Talk:Copyright lawsuits by Superman's creators

Work-for-hire

I'm leaving it and not contesting it, but only a freelancer can do work-for-hire. If you're an employee, you're not doing work-for-hire. And if you're not an employee, you are freelance, no matter how regular the work is. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: The very first line of Wikipedia's article on work for hire read "A work made for hire (sometimes abbreviated as work for hire or WFH) is a work created by an employee as part of his or her job". BaronBifford (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@BaronBifford: I'll take a look at that, but that's incorrect and Wikipedia is not always the best source of legal interpretation and analysis. When I freelanced for Marvel Comics years ago, the required company invoices I put it had language stating that my freelance work was work made for hire. If you're an employee of the company, you don't have to specify that what you do is owned by the company. In any event, I said I'm nothing bothering to contest it.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Good. I've studied all their contracts and the court proceedings and am quite certain I am correct. BaronBifford (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. Perhaps I was really a Marvel Comics employee all along, in which case it owes me vacation time. But unless one is an IP attorney, we are laymen and not legal experts. Hence my point that "Wikipedia is not always the best source of legal interpretation and analysis." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Oh boy

From Title 17, Section 101:

A “work made for hire” is—

(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment;

or

First, anyone employed is an employee in the strict legal sense. That doesn'tA freelancer is employed by a company, but that doesn't mean they're on staff. You're saying Siegel and Shuster were on staff at DC? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: https://www.scribd.com/doc/298927841/December-4-1937-Employment-Contract BaronBifford (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@BaronBifford: You're proving my point that because you're not an IP attorney, you're a layman interpreting contracts. That link is to a Dec. 1937 contract between Detective Comics Inc. and Siegel & Shuster to produce "Slam Bradley" and "The Spy" for two years. It says nothing about Superman. If they were employees of Detective, then they would not have been required to sell Superman's rights to Detective for $130, because anything produced as a company employee belongs to the company — ask Jack Kirby. Nowhere in the contract do the words "work-for-hire" appear. And certainly there's nothing in the link — nor anything cited in the article — that verifies "work-for-hire" in 1935.

Accordingly, we cannot use the phrase "work-or-hire" in conjunction with the 1935 contract, and I am removing that phrase. It cannot be reinserted without citation or a citation-needed tag. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

In any case, I think overall this is a fine article and that it might be a good idea to submit it to peer review in hopes of getting it listed as a Good Article. I'm complimenting you on your research and hard work. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph six reads: "It is understood that any new and additional features which the employees produce for use in a comic magazine are to be first submitted to the Employer, who reserves the right to accept or reject within a period of sixty days." This contract doesn't just cover Sam Bradley and the Spy, but also future works Siegel and Shuster produced. Judge Young even cites this contract in his ruling. BaronBifford (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I addressed that: "If they were employees of Detective, then they would not have been required to sell Superman's rights to Detective for $130, because anything produced as a company employee belongs to the company — ask Jack Kirby." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you have been very supportive of my work, aside from the occasional minor squabble over terminology. I have contacted Joe Sergi, the author of one of the books I have referenced and an actual laywer. I will relay to you any interesting opinions he has regarding my interpretation of these cases. BaronBifford (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That's probably useful for guidance. Let's remember that whatever we put in the article has to come from published sources and that we can't include our own original research. And, yeah, your research into published sources and court cases has been great, and your putting the court decisions online at Scribd.com is brilliant and incredibly helpful to future scholars. Heck, the only thing I can quibble about is terminology, and what kind of editor-journalist would I be if I didn't?   : )   --Tenebrae (talk)

Blockquotes

Several of the blockquotes are uncited. I cited a couple, but it was unclear in other instances what exactly was being quoted; for example, some sections cite the initial filing, but then give no cite for the final decision. All quotes in Wikipedia have to be cited. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion

I'm afraid banned user User:Kurzon / User:BaronBifford is block-evading as 2A02:2788:1004:D53:C0BB:FF9A:8A08:CB42, 2A02:2788:1004:D53:9C70:7D4A:CCEB:3E8B, and mostly 2A02:2788:1004:D53:3518:166B:B7A1:9CCB at this article and at User:BaronBifford/sandbox. I truly hate to do this, but it's not as if the editor had not had plenty of chances to adjust his behavior at two ANIs within a month. And no matter how good or not the edits may be, there's a larger issue, block evasion, that's critically important to address. As we would do with anyone else block-evading, these edits have to be reverted. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has reverted the anon-IP block-evasion edits at User:BaronBifford/sandbox, here. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Sro23: I have been unblocked. I know I was a bad boy, but I promised to behave. May I resume improving this article? Kurzon (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sro23: I am going ahead with my edits. This article has not been developed at all in the time since I was blocked for sockpuppetry, which is why I don't think I'm edit-warring. And since I have been lawfully reinstated, my edits should not be reverted out-of-hand. If you have issues with the changes to the content, PLEASE discuss them here with me first before reverting anything. Kurzon (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kurzon: You are edit-warring. Sro23 reverted your reinsertion today of your contentious edits from last year ... and yet you reinserted them here! As well, you promised in your unblock request, "Whenever I wish to make a major edit to the Superman article, I will propose it on the Talk page so that other editors can make remarks." And you have not. To "propose" means to bring up a suggestion to see if it gains consensus us. Saying "I am going ahead with my edits" is the opposite or proposing and seeking consensus. You seem incapable of working collegially with other editors and what's worse is that you're untruthful and don't keep your word. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

