DC has cited its changes and additions to the Super-verse as grounds for reducing the Siegel heirs’s share of Superman material produced since 1999. A recent Variety article takes this even further, reporting thatNeil Gaiman’s success in winning co-ownership of Medieval Spawn provides legal precedent for giving DC complete ownership of the contemporary Superman, limiting the Siegels’ interest to the far less lucrative 1938 version of the character.
Does DC have strong legal grounds for splitting Superman between The Man of Tomorrow and The Man of Yesterday? Click below to see if Gaiman v. McFarlane is legal kryptonite for creators’ rights–or whether that’s just another misconceived retcon.
It would indeed be ironic if Neil Gaiman–who likened the Siegels’ landmark 2008 courtroom victory to his own–were to provide the basis for gutting the heirs’ financial stake in modern Superman material. But that’s not likely to happen. In fact, DC has a strong incentive not to rely on Gaiman as precedent for splitting Superman in two–namely, its arguments in the Superboy case.
Friday, 1 July 2011
Thursday, 30 June 2011
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Monday, 27 June 2011
|Click image for larger|
left column, top to bottom: Deadman, The Atom, Doctor Light?*, Firestorm
right column, top to bottom: Green Arrow, Hawkman, Black Canary, Mera
core team, left to right: Aquaman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Superman, Batman, The Flash, Cyborg
*This female character is not certain. I suspect that it is Doctor Light, but it could be a resurrected Big barda or an original character. Zatanna appears in Justice League Dark, sporting a different look.
Any other ideas?