Superman and You: Rights and Creators

One of the bigger stories in the entertainment industry was that Jerry Siegel’s heirs just won a decision awarding them half the copyright to his story in Action Comics #1, the first appearance of Superman.  So, what does this mean to a modern freelancer you ask?  Hold on and I’ll explain.

The key to this decision comes from the Copyright extension passed in 1976.  In simplest terms it says that because the maximum extent of copyright for a given work had just been increased quite substantially from the previous  maximum of fifty-six years, creators who had sold all rights at that time had actually given up more potential revenue than they had agreed to at the time.  So what they did was create a window where creators, or their heirs, could apply to have previously sold copyrights revert to them at the expiry of the previous copyright period.  Part of the reasoning was that fifty-six years was all the original purchasers had bargained for anyway.

So, how does this apply to us?

In most cases, it doesn’t.  Very few of us are likely to be in a position to have sold rights to something more than thirty-two years ago.

However, while the specific circumstances may not apply to us now, rights issues are something that we as creators all have to deal with.

For example, I wrote a novel this past winter that would classify as work made for hire.  I worked from an outline and plot provided to me and signed away any rights I might have wished to claim to the characters.  I had no desire to make any such claims.  None of the characters were of my creation, and it’s not in a genre I normally write anyway.

The issue that comes up, however, is what about the future?  The Siegels were able to win their case because copyright law had changed in such a way that they were entitled to get those rights back despite having clearly sold them.  The new law didn’t invalidate the sale:  DC comics still bought the rights and maintained ownership for more than fifty-six years, it simply changed the terms of that agreement.

That’s something that could happen to you.  It could happen to any of us.  We live in an era where intellectual property (IP) rights are in a state of flux.   On the one hand we have companies working to maintain ownership of revenue-generating properties in perpetuity, and on the other hand we have individuals working to spread data whether copyrighted or not as widely as possible.

It’s all changing and it’s changing quickly.   The only way to keep on top of it is to follow copyright law, particularly US copyright law.  This is our bread and butter (or low-fat soy-based substitute depending on one’s diet) and we need to be aware of what’s happening.

Most of what we’re doing on oDesk and other sites is work made for hire.  This applies to writers and coders alike. In many cases this is expressly spelled out in the user agreements.  Sometimes we sign non-disclosure agreements to reinforce this.

I’m not trying to convince you one way or the other right now.  I just want to remind you to make sure to pay attention to rights issues and know where you stand, and where you may stand if the law changes.

 
You might also enjoy...
 
Discussion

What do you think? Leave a comment. Alternatively, write a post on your own weblog; this blog accepts trackbacks.

Comments
1.
On April 5th, 2008 at 4:20 pm, Nelson Manning said:

Another note is to be very careful when signing NDA/NCAs. Some people are just looking to get you under a piece of paper for a lawsuit, so be sure you read the entire agreement and all documents a couple times. Despite what they say, it’s NEVER a “standard paper.” Never sign a document that looks like it can get you into hot water. If it looks fishy, it’s not worth the risk. Also, always keep in mind that you can change the terms to fit your needs and send it back to them. If they don’t like your changes and refuse to work with you, you can always tell them to roll the paper up into a nice tight roll, bend over, and ….

Great post, D-Dawg.
Respect.

Leave a Reply