PopSyndicate.com

Every legal case with Superman brings up more insight into how comics work and how they are viewed. This latest decision revealed something about the business of comics and movies, and well other products.

When Warner Bros (WB) paid DC for the use of Superman in their movies the Siegels went to court claiming they were owed more money. The Siegels felt that because DC was a subsidiary of WB, that WB paid a very low amount for the use of Superman. They lost this case but something interesting was brought to light. The Siegles claimed that Superman was just like a novel or musical and because of that the financial deal between WB and DC was in their opinion very low. Due to the way comics are licensed for movies the court did not share the Siegel’s view. A novel or musical can be considered a defacto script even before the first frame is shot, while a licensed character isn’t tied to a specific comic story or issue. The story of Superman was not licensed, the character was, and in comics there’s a difference.

We all probably know the story of Superman. He’s the last survivor of planet Krypton and has amazing powers, etc. That’s the story told in the comics. If we watch the first Superman movie we see that they stuck pretty close to that story. But if we look closely at the movie we notice Superman having powers that were not shown in the comics, i.e. making the earth spin backwards to reverse time. That’s not in any Superman comic story that I’ve read, but I doubt that’s really one of his powers, reversing time.

When WB agreed to make a Superman movie they paid DC for the license to use the character. That means that the character in the film would share the majority of the characteristics of the comic book character. I don’t know all the details about licensing but I imagine it would involve the costume, the name, some of the powers and other characteristics that would convince a person not familiar with the comic book character that the movie version is the same character in the comic book.

Superman isn’t the only comic book character licensed. Take a look at Batman, Spider-man; they’ve all be licensed and their movies are close to the story in the comics, but they don’t match perfectly. Many fans would believe this is a horrible thing, but what it does is add some flexibility into the character. For instance, in the movie Spider-man had organic web shooters versus the mechanical one’s he’s always had in the comics. Which goes to show that Spider-man character was licensed not the story in Amazing Fantasy. Licensing has had its up and downs in regards to movies but that’s not the end of it. Licensing has allowed characters to appear on jackets, backpacks, and lunch boxes. It’s a good things for fans of the character, but in this case it was bad for the Siegels.