You sell it but still own it?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I thought when you buy something you own it... but apparently not.

Can you imagine being the creator of the iconic Superman character and then selling the rights to that creation for $130? Of course, you know what they say about hindsight being 20-20. But back in 1932 when Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster as teenagers authored the superhero we know today, a deal like that seemed decent enough. Thankfully, a court ruling last week against Time Warner (via NY Times) might finally rid the Siegel heirs of this truly bitter taste. One wonders, then, what will become of future Superman projects, including the sequel to the 2006 Superman Returns and the already troubled Justice League of America movie.

Essentially, the judge determined that the Siegel heirs' rights to the Superman character were restored as of 1999, stemming from a lawsuit brought by Mrs. Siegel and her daughter in 1997. That suit relied on a 1976 law, which allows heirs to recover rights to creations under certain circumstances. Considering this, it seems Warner Bros (the film unit of Time Warner) owes the Siegels quite a pretty penny, since Superman Returns brought in just over $200 million domestically in 2006. (This latest ruling only pertains to the US copyright to the character.)

WTF? This is crazy. They sold it, they were happy with the deal. Now the money and effort the buyer spent to build this idea into a paying proposition, means diddly. Fucking lawyers.

[lushchocolateswirl]

Wow can you imagine what Bart is worth .

But it also includes what the sale contract stipulates. For instance, can you alter the character in any way? Come on, a sale of a character is really not a sale at all.