How about discussing the merits of the edits instead of just reverting back and forth? Kurzon, please explain why, in your opinion, the disputed changes improve the article. After all, it's "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, revert". Huon (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Huon: Well, Sro23 didn't raise any issues with the content of my changes, and neither has Tenebrae. Kurzon (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverting edits is raising issues with the content. Why are your edits an improvement? What are your issues with the content before your changes that your changes address? The onus is on the editor who gets reverted to explain why their changes are an improvement over the the status quo ante. Huon (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Amazing how Tenebrae suddenly cares about this article the moment I show up again. Kurzon (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

True to form, you make a personal attack. The article is solid and in no need of wholesale changes. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed edit

I want to add this line:

And they were indeed well paid: In 1942, they together earned $63,776.46 ($1,189,300 adjusted) when the average pay for an employee at Detective Comics was $1,880.

This line shows how well Siegel and Shuster were compensated at DC Comics. They weren't treated poorly. Kurzon (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"And they were indeed well-paid" is not neutral encyclopedic tone, but an an effort at making a point. I'd also like to see the exact quote from the book so as to ascertain it is not being interpreted. I'm curious as to how the authors deduce the average pay for an employee, especially since "employees" including high-earning executives. On another point, it's last-name first in standard footnoting. I also note the book is no longer on Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/s?field-keywords=Holding+Kryptonite%3A+Truth%2C+Justice+and+America%27s+First+Superhero) so this appears to be a fringe source.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: The book this is sourced from is based on letters discovered by the estate of Jerry Siegel. Kurzon (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

So you have an issue with quoting directly from a book that can't even be bought on Amazon? The fact that Amazon withdrew it from sale is a red flag as to how credible it is.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The book is self-published and should not be considered reliable: According to his LinkedIn account, Agostino, co-author of the book, is CEO of Holmes & Watson Publishing, the publisher (which, as far as I can tell, only ever published this one book). Huon (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I found a document in the court records that list their earnings from 1937 to 1947, though I have yet to find something that gives the average pay for a DC employee. I think this source is reliable, since it was submitted in two court cases. This all comes down to authenticity, right? Kurzon (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I want to add a new section:

1965 - Siegel and Shuster apply for copyright renewal

Under the Copyright Act of 1909, a copyright lasted 28 years. Near the end of this term, the author(s) could apply to have the copyright renewed for another 28 years, which was an opportunity for Siegel and Shuster to regain the rights to Superman. In April 1965, Siegel and Shuster applied to renew the copyright of Superman. In June 1965, National Periodical Publications filed its own renewal application (in court, National would claim that Superman was a work made for hire and thus the copyright was theirs to renew). National kept publishing Superman stories and licensing Superman merchandise after April 18, 1966, the date the initial 28-year term ended, so Siegel and Shuster took National to court.

References

That seems to be either already present (the first part sourced to Sergi 2015), based on a primary source (National's copyright certificate) or entirely unsourced. Are there secondary sources for the new content? Apart from the sourcing issue, the ownership dispute seems to have flared up only in 1969 when Siegel and Shuster sued. The above gives the impression that Siegel and Shuster took National to court in 1966, separately from the events discussed in the following section; did that actually happen? If the court action happened in 1969, why are National's claims in court discussed in this section?

I'd suggest finding a secondary source that says National applied for renewal of copyright in June 1965 and that they continued publishing and selling merchandise after April 18, 1966, and to add that to the existing "1969-1974 lawsuit" section, as a prelude to that lawsuit. Huon (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Siegel and Shuster took National to court because each claimed the renewal rights. Kurzon (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I get that. And unless I'm mistaken it's the lawsuit described in the "1969-1974 lawsuit section. I think those events - copyright renewal and resulting lawsuit - should be covered in the same section. Huon (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kurzon: Please give me and any other interested editors a day or two to go through all this. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course. I wouldn't dream of adding any new content before it was all signed off in triplicate. Kurzon (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Enough with the sarcasm. Nothing is being asked of you that isn't being asked of any other editor, which is to gain consensus with your edits have been reverted. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And before there's time enough to get to this, we need to reach consensus on the two involved things you've placed at Talk:Superman. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Image

@Kurzon: The images of S&S are great, but side-by-side is squeezing the blockquote and creating ungainly righthand white space contrary to layout MOS. They need to be one atop the other to prevent this.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

There you go. But why didn't you make the change yourself? Kurzon (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Because it looked like a single image that I then would have had to download, duplicate, break into two, and re-upload each.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Blockquote, not callout

Per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, re: this edit: "Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides. Block quotations can be enclosed in {{quote}} or <blockquote>...</blockquote>. The template also provides parameters for attribution. Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template)." --Tenebrae (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Scribd

@Tenebrae: Scribd is acting up. The docs I uploaded don't seem to be displaying for other users. If you spot any other such errors, tell me and I'll send the docs to Dropbox. Kurzon (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading that! I converted the raw URL to a full cite. All good! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Names of Siegel and Shuster

We use WP:COMMONNAME, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. We no more use "Jerome Siegel" and "Joseph Shuster" in the article than we would "William Jefferson Clinton." After User:Kurzon's non-guidelines/MOS edit was reverted, he should have discussed the issue here, per WP:BRD, and not re-reverted, which is edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine, fine. Kurzon (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)