The Avengers teaser trailer

Not bad, not bad at all

Should be great, Joss Whedon is directing it

The real longer trailer is after the movie.

The real longer trailer is after the movie.

The movies not out yet. :O

After Captain America.

Oh by the way here is the first released still of Henry Cavill in the new Superman movie that will be out in 2013

Apparently it has to be out in 2012, DC looses the rights to Superman in 2013 so they can't even do cameo's of him in other movies, at least that's what I was told, dunno if it's true or not, but it is relevant to this post /shrug

Apparently it has to be out in 2012, DC looses the rights to Superman in 2013 so they can't even do cameo's of him in other movies, at least that's what I was told, dunno if it's true or not, but it is relevant to this post /shrug

Not anymore, they changed it to 2013 instead, so why do they loose the rights to Superman? I want to see sequels

I guess the original contract between DC and Siegel/Shuster was set to expire at the end of 2012, and since Siegel/Shuster want all rights to the character back anyways (they've tried suing a few times for it), they won't allow DC to do anything Superman ever again

Copyright issues


As part of the deal which saw Superman published in Action Comics, Siegel and Shuster sold the rights to the company in return for $130 and a contract to supply the publisher with material.[55][56] The Saturday Evening Post reported in 1940 that the pair was each being paid $75,000 a year, a fraction of National Comics Publications' millions in Superman profits.[57] Siegel and Shuster renegotiated their deal, but bad blood lingered and in 1947 Siegel and Shuster sued for their 1938 contract to be made void and the re-establishment of their ownership of the intellectual property rights to Superman. The pair also sued National in the same year over the rights to Superboy, which they claimed was a separate creation that National had published without authorization. National immediately fired them and took their byline off the stories, prompting a legal battle that ended in 1948, when a New York court ruled that the 1938 contract should be upheld. However, a ruling from Justice J. Addison Young awarded them the rights to Superboy. A month after the Superboy judgment the two sides agreed on a settlement. National paid Siegel and Shuster $94,000 for the rights to Superboy. The pair also acknowledged in writing the company's ownership of Superman, attesting that they held rights for "all other forms of reproduction and presentation, whether now in existence or that may hereafter be created",[58] but DC refused to re-hire them.[59]
Jerry Siegel, with wife Joanne and daughter Laura in 1976. Joanne and Laura Siegel filed a termination notice on Jerry Siegel's share of the copyright of Superman in 1999.

In 1973 Siegel and Shuster again launched a suit claiming ownership of Superman, this time basing the claim on the Copyright Act of 1909 which saw copyright granted for 28 years but allowed for a renewal of an extra 28 years. Their argument was that they had granted DC the copyright for only 28 years. The pair again lost this battle, both in a district court ruling of October 18, 1973 and an appeal court ruling of December 5, 1974.[60][61]

In 1975 after news reports of their pauper-like existences, Warner Communications gave Siegel and Shuster lifetime pensions of $20,000 per year and health care benefits. Jay Emmett, then executive vice president of Warner Bros., was quoted in the New York Times as stating, "There is no legal obligation, but I sure feel there is a moral obligation on our part."[57] Heidi MacDonald, writing for Publishers Weekly, noted that in addition to this pension "Warner agreed that Siegel and Shuster would henceforth be credited as creators of Superman on all comics, TV shows and films".[56]

The year after this settlement, 1976, the copyright term was extended again, this time for another 19 years for a total of 75 years. However, this time a clause was inserted into the extension to allow authors to reclaim their work, reflecting the arguments Siegel and Shuster had made in 1973. The new act took effect in 1978 and allowed a reclamation window in a period based on the previous copyright term of 56 years. This meant the copyright on Superman could be reclaimed between 1994 to 1999, based on the initial publication date of 1938. Jerry Siegel having died in January 1996, his wife and daughter filed a copyright termination notice in 1999. Although Joe Shuster died in July 1992, no termination was filed at this time by his estate.[62]

