tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611875170009784219.post5295094696462160566..comments2024-03-15T12:42:11.939-04:00Comments on Noblemania: Fighting for SupermanMarc Tyler Noblemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732005290440645718noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611875170009784219.post-29029376280080283392008-04-09T09:18:00.000-04:002008-04-09T09:18:00.000-04:00I agree that this was an even-handed overview of a...I agree that this was an even-handed overview of a very complex and situation. We do tend to view past events with a modern eye. Jerry and Joe were young, and made mistakes, and DC was a corporate entity looking to protect its assets. Too bad it required this many years and this much litigation to shake out in an (hopefully) equitable fashion.<BR/><BR/>Still, one can only wonder what this ruling does for Steve Ditko, the heirs of Jack Kirby, and other comicbook creators who developed now-popular characters under “work for hire” contractsrjsodarohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11181090208560922729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611875170009784219.post-29022240762488603562008-04-04T11:08:00.000-04:002008-04-04T11:08:00.000-04:00Thanks for the most concise and even-handed summat...Thanks for the most concise and even-handed summation of this whole mess. I get tired of seeing the ruling classified as some giant victory for All Mankind against Unrepentant Corporate Evil...and it's good to see someone honestly acknowledge the positives and negatives of both sides.<BR/><BR/>I'll second the book by Gerard Jones ("Men of Tomorrow"), since it provides more unvarnished views of Siegel and Shuster's role in their undoing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611875170009784219.post-20485944142545915612008-04-04T10:49:00.000-04:002008-04-04T10:49:00.000-04:00This is an excellent synopsis -- there were two si...This is an excellent synopsis -- there were two sides to this story, for sure. And I still don't completely understand it, but what's helping me now is that Action #1 is theirs now since it was already done and wasn't work for hire. Right? No?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I do agree with you Primus and used to agree with you a lot more, but no matter how many raises they got, National was making MILLIONS off Superman as early as the forties. To see them squabble over $10/page raises in that context gives us a moral word rather than a legal one: BAD. <BR/><BR/>If some crazy conspiracy theorist had proof that Leibowitz found a way for Jerry to get drafted, I swear I would half-believe it.<BR/><BR/>-BradAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611875170009784219.post-74121072814079435292008-04-03T12:07:00.000-04:002008-04-03T12:07:00.000-04:00Actually, it isn't fair to say, as in the previous...Actually, it isn't fair to say, as in the previous comment, that Siegel and Shuster were "unproven young men." In spite of their frustrations at not being able to sell SUPERMAN for years, they had, in fact, been consistently and successfully selling not one but several series including SPY and SLAM BRADLEY to National and at least one other publisher for a year prior to ACTION # 1.Bookstevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09797445163866512849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611875170009784219.post-3182047732871106862008-03-31T14:40:00.000-04:002008-03-31T14:40:00.000-04:00I think one of the things Siefel and Shuster did w...I think one of the things Siefel and Shuster did wrong (raised by Les Daniel and I think Gerard Jones) was they had terrible legal advice. More than one person said Jerry in particular was unduly influenced and made discontented by their counsel. (In fact I think it's Jones who quotes someone who implies that the fix was in with their counsel). <BR/><BR/>I've said this before a couple of times on Comics Should Be Good, but here's my take on Siegel and Shuster: my sense is that Jerry Siegel was his own worst enemy. If Jerry had been less aggrieved and less litigious, they could have been like Bob Kane: they had their own studio of artists where they farmed out Superman work (and as a subcontractor could make a tidy profit) and they could have kept that going and made a nice bundle from that and traded on the fame of being creators of Superman. Bob Kane pretty much did exactly that (even if Kane didn't solely create Batman!) though Kane got a better initial deal from DC. <BR/><BR/>That said, I pretty much agree with your assessment of what DC did wrong.Graemehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14874622261770189776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611875170009784219.post-79147141390788498012008-03-30T16:02:00.000-04:002008-03-30T16:02:00.000-04:00The one thing about Jerry and Joe selling the righ...The one thing about Jerry and Joe selling the rights that a lot of people forget is that no one knew that the Superhero industry would take off like it did. National took the risk of buying a story from unproven young men for an unproven character in an unproven field. <BR/>Now, if Superman would have flopped, National (DC) would have had to eat the cost. They made an investment, no different than if you or I decided to buy stocks.<BR/>DC paid them well for the time, and in later years gave them a yearly salary (for no work) that was more than a lot of people make NOW.<BR/>I have no problem with creators being given respect, but it seems that people tend to look at things through todays eyes instead of looking at the way the world was during the time period it occured in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com