This is sad honestly. I just hope that this doesn't happen to the Stan Lee estate when he passes. Just isn't right.

Don't worry, you can bet Stan has safeguarded his creations much more than the Siegels ever thought would be necessary, and he's no doubt been following this [Superman rights] case for years.

I really don't care who gets the money a corpse earned. I just hope the character doesn't get tied up in legal problems that keep more of him from being made.

RE: "Don't worry, you can bet Stan has safeguarded his creations much more than the Siegels ever thought would be necessary, and he's no doubt been following this [Superman rights] case for years"

---- He can follow the Seigel case all he wants, but Stan Lee doesnt 'own' squat. The characters he created are entirely owned by the company.

The Seigel/Shuster case hinged upon the pittance that they were initially paid for Superman as CONTRIBUTORS, not as employees of the company--such as Stan Lee was with Timely/Marvel.

Spider-man, The Hulk, FF, Thor,...Stan owns none of them.

My fear beyond the obvious possibility of a legal tie up that ends future broadcast and film endeavors for the character is the possibility that the fractional rights will lead to bastardized reinterpretations of the character. It could damage the Superman franchise beyond repair.

Frankly the whole thing is childish and the continued turmoil will do nothing to help DC/Warner catch up to the Marvel dominance on film.

This makes me feel like I did when the baseball players went on strike in 1994.

You guys worried about Stan Lee? Forget it. He's pretty much forever out of Marvel, and owns none of his creations. Why do you think he hangs around like a bad odor with Striperella and Who Wants to be a Superhero?

Be nice to Stan Lee. If Stan didn't create all those superheroes, you wouldn't have something to whine about

I appreciate Stan Lee tremendously... He not only created ( or co-created) many of the best characters in comics, he also pioneered a level of storytelling that had never been seen in the medium before.
But he did not do it alone, nor does he retain Rights to those creations.

Perhaps Stan-The-Man`s greatest creation in the comics world was HIMSELF....His rapport with the readers by way of his 'Soapbox' and his personable manner added quite a bit to early Marvel.
His style may seem hokey today, but for myself, I enjoyed Stan`s friendly 'presence' when I was reading comics as a kid.

I can just see it now. Superman gets blasted into the past by a vengeful Darkseid, ends up on Krypton witnessing his own parents, when someone taps him on the shoulder, "Hello, I'm Mr. Zod, of Zod, Zod, & Associates, and I'm using my legal powers against you. BWAH HAH HAH HAH!"

They need to do with superman what Nolan did with Batman.. Starting with perhaps. "Superman: Fall of Krypton"

Seriously, not sure I understand the whole let the family of the deceased creator own all this sh#$%. If it were me, wanting credit and profit from my own ideas, fine, but my grandchildren? Really? They can by they're own new fleet of Porsches. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Address for hate-mail?

there goes superman maybe they should have kill superman instead of batman

If it weren't for Stan Lee, we'd still be reading Tales to Astonish, Journey into Mystery, Tales of Suspense, Strange Tales, Astonishing Tales, and all the other anthology comics by Kirby and Ayers...

God, I miss those days...Fin Fang Foom, Brutto, Goom, Korilla...good times...I miss being ten years old...

These comments have got to be the most surprising reaction to copyrights being successfully defended in light of how they came to be.

Since the early 1900s corporations like Disney have been lobbying to extend the limited lengths of their copyrights through tactics like wringing their hands and shedding crocodile tears over the poor widows and orphans of authors.

Walt Disney has been dead since the 1960s and yet most just accept that his "heir", his corporation, should be able to generate huge profits from Mickey Mouse in perpetuity?

But let the actual widow and orphan of an author prevails THEN the whining begins?:

http://www.examiner.com/x-15744-San-Antonio-Comic-Books-Examiner~y2009m8d15-Who-owns-Superman

This lawsuit's outcome is just the corporate copyright chickens coming home to roost.

This is pathetic to see court time being taken up over each and every little thing. How about they have it all in one ruling, Either the family gets it all, DC gets it all, or the family gets a percentage of any profits made now and in the future. Problem solved.

Stan Lee created nothing! Those characters were all created by Jack Kirby. Lee claims credit for them because it remains lucrative for him to do so. The Kirby estate needs to hire Toberoff and Associates to claims its proper ownership of the major parts of the Marvel characters that to which it is entitled. It's infuriating that people believe these things properly belong to Lee, who falsely claims credit, over the evil Marvelcorp, which Lee faithfully serves.

I find it incredible that in commenting on this story, someone would mention poor ol' Stan Lee, hoping that he won't get 'cheated out of his due', or words to that effect. Really? Stan Lee IS a cheat all within himself - much of Marvel's '60's era success is the work of Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby, Wally Wood,and others. Don't believe that? Well, look at what Stan created after Jack Kirby left Marvel in the '70's for life at DC. Anything memorable come to mind? For him to sue Marvel is arrogance on arrogance. Oh, I hope he wins. And then he can go choke on it.

I really can't believe people would side with DC on this. DC screwed these guys out of their rights to Superman, and finally, decades later they are punished for it, and people defend them?

It's funny to see corporate greed having fanboys cheering for it.

The courts did the right thing, regardless of whether Superman is completely ruined and turned into a porn star or not. DC comics shouldn't be allowed to continue profittingt from theft.

No one other than DC comics is to blame for this.

Copyright belongs to the creators NOT the "descendants thereof".

I'd be pissed off if any of MY family tried to cash in on stuff I've written which they've never bothered reading or coming to see with my plays! And my kids have no rights to my intellectual property If I sell it, that's MY affair not theirs.

This whole "Superman" business isn't so much about Siegel & Shuster's families as it is about the greedy LAWYERS trying to screw an American Icon.

The families should have been bought off years ago with arouid $10mill. That would've shut them up ... unless the lawyers in question are also family members.

Joe and Jerry must be spinning in their graves!

@Johnni,

Your lack of knowledge of the facts of this lawsuit is appalling.

This was not some "new" lawsuit brought on by the heirs or greedy lawyers, but the continuation of legal actions initiated by the very much alive creators.

Shuster had no heirs so the law did not allow his estate to proceed after his death. The Siegels are merely the sole survivors benefiting from their husband/father's legal actions started eons ago.