I see the heirs of Jerry Siegel have succeeded in legally reclaiming a portion of his greatest brainchild, Superman. Also grabbable under the same legal principle are Robotman, The Star-Spangled Kid, Red, White & Blue and maybe some other stuff, but I don't think anyone's opposing them quite so hard on those.

And we're all glad of that, aren't we? After all, DC Comics having bought Superman, who made billions for them, for $130, is widely known as the cultural theft of the 20th century. The only thing wrong is that Jerry himself, who died in 1996, didn't personally get the benefit of the recovery, and that Joe Shuster, Supes's other co-creator, left no heirs.

Or are we? I hear rumbles that the acquisition of Superman was no theft, just an ordinary business deal. Nobody knew in 1938 that Superman, or any comic book character, would be worth any substantial amount of money; and Siegel & Shuster were in the business of selling writing and art for the going rates, which at the time were not entirely ungenerous. The modern-day Siegels may have taken advantage of a legal opportunity (created by changes in copyright laws) to reclaim the creation, but no moral rights because after all, a deal is a deal.

This argument hinges on a crucial question. What was the deal, really?

On the face of it, it appears clear and straightforward. Siegel and Shuster offered DC a 13-page story, the company bought it for Action Comics #1, and that was that. What followed was just a fortuitous set of circumstances, and had nothing to do with the deal itself.

But the following decade, when the creators sued DC to regain their lost property, their claims were somewhat more substantial than mere sour grapes. They claimed they'd never sold Superman lock, stock and barrel; and that all DC bought from them was a 13-page story. The publisher came from a predatory pulp magazine tradition, and simply glommed all rights because that's the way pulp magazine publishers used to behave. These practices had no basis in law, but stood because they'd never been seriously challenged.

An analogous situation was Dell Comics, which introduced a hitherto-unknown character named Pogo in 1941. They could easily have claimed all rights. But when creator Walt Kelly took Pogo elsewhere, just about the time Siegel and Shuster were suing DC, they didn't try to stop him. Dell came from a different publishing tradition, where rights to characters were licensed for a time, not simply appropriated forever, so Pogo went on to fame in newspaper syndication and a series of paperback originals, and Kelly was his financial beneficiary. Dell even licensed Pogo again, a few years later.

In fact, DC itself had made more congenial arrangements with others. Bob Kane shared in the profits of Batman; and to this day, the Marston family has a proprietary interest in Wonder Woman. But the company has always been very tight-fisted about Superman, the prize jewel in its crown.

In a legal proceeding such as the creators brought against DC, one would expect the question to be resolved by the actual documents by which the sale took place. But these, DC claimed, didn't turn up in their files. Their sworn testimony about what the missing documents had once said sounded implausible. Allegedly, they'd covered all possible future use of the character, and left absolutely no possibility that anyone else could ever challenge them for any reason. According to the testimony, they were far more all-encompassing than pulp publishers were accustomed to require for an untried concept, and far more ironclad than any contract DC had ever signed for any other series.

DC prevailed in court. This may because they made the better case or it may, as has been suggested, be because Siegel and Shuster were incompetently represented. The creators were left destitute — even the work they'd been doing on their creation, which paid a relative pittance, was taken away. Even their credit for having created Superman wasn't restored until the 1970s.

So — ordinary business deal? Or the cultural theft of the 20th century? Whatever, I think almost anybody will agree, it's a damned shame they were treated as they were.

But that's all in the past, and the heirs can now reap a substantial portion of the financial rewards due them. Too bad Jerry and Joe didn't live to see it.

— DDM