And now for something completely different

[rivkat]

Choice phrases from the opinion I've been reading -- and FYI, these are legal arguments on which millions of dollars turn:

“‘Superboy’ is merely ‘Superman’ in smaller tights.”

“I cannot accept defendants view that Superboy was in reality Superman.... Superboy was a separate and distinct entity.”

Siegel v. Time Warner Inc., 2007 WL 2172822 (C.D.Cal.)

I love my job.

Comments

[giandujakiss.livejournal.com]

Well ... pre or post Crisis? Duh.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Pre, because the issue is whether a separate new character was created in 1945, when he first appeared, or whether he was a derivative work of Superman.

I would kind of love to be working on this case and get to call DC for all the early Action Comics.

[giandujakiss.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but, you understood the point of my question, right? The character itself has significantly transformed; he once was a younger Superman but I'm reasonably certain that changed at some point ... I think it changed during the Crisis but maybe it happened at a different time.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Oh, absolutely. The current Superboy is not the Superboy in litigation, who was a young Clark Kent from SV, so the litigation doesn't affect Kon-El.

Nonetheless, if plaintiffs do win, there will be a nightmare valuation question; for one thing, the producers stated a bunch of times that SV-Clark was not Superboy, and that's been borne out by some of the developments.