A small break in the podcasting action (Updated below)

Via CBR News and Newsarama comes the recent ruling on the Superman property and Jerry Siegel's estate. Obviously this is pending an appeal (and DC's already pretty lawyered up, of course) but this could have a huge impact on not just the comics industry, but the way we think about corporate characters.

It's pretty clear to anyone who cares to know, that Siegel and Joe Shuster were thoroughly ripped off by what would become DC Comics in the 1930s when they created one of the biggest cash cows in modern publishing. But what is most interesting is the way that companies like DC (and Disney) have successfully lobbied to extend copyright protections over the years. It once took 56 years for a property to enter public domain, since revised to 75 years with, strangely, another 20 tacked on for properties like Superman and Mickey Mouse. Nevertheless, DC's claim that Siegel and Shuster's original Superman was "work for hire" has failed a big court test, meaning their families (a bit more problematic with Joe Shuster's heirs, apparently, since he has no direct descendants--why should that matter?) regained at least part of the copyright as of 1999 (a provision in the law that extended the copyright from 56 to 75 years).

This could mean a ton of money is owed these people (anyone remember a recent 200 million dollar blockbuster featuring a soap opera actor in a red cape?)

More details are here in the Times, but I'm interested in this question of public domain. Superman should enter the public domain in 2033, although I'm sure we'll see all kinds of battles to extend this. This most recent decision seems to be a blow in the favor of creativity and against the lazy exploitation of publishers. See it from this angle--Supes, in 2033, could be the subject, legally, of any movie, comic, book, whatever, that anyone wants to publish. This means Marvel Comics (DC's biggest competitor) could publish its own Superman comic, whereas DC would have no legal right to Marvel's big cash cow, Spiderman, for almost 25 more years. Or will work for hire characters (like Spidey, I presume) ever enter public domain? Just because a corporation owns a character shouldn't mean it can own it in perpetuity, right?

And it isn't just Superman--Batman and Wonder Woman are also pretty long in tooth (as are Marvel's Captain America and Sub-Mariner). I'll be getting pretty old by then (60!) but shouldn't we be able to see some of these characters enter the public domain? Just because the Disney company never dies, why should the character of Mickey Mouse remain an inviolate entity? This seems to miss out on the spirit of public domain which would make old films (like Snow White, for example) available free on the internet or for republication. Do scholars have a more difficult time with access if Disney and DC attempt to hang onto these old properties in perpetuity? When Disney wants to keep Song of the South away from the public, shouldn't there come a time when anyone can rebroadcast or publish that film as a historical document (like Huckleberry Finn)?

The next couple of decades will be interesting--the 1930s and 1940s saw the creation of a lot of classic properties that persist (don't forget Bugs Bunny, folks!)--and public domain can't be held off forever--can it?

Update: A nice legal FAQ is here. Mark Evanier has a post about the Times getting Joe Shuster's name wrong! (They've since corrected it...).

And Jenny's favorite (or at least, the oft-mentioned) comic writer, Neil Gaiman weighs in...