I am Superman

The judge has issued a ruling in the case regarding the Siegel family’s rights in Superman.

After seventy years, Jerome Siegel’s heirs regain what he granted so long ago – the copyright in the Superman material that was published in Action Comics Vol. 1. What remains is an apportionment of profits, guided in some measure by the rulings contained in this Order, and a trial on whether to include the profits generated by DC Comics’ corporate sibling’s exploitation of the Superman copyright.

This article has a few more explanations. I really don’t know if anyone is at fault here or greedy or what.

I think this is a landmark decision, but I’m concerned this will create a major problem for publishers and creatives alike. By the way, Superboy is a whole different animal.

Update: I don’t really have a desire to read everything on the subject, but the following is pretty much all the info you’d ever need in handy link form via Newsarama.

Jeff Trexler’s continuing coverage (including a terrific FAQ)

Tom Bondurant’s analysis for Newsarama.

At Comics Should Be Good, Brian Cronin assembles a Superman copyright FAQ that serves as a good companion to Trexler’s.

Comics commentator Abhay Khosla looks at the decision, and the original deal between Siegel, Shuster and Detective Comics.

At Comic Book Resources, intellectual-property attorney Brendan McFeely discusses the finer points of the ruling.

At Journalista, Dirk Deppey “poke[s] a finger in DC Comics’ glorious misfortune,” and then settles in for a dissection of Larson’s 72-page decision.

Variety’s coverage focuses on Siegel attorney Marc Toberoff, whom it calls “Kryptonite to studios.“