That's a lot of bicycle riding.
Tom says:
Shame on every stupid-ass, morally ignorant fan out there who has expressed even the slightest opinion that this course of legal action in any way reflects an agenda of greed on the part of people not directly involved in the act of creation, or worse, has articulated as their primary concern the potential interruption of their monthly four-color fantasy product. I wish we really did live in the might makes right moral universe that supports such a piggish outlook, because then I could quit my job and drive around on a motorcycle punching people in the face until they penned a formal apology to the Siegel family.
---
Which pretty much sums up my response to the Newsarama thread on the issue. Yes, both National/DC and Siegel/Schuster co-created Superman, and the trademark itself would not have been as fabulously valuable had there not been a publishing company behind it.
But when said publishing company benefits itself grossly in comparison to what the original creators earned, there's a problem. Do I think that DC should be stripped of the character because of the sins of National? No, nor is it likely to happen.
But to hear the bleating of the entitlement-crazed fans, you'd think that the judgement was nothing more than simple money-grubbing and it will destroy the hobby as we know it, jacking up cover prices so that the Siegel family can repose on their new collection of Louis XIV furniture while polishing their new diamond-studded ashtrays.
But if they fashion necklaces from all those outraged fanboy tears and wear them until the end of time, I wouldn't think that unjust.
For the record, this is big news, no doubt. But I doubt it will be big in the ways that people think. The Siegel case has its own set of legal and historic wrinkles that aren't likely to be duplicated anytime soon.
Though I gotta ask, does the Wylie estate see any of this...?