Legion World Forums LEGION CLUBHOUSE The Legion of Super-Heroes Long Live the Legion! Re-Inserting the LSH into Superman Continuity: A legal ploy?

Just wondering if it all might have something to do with the recent legal/ownership issues.

If so, wouldn't it be a risky one? After all, the Siegel estate is going after Superman too now, or so I've heard. Be a heck of a thing if they ended up with the Legion too.

A ploy... yes.

A legal ploy... probably not.

I'm not an expert on legal matters. If we had one around, I'd ask him/her if it would have any affect on the case.

Quis?
If that wasn't your cue to step up, then I don't know what is.

I'm sorry but this is the wrong thread for legal opinions. If you'd like an opinion from our local barrister, please head over to "Quislet Esq.'s Super Law Office of Space!"

Even there I could not answer this question. I am not familiar with copyright law at all.

Semi?

Well, I don't pretend to know a thing about law and legalities, but I *am* an expert in kooky, paranoid theories that are so out there they might have some truth in them. So here's some of my thought processes on this matter...


The SUPERMAN of the 60s was so far away from the SUPERMAN of 1939, that they could be considered almost separate entities. A Large part of this might stand on the shoulders of the career as Superboy and the LSH membership being inserted into same.

Now, DC's powers that were saw fit to eliminate both Superboy and the LSH from Superman continuity, bringing the character much closer to and in line with its 1939 roots (well, minus the killing people and stuff).

Years later, DC loses the rights to Superboy and now Superman himself is being eyeballed. What's a comic book company to do?

"Hey! Let's put the LSH continuity back into his backstory and confuse the issue so much that this would drag on for years in court and not be worth the famiy's time and effort! Golly... if only we had never diddled with the backstory in the first place, we would still own the rights to Superboy. We were SO stupid!"

Who knows? Ah, well... as long as the Siegels don't go after Matter-Eater Lad...

I'm no lawyer, but...

If the precedent stands for Superman and Superboy being two separate properties (which seems impossible to me, but...), then the issue becomes: is any representation of young Superman/Clark Kent a variant of Superman, or Superboy? If the entire supporting cast, Smallville, etc, are all part of the Superboy property, than re-tying LSH to even a young Clark could backfire, it seems to me; DC would not only be defending Superman, trying to reclaim title to Superboy, but also fighting for any spin-off property, including LSH, Steel, Supergirl, etc, beyond the obvious (Lois Lane, Jimmy Olson, etc).

On the other hand, as a legal ploy, the move could be a reaffirmation of how intertwined comics properties are; this would make sense as a ploy if DC thought it had a strong enough case to not only defend Superman, but reclaim Superboy on the basis that seperation would cause a greater harm to both sets of properties (I forget the exact legal term, but I've heard of one that seems to fit this case). In this case, DC could argue that removal of Superboy (and -Man) from its universe would be against the fiduciary interests of both DC and the Estate; DC could be positioning for an offer of greater profit-sharing instead.

Or it could simply be an editorial decision, as when it's not shooting itself in the foot, DC seems to be trying to reach out to its own abandoned history.

It seems to me that if the Silver Age Superman were different enough from the Golden Age version to be considered a separate entity, then the post-Byrne character would have at least as much claim to be a separate character.

Anyway, the reinsertion of "Silver Age" elements into the post-Crisis Superman. it seems to me, has everything to do with the fact that the particular set of creators in charge these days were those who grew up reading about that version of Superman, and the desire to milk the nostalgia of older fans (who, I take it, are the bulk of super-hero comics buyers).

This is just a ridculous lawyers ploy to get rich. And the sad thing about it is: It seems to work.

As far as I know, the Siegel family already did get compensated with a good amount of money - at least more than most of us will see in all their lives - and some hungry lawyers did smell even more money and convinced those poor people to go for the even bigger scale.

I don't like this kind of behavior which you can often find in lawyers, though the money to be made is much smaller in Germany.

Even the Heroclix Legion set I recently bought has a "Young Superman" in it. Isn't that ridiculous???

Possibly on the subject of Superman legal issues, the site Superman through the Ages (pre-Crisis Superman) has been shut down. Some discussion about it at the DC boards .

SO.... anyone else heard the rumor that the upcoming DC relaunch is a direct result of the Siegel lawsuit?

I haven't read this anywhere? What's the rationale?

DC is apparently losing many key aspects of the Superman mythos to the Siegels... I'll look for a link!

uggggh... I'll have to research tomorrow... too tired right now... but I definitely read this theory in the past day or so, SOMEwhere...

The internet is ablaze with DC news right now...

Interesting tidbit EDE, thanks for sharing!
I was wondering why Superman was wearing a different costume on the cover of the new Justice League #1.

We are SO screwed if the greedy Siegel kids and grandkids ever get wind of the Legion's rabid fanbase... he *did* write a number of first-appearance Legionnaires, including Matter-Eater Lad!


http://www.newsarama.com/comics/dcnu-superman-lois-lane-break-up-110718.html

I'm 100% certain now this reboot is Siegel-lawsuit based.

And if you don't think the ripple effects will reboot the LSH again... well, bless your heart.