In 1998, the copyright was extended again with the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. This time the copyright term was extended to 95 years with a further window for reclamation introduced. In January 2004 Mark Peary, nephew and legal heir to Joe Shuster's estate, filed notice of his intent to reclaim Shuster's half of the copyright, the termination effective in 2013.[62] The status of Siegel's share of the copyright is now the subject of a legal battle. Warner Bros. and the Siegels entered into discussions on how to resolve the issues raised by the termination notice, but these discussions were set aside by the Siegels and in October 2004 they filed suit alleging copyright infringement on the part of Warner Bros. Warner Bros. counter sued, alleging that the termination notice contains defects, among other arguments.[63][64] On March 26, 2008, Judge Larson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled that Siegel's estate was entitled to claim a share in the United States copyright. The ruling does not affect the International rights, which Time Warner holds on the character through DC. Issues regarding the amount of monies owed Siegel's estate and whether the claim the estate has extends to derivative works such as movie versions will be settled at trial, although any compensation would only be owed from works published since 1999. Time Warner offered no statement on the ruling but do have the right to challenge it.[65][66] The case was scheduled to be heard in a California federal court in May, 2008.[67]

A similar termination-of-copyright notice filed in 2002 by Siegel's wife and daughter concerning the Superboy character was ruled on in their favor on March 23, 2006.[68] However, on July 27, 2007, the same court issued a ruling[69] reversing the March 23, 2006 ruling. This ruling is currently subject to a legal challenge from Time Warner, with the case as yet unresolved.[65]

A July 9, 2009, verdict on the case denied a claim by Siegel's family that it was owed licensing fees. U.S. District Court judge Stephen G. Larson said Warner Bros. and DC Comics have fulfilled their obligations to the Siegels under a profit-sharing agreement for the 2006 movie Superman Returns and the CW series Smallville. However, the court also ruled that if Warner Bros. does not start a new Superman film by 2011, the family will have the right to sue to recover damages.[70]

Taken from Wikipedia, which as we all know is definitely NOT the greatest source of reliable information, so this may not be correct, but there ya go

I guess the original contract between DC and Siegel/Shuster was set to expire at the end of 2012, and since Siegel/Shuster want all rights to the character back anyways (they've tried suing a few times for it), they won't allow DC to do anything Superman ever again





Taken from Wikipedia, which as we all know is definitely NOT the greatest source of reliable information, so this may not be correct, but there ya go

So DC/warner bros can't make any more superman movies after 2011?

Pretty much ya, since there's no way they can rush out a movie in the span of a few months without it sucking balls =/

EDIT: Well, technically they could, but they cannot display the Superman logo, or call him Superman, at which point they might as well just hand the reins over to Marvel and call him Sentry..

Another EDIT: This could be the future of Superman, it is possible, and the article does make sense when you read it http://www.examiner.com/comic-books-in-n...o-superman

Pretty much ya, since there's no way they can rush out a movie in the span of a few months without it sucking balls =/

but they changed the release date to 2013 though, but this really does piss me off though, DC won't be the same without Superman, but at least they still got Batman =/

stupid idiots will sue anybody these days.

They may have changed the release date, but I don't think they can legally do that due to the contract termination, I think they HAVE to release it in 2012, even if it's in mid-December. I could very easily be wrong about this though, I'm not a lawyer :lol:


EDIT: Also, these aren't random redneck's suing for no reason, DC and Warner Bro's have been jerking the creator's of Superman around since the early 1940's, they have a damn good reason to take back their creation and take it else where when the contract is up

They may have changed the release date, but I don't think they can legally do that due to the contract termination, I think they HAVE to release it in 2012, even if it's in mid-December. I could very easily be wrong about this though, I'm not a lawyer :lol:


EDIT: Also, these aren't random redneck's suing for no reason, DC and Warner Bro's have been jerking the creator's of Superman around since the early 1940's, they have a damn good reason to take back their creation and take it else where when the contract is up

But Superman is the Justice League....he will no longer be fighting besides Batman or Wonder Woman...this just upsets me

But unfortunately, the creators don't give a flying fuck what any of the fans think, all they can think of is how their families have been jerked around for the past 75 years by DC and Warner Bro's. Who knows, maybe Sup's will join the Avengers :lol: