vests in Siegel’s heirs ownership in the first Superman comic, Detective Comics’ Action Comics No. 1.

Wikipedia has informative biographies for Siegel and his partner, Joseph Shuster, while William Patry (whose work the opinion cites 14 times) provides additional analysis and insight. The case centered on whether Siegel’s estate successfully had terminated the copyright pursuant to Section 304(c).

Siegel and Shuster sold the rights to the comic 70 years ago for $130 (or $14814.32 in today’s money). In comparison, Warner Bros. collected more than $200 million in domestic box office for the 2006 film Superman Returns. This total excludes ancillary (and lucrative) licensing income from all manner of tchotchkes from T-shirts to lunch boxes.

What immediately struck us was the diligence of Siegel’s estate in pursuing this issue. We compare this to the untidy, legally chaotic, and “deplorable” condition of the James Brown estate, which owes $400,000 in taxes and needs to sell memorabilia to preserve its assets.

Michael Cieply. Ruling Gives Heirs a Share of Superman Copyright. The New York Times. March 29, 2008.

See also:
Joy Howe. James Brown’s Estate To Be Sold. WJBF-TV (Augusta, Ga.) Feb. 29, 2008.

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Eric Bangeman. Debating Copyright Reform: Time for Compulsory Licenses? ArsTechnica. Jan. 21, 2008. Ars reports on a copyright panel convened at the Consumer Electronics Show entitled Washington, Intellectual Property and Your Living Room, which was moderated by Ars editor Kenneth Fisher. The panel seemed fairly balanced, which is unusual for these panels, and everyone allegedly agreed some sort of copyright reform was necessary.

Surprisingly, though, compulsory licensing was discussed, and at least one panelist positioned compulsory licenses as a way of providing compensation in light of the fact that copyright owners no longer can control their works. There are two basic elements to the compulsory license issue. On one hand, a compulsory license would force media companies to license their works at an established, set rate. (For example, royalties for cover songs are paid according to a rate set in a compulsory license.) Additionally, it would eliminate the often licensing negotiations, many of which can be ridiculous and random. (The music industry, in particular, suffers this problem when it comes to digital sampling.)

On the other hand, U.S. Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters is on record as opposing compulsory licenses because it hurts “creators.” As we mentioned last week, though, one must be careful with the label “creators”: are we talking about individuals, or multinational corporations that own and control the copyright monopoly? We’re unsure what Peters means when she refers to “creators.”

Nevertheless, this is the first time we recall hearing someone — anyone — talk seriously about compulsory licensing as an option worth investigating. Also, it is the one of the first times we can recall any person who deals with copyright for a living bluntly proclaim that control of protected works no longer is possible or realistic.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 29, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings, where it was an Article of the Week selection.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Steven Stanek. Can Egypt Copyright the Pyramids? National Geographic News. Jan. 15, 2008. We are sympathetic to Egypt’s attempt to preserve some of its greatest artifacts, especially since so many of them have left the country (in many cases under questionable circumstances). Still, the thought of this proposal brings chills to our collective spines.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 22, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

If there’s any single writer that can make copyright humorous, it is William Patry. When describing the push to equate copyright (a relatively minor issue in the broader scheme of world affairs) with human rights (an extraordinarily important issue), Patry comments with typical sarcasm: “I confess to being moved to tears by European human rights attorneys taking up the cause of very large U.S. broadcasting corporations: Donald Rumsfeld was so wrong.”

Seriously, though, the injection of copyright into international affairs has been steady and dangerous since the trend results only in more rights for multinational corporations. Talk about “authors” and “creators” has little to do with individuals who create original works fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Those words merely are code designed to make readers think Grandma needs more rights to protect her cross-stitch designs. In reality, “Grandma” is a global commercial behemoth with business presences on all continents that is hell bent on leveraging copyright and other intellectual property schemes to foster dollar-driven hegemony.

(Well, perhaps not the dollar these days. Substitute the Euro.)

In fact, one could argue reasonably that here in the U.S., the effort to move copyright past what Patry calls its “current Incredible Hulk level” is occurring at least as much on the international and local levels as it is in Congress. We have reported several of the entertainment and content industries’ lobbying efforts have resulted in a sort of “paracopyright” at the state level. (California’s passage of AB 307, which ties school funding to a copyright “education” program influenced by the RIAA, is one example.)

And, of course, we have chronicled at several junctures the Special 301 process under the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The Federal Register notice that effectively asks multinational corporations and their trade groups to tell the Trade Representative which countries have failed to draft (or enforce) copyright law at America’s “Incredible Hulk level” was published last week. It is due on Monday, February 11. The copyright choke hold is in full effect and running on all eight cylinders.

The Patry Copyright Blog. Appeals to Human Rights: The Next Battlefield? Jan. 17, 2008.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 22. 2008 edition of Copycense Clippings, and it was an Article of the Week selection.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

“Clearly, content creators deserve to be sufficiently rewarded for their work to make their endeavour worthwhile. At the same time, consumers have the right to enjoy the full capabilities of the equipment they’ve purchased, free from restrictions on what they can record and the use they make of content once it has been legitimately obtained. A revised copyright law must strive to find a balance between the rights of creators and ‘fair use’ by consumers.” — Vancouver Sun editorial board.

Vancouver Sun. Reformed Copyright Laws Shouldn’t Suppress Creativity. Jan. 16, 2008. Since there is no byline on this story from a major Canadian newspaper, we presume this is an editorial. If so, the tone is remarkably (and refreshingly) strident for a mainstream news outlet.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 22, 2008 edition of Copycense Clippings, and it was a Quote of the Week selection.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Nate Anderson. UK Wants to Make CD Rips Legal (At Last). ArsTechnica. Jan. 8, 2008. The proposal (.pdf) of Lord Triesman, Minister for Intellectual Property, could reform copyright law to allow an explicit right that allows consumers who legally buy compact discs to transfer to other media. As we have come to expect, William Patry provides a cogent analysis.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 15, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Monica Hesse. Hey, Isn’t That . . . WashingtonPost.com. Jan. 9, 2008. Just a few months after the the Alison Chang/Flickr photo contretemps threatened Creative Commons with legal action (which later was rescinded), the Fox network is outed for broadcasting pet photos that belong to someone else without the photo owners’ permission. Most will suggest turnabout is fair play, but we’re more concerned with the vehemence with which the photo owner exclaims “It’s my photo!” This is a rhetorical question, but we’ll ask away: how is it that words like “mine,” “ownership,” and “control” have become so pervasive in an environment that allows unprecedented access to creative work?

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 15, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense