web stats

CSBG Archive

Superboy Copyright FAQ

I just saw a thread about it on Comic Book Resources, and I had actually been meaning to do one of these for awhile, so, well, here it is – Frequently Asked Questions about the Superboy copyright mess!

Enjoy!

Who owns the copyright to Superboy?

According to Judge Harold S.W. Lew, the heirs of Jerry Siegel (Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson, Jerry Siegel’s wife and daughter, respectively), successfully recaptured the copyright to Superboy on November 17, 2004. So, as of right this moment, the Siegels own the copyright.

How did DC get the copyright to Superboy?

Back in 1947, while Siegel and Shuster sued DC to regain the copyright to Superman, a judge ruled in favor of DC on the Superman matter, but DID rule that Jerry Siegel owned the copyright to Superboy. This was because Siegel had given a proposal for the idea of Superboy (a much different proposal than what they ultimately used) and DC told them they weren’t interested. Then, with Siegel away in the Armed Services, DC came out with their own Superboy in More Fun Comics #101. New York state court Judge Addison Young ruled that Siegel was the sole owner of the separate character, Superboy, under the theory that DC used unfair business dealings with the creation of the character. Siegel and Shuster then sold all their remaining Superman interests, as well as any interest in Superboy to DC.

So this has nothing to do with the case for the copyright to Superman?

Nope. It has nothing to do with that. That’s a whole other matter.

So what’s the deal? Why does DC not still own the copyright?

There were changes made in 1976 to the Copyright Act, where the length of copyright renewal was extended from 28 years to 47 years, and allowed that any copyright transfers could be terminated so that the original copyright owner (or his/her heirs) could gain the benefit of those extra 19 years of protection (with the presumption being that it would be unfair to the original copyright owners, as any deals they made before the change were based upon the 28 year duration, not 47). In 2002, the Siegels gave the required two-year notice, and on November 17, 2004, the rights reverted back to the Siegels, who, if this decision stands (and it seems pretty clear cut), will retain the copyright until 2023, when the copyright expires.

But isn’t Superboy just a derivitive work of Superman?

Perhaps, under traditional circumstances, this would be the case. This, though, is anything but traditional circumstances. Siegel came to DC with the idea. They told him they didn’t want a Superboy comic. Then, when he was in the Armed Services, they came out with their own Superboy, based on his idea (that they had rejected many times).

Judge Young ruled that this was unfair business practices. Part of his ruling was that DC would be barred from creating a Superboy character on their own, because of their unfair treatement of Siegel.

Therefore, even if it would seem that Superboy was derivitive, DC’s poor business dealings resulted in its forfeit of the right to make this claim. That was its punishment for essentially screwing over Siegel, in regards to Superboy.

Therefore, since they could never create the character themselves, they had to purchase the character from Siegel himself. This is why DC’s claims to Judge Lew that Superboy was a derivitive character of Superman did no good, because of Judge Young’s prior ruling on the matter.


Can the Siegels make a Superboy comic book if they want to?

Yes, but there are two big caveats to that. While the Siegels may own the COPYRIGHT to Superboy, DC still owns the TRADEMARK on the Superboy name. This means that, so long as DC continues to use the Superboy name in commerce (like have a mini-series titles “Tales of Superboys” just about kids with all sorts of wacky powers), they will continue to own the trademark on Superboy, and no one else can come out with a comic book titled Superboy, even if they own the copyright. This is why DC cannot have a comic called Captain Marvel, even though it owns the copyright to Captain Marvel (Shazam), because Marvel owns the trademark on Captain Marvel.

In addition, DC owns a trademark on the stylized S that Superboy and Superman wear, so the Superboy comic would have to be titled something else and with a different costume! Not exactly a huge property.

So, why is it worth it to the Siegels to fight for?

Mainly, bargaining power, as Time Warner (owner of DC) would gladly just settle this matter to get this done with. It is mainly a matter of how much they will have to pay the Siegels. In fact, one of Time Warner’s claims in the past involves their insistence that the Siegels already did settle, but decided to break the settlement agreement and therefore, the Siegels should be bound by the terms of the original settlement. Therefore, it is clear that Time Warner is quite willing to settle this.

What does this mean for Smallville?

There is a copyright infringement trial currently scheduled that might decide that. The Siegels claim that Smallville is part of the Superboy copyright. DC disagrees.

The “Smallville” claim will go towards one simple decision – is “Smallville” a TV show about Superboy, or is it a show about a young Clark Kent? The difference might not seem like much, but what it boils down to is that DC, as of right now, owns the copyright to Clark Kent, so if it was determined that “Smallville” is merely a show about a young Clark Kent, then Warner Brothers would be fine.

However, if a jury determines that “Smallville” is based upon Superboy (presuming that the current ruling saying the Siegels own Superboy’s copyright), then Time Warner would be in quite a difficult position. The position of Time Warner is that a young Clark Kent appeared in the comic well before Superboy was introduced, so a young Clark Kent is a good deal different than “Superboy.”

The Siegel’s side, of course, believes that not to be the case, citing the examples that the only “young Clark Kent” before Superboy’s introduction was an infant and toddler, never a teenager, and Judge Lew clearly leans towards the Siegels, stating in a footnote “In the Superboy comic strip, a billboard on the side of a rural country road announces, ‘Welcome to Smallville! Home of Superboy.”

Judge Lew, though, did not rule on the issue, saying a jury would have to decide.

What does this mean for Conner Kent?

Well, he is still close enough to the copyright currently owned by the Siegels that it would very likely would be seen as infringing upon the Superboy copyright if DC called him Superboy. After all, super-strong, flies, calls himself Kent in his secret identity and Superboy in his superhero identity? That’s way too close to the Superboy copyright. But what’s interesting is that Conner Kent really could easily distance himself from the Superboy copyright if DC wanted to. After all, “clone of Superman” is not part of the copyright at all, so if DC wanted to bring him back as a NEW character, with different powers – that’d be totally okay.

Is that it?

I think so.

You folks tell me! Any questions?

55 Comments

You know, I thought I was with you right up until that last portion. Why can’t Conner Kent be called Superboy? I thought copyright meant the right to publish extant materials, so that owning the copyright on Superboy would mean the Siegels would have to approve/license DC’s ability to, say, reprint a Superboy archive. DC’s owning the trademark should mean they could publish any character they want under the title “Superboy” as long as it’s new material. I’m guessing some part of this is a big misunderstanding on my part; care to clear things up?

So, if I were to create a character named “Super25yearold” which was Clark Kent at age 25, or perhaps “Supertween” with a slightly younger Clark, I could own that character? I never realized. Here I thought owning a character meant owning them during all the ages of their life.

On second thought- forget Superman! I think I need to write “Harold Potter”, a series about adult Harry Potter! I’ll be rich!

You know, I thought I was with you right up until that last portion. Why can’t Conner Kent be called Superboy? I thought copyright meant the right to publish extant materials, so that owning the copyright on Superboy would mean the Siegels would have to approve/license DC’s ability to, say, reprint a Superboy archive. DC’s owning the trademark should mean they could publish any character they want under the title “Superboy” as long as it’s new material. I’m guessing some part of this is a big misunderstanding on my part; care to clear things up?

Sure.

Copyright doesn’t just protect the published work, it also protects future uses of the copyright. So you cannot use a copyrighted work (in this case, Superboy) in the future without the Siegel’s consent.

It would be a matter of copyright infringement.

You cannot write a book about a young wizard named Harry Potter who does magic but lives in New York instead of England. The slight change of locale would not be enough to convice anyone you weren’t infringing upon J.K. Rowling’s copyright.

DC supposedly could argue with Conner Kent a similar argument that they are trying to do with Smallville, and claim that it is not basing this teen who can fly and has super strength and calls himself Superboy on the Siegel copyrighted character, Superboy, but I think they would not do that well with such an argument.

Now, if they call himself something else (Supernova is a suggestion) and highlight his “tactile telekinesis,” then he doesn’t seem similar enough to the Siegel copyrighted character, Superboy, for a copyright infringement action to succeed.

So, if I were to create a character named “Super25yearold” which was Clark Kent at age 25, or perhaps “Supertween” with a slightly younger Clark, I could own that character? I never realized. Here I thought owning a character meant owning them during all the ages of their life.

On second thought- forget Superman! I think I need to write “Harold Potter”, a series about adult Harry Potter! I’ll be rich!

While it may seem like they were just extrapolating upon an established character, Judge Young ruled in 1947 otherwise. He said it was its own, separate copyright (and that Siegel owned it solely). And that’s the ruling that DC was fine with then (because it had its deal with Siegel), so it really doesn’t work for them to disagree with it now.

In addition, one would have to expect that the fact that the trial also found that DC illegally published Siegel’s Superboy idea (which they told him they didn’t want, as the repeatedly rejected the idea) while he was in the Armed Services would also have an impact upon the court’s ruling back in 1947.

I suspect the key fact to the ’40s case is that Siegel *submitted* a Superboy concept to DC, which rejected it. If that had never happened, and DC just did a Superboy comic on their own, I don’t think Siegel would have had a case.

One thing I’m curious about is how much, if at all, *Smallville’s* creation was influenced by this legal issue. Was the “no flights, no tights,” no explicit “Superboy” purely an artistic decision, required by DC due to the copyright kerfuffle, or a little of both?

Does anybody know the nature of Siegel’s original Superboy pitch? I’d love to hear about it

And then of course there are the implications for the new Legion of Super-Heroes cartoon, which my esteemed colleague Michael at The Legion Omnicom has been meticulously chronicling for months now.

I still don’t get how Superboy and Superman are considered distinct properties. Superboy seems pretty clearly to be a derivative work.

So does this mean we’re not getting a Showcase edition of Legion of Super-Heroes anytime soon?

I suspect the key fact to the ’40s case is that Siegel *submitted* a Superboy concept to DC, which rejected it. If that had never happened, and DC just did a Superboy comic on their own, I don’t think Siegel would have had a case.

Definitely, David. Siegel wouldn’t have had a case if he had not submitted the proposal.

One thing I’m curious about is how much, if at all, *Smallville’s* creation was influenced by this legal issue. Was the “no flights, no tights,” no explicit “Superboy” purely an artistic decision, required by DC due to the copyright kerfuffle, or a little of both?

Great question.

My guess would be not that much, as I don’t think Time Warner was all that worried about the Superboy copyright at the time (which was, what, like six years ago, right?).

Does anybody know the nature of Siegel’s original Superboy pitch? I’d love to hear about it

If I remember correctly (I think Gerry Jones goes into greater detail with it in his history of the Golden Age), Siegel looked at Superboy as a peer of Superman, who would use his powers to pull pranks (as he’d start as an 11-year-old) who’d eventually mature.

It is very similar to his later “Funnyman” comic strip.

And then of course there are the implications for the new Legion of Super-Heroes cartoon, which my esteemed colleague Michael at The Legion Omnicom has been meticulously chronicling for months now.

Definitely.

That’s a major (i.e. glaring) change in how things are handled.

So does this mean we’re not getting a Showcase edition of Legion of Super-Heroes anytime soon?

Sounds about right.

Great job! This is the best summary of the situation I’ve seen yet. Usually, articles just post one or two of those points and make you hunt for the rest.

I think the confusion of commenters on the last point about Conner not being able to be called Superboy was just due to a slight omission.

He can’t be called Superboy because it would make his character too close to what was copyrighted. However, if DC made a character with different powers, there’s no reason they coudn’t call him Superboy (hence your examples of DC putting out something like “Tales of Superboys” to keep the trademark).

Bill Reed said:

So does this mean we’re not getting a Showcase edition of Legion of Super-Heroes anytime soon?

In all likelihood, that’s right. You’re also not likely to see any more Legion Archives any time soon.

The Legion cartoon Matthew mentioned above took the relatively easy way out. Originally slated to star Superboy (as a teen, when he lived in Smallville), production changed the character to the young Superman (as a teen, before he moved to Metropolis). They apparently re-dubbed some of the dialog that had been recorded, and changed the show’s description on the promotional material to refer to Superman now. So it’s Superman and the Legion of Super-Heroes, which neatly sidesteps the Superboy rights question. (See the Legion’s Wikipedia page for more on the show.)

But this still doesn’t make any sense… if he pitched a character who was a PEER of Superman, NOT the ACTUAL Superman, then regardless of the name being the same, they seem to be completely different characters. As you’ve already pointed out, its ok to have Characters with the same names, so that really shouldn’t affect it.

He should own the rights to the character he made up, the pranking peer… meaning DC can’t publish and PrankingPeer comics, but Superboy, either who is young Clark Kent before he is Superman or who is Kon El clone of Superman, should be AOK.

This is messed up. I am very much against big corporations screwing people, but this just seems wrong. It doesn’t sound like they DID screw him. It sounds like they made up a character with the same name.

One thing I’m curious about is how much, if at all, *Smallville’s* creation was influenced by this legal issue. Was the “no flights, no tights,” no explicit “Superboy” purely an artistic decision, required by DC due to the copyright kerfuffle, or a little of both?

I was always under the impression that it was mandated by Warner Brother’s Film division over Warner’s TV arm so “Smallville” wouldn’t compete with the, at-that-point, years in development theatrical Superman projects.

-Steve!

Fascinating discourse. Copyright issues are confusing. Does Mr. Cronin practice intellectual property law?

But this still doesn’t make any sense… if he pitched a character who was a PEER of Superman, NOT the ACTUAL Superman, then regardless of the name being the same, they seem to be completely different characters. As you’ve already pointed out, its ok to have Characters with the same names, so that really shouldn’t affect it.

He should own the rights to the character he made up, the pranking peer… meaning DC can’t publish and PrankingPeer comics, but Superboy, either who is young Clark Kent before he is Superman or who is Kon El clone of Superman, should be AOK.

This is messed up. I am very much against big corporations screwing people, but this just seems wrong. It doesn’t sound like they DID screw him. It sounds like they made up a character with the same name.

Here’s the deal, though, Jordan.

Siegel came to DC with the idea. They told him they didn’t want a Superboy comic. Then, when he was in the Armed Services, they came out with their own Superboy, based on his idea (that they had rejected many times).

Judge Young ruled that this was unfair business practices. Part of his ruling was that DC would be barred from creating a Superboy character on their own, because of their unfair treatement of Siegel.

Therefore, even if it would seem that Superboy was derivitive, DC’s poor business dealings resulted in its forfeit of the right to make this claim. That was its punishment for essentially screwing over Siegel, in regards to Superboy.

As of the 1947 decision, DC was enjoined from EVER creating their own Superboy character. That is why they had to purchase the character from Siegel himself.

It is very likely that Young felt bad that he was ruling against them on the Superman issue, so this was his way of “throwing him a bone,” so to speak.

In any event, that is why typical ideas regarding derivitive copyrights do not apply here.

I was always under the impression that it was mandated by Warner Brother’s Film division over Warner’s TV arm so “Smallville” wouldn’t compete with the, at-that-point, years in development theatrical Superman projects.

-Steve!

Makes sense to me!

Fascinating discourse. Copyright issues are confusing. Does Mr. Cronin practice intellectual property law?

They really are fascinating.

I don’t directly practice IP law, no. IP law does come up often, though, in my regular practice (as IP rights are often involved in contracts).

I think it’s important to sum up (again), that yes, it’s unfair for Siegel to have ownership on a character that’s clearly derivative of one he already sold the rights to, the judge’s goal apparently wasn’t to be fair, it was to balance out the unfair thing DC did (tell Siegel they didn’t want a Superboy and then create one anyway) with another unfair thing.

Siegel owned Superboy not because he *should* own it, but just because the judge said so.

Right.

If the Judge were to award Siegel $40,000, that wouldn’t seem that odd, and that’s essentially what the Judge did here. Rather than give Siegel money, he awarded him the copyright.

So really, in order to heal the artificial split made in 1947, DC would have to buy or lease the “Superboy” copyright off Siegel’s heir(s?). Then DC would have all the copyrights and trademarks to Super-everything.

Of course, the current owner(s) of that copyright may either not want to relinquish it at all, or may want to see how much DC is willing to pay for it.

Given that DC has bypassed the whole issue with creations like Kon-El, the answer may be “not very much at all, really.”

Interestingly enough, the requirement to not reference the copyrighted Superboy character directly may well have resulted in DC creating a more complex and readable character in Kon. They can’t just slap up the kid in the super-suit and cruise on brand recognition.

Stephen McBride

August 12, 2006 at 11:41 am

Hi. I was reading everything written in here, I have one question. Did DC finale settle with the new owners or not because in one of the comics coming in October Title 52 #22 this is written. (IN THIS ISSUE: “Good news, sir. Your son Kon-El didn’t die in the Crisis after all.” ) Any info on this? I also saw what was taken from the judge about Smallville also stating that it was infringing on the copyrights because he was using his some of his powers when he was a boy. Now with that said doesn’t that mean that if you look at his age on the new cartoon Legion of the super-heroes. In it he looks like at 15 or 16 yr old Clark Kent but they call him superman. I wonder what is going on now. I can not find any info from DC at all.

Please note, though, Stephen, that Kon-El is a distinct character. It was only when he was flying around with a Superboy costume calling himself Superboy and using super strength and heat vision that he seemed to infringe upon the Superboy copyright.

If you bring him back as just Kon-El, clone of Superman, who has tactile-telekinesis powers?

Well, I think then you’d be able to keep around.

And yeah, the whole “Young Superman” thing is sketchy to me, as well. I get DC’s position, but I think it works a lot better in Smallville than it does in the upcoming Legion cartoon. “We’re just looking at Clark when he was younger.” That seems a better argument than “We’re just looking at Superman when he was younger,” because the latter almost sounds like it would HAVE to be Superboy.

Stephen McBride

August 12, 2006 at 8:50 pm

Thanks. I wish they would get the rights to superboy back becasue I would like to have seen Kon-El with the Legion of the super-heroes instead of Kal-El. Sorry I am just a big fan of Kon-El.

Stephen McBride

August 12, 2006 at 8:52 pm

I also want to know has anyone hear or know if the superhero SuperNova a true DC character and if so is that Kon-El?

As much as id love to see con-el (“the kid” if you used to red his old title) come back in 52 as supernova or in someother form i dont think its likly. Conners closest friends were Robin and Wonder girl and in teen titans oyl theyre still dealing with his death. so sadly, i think he may remain dead until this whole lawsuit gets taken care of.

Do the Siegels now own the right to reprint all the Superboy stories DC published? For this moment, I’m going to forget about Kon-El, and focus on the first Superboy. If the Siegels have reprint rights to his stories, then they own the only reprint rights to most of the Legion of Super-Heroes stories told in the early 1970′s and earlier than that, right? And if so, are the Siegels also the owners of the Legion, seeing as how the Legion was created in stories the Siegels now own? I’m very curious about the answer of this Legion ownership question.

Yes, the Siegels own the reprint rights to any previous Superboy stories, including the ones with the Legion of Superheroes.

They do not own any of the Legion of Superheroes characters, though, as those characters were created separately from Superboy.

“Siegel came to DC with the idea. They told him they didn’t want a Superboy comic. Then, when he was in the Armed Services, they came out with their own Superboy, based on his idea (that they had rejected many times).”

The big word here is ‘based’. From what I understand, he makes a proposition of some random youngster who has powers similar to Superman (how seems to be a big question; is he a son, cousin, clone, random radiation, what?) who pulls a few pranks that superman cleans up and eventualy matures. DC says no.

Years later, while he’s away, DC writers say: hey, howabout a young superman living in smallville who travells to the future to fight evil with a bunch of teen superheros inspired by his future self AKA Superman? Hey, good idea, but ‘young Superman’ is kind of a mouthful. How about Superboy? No we cant do that, that Seigel guy was always suggesting a Superboy, itd be a leagl mess. Well, we’ll have to make sure our superboy dosnt pull pranks, never meets his future self Superman, and is older than 11.

I still dont get how Seigel’s superboy is in anyway comparable to pre-crisis legion superboy, or clone Kon-el superboy!

Yeah, he came to them with an idea for a character. They told him no, then turned around and based a new character on his idea, without compensating him for it.

That’s what the Judge took issue with.

So, as a penalty for unfair business practices, DC lost their copyright to Superboy, and had to buy it back from Siegel (as I mention above, this decision by the judge was most likely like throwing Siegel the proverbial bone because he turned down their Superman plea).

couldn’t they show Spider-man as an example,since he was a kid in high school who came across super powers and yet called himself “man” and not “boy”?

anyways,i would think Superboy would have to be completely different from Superman in every way shape and form in order to Superboy not to infringe on Superman’s life and history.

also didn’t Smallville start during high school? wouldn’t Clark Kent be over the age of 13? so couldn’t DC come out and call him Superteen to protect Superman’s teen years? or SuperYoungMan?

I HAVE AN IDEA. WHY NOT HAVE HIM COME BACK. BUT THIS TIME, HAVE HIM BEING TOO OLD TOO BE CALLED SUPERBOY BUT ALSO NOT QUITE READY TO BE SUPERMAN. HAVE HIM IN THE SAME COSTUME WITH THE “S” AND JEANS LIKE BEFORE, BUT CALLING HIMSELF KON-EL INSTEAD.

How come they can use Superboy-Prime with no problem?

Is it because he doesn’t refer to himself as Kent?

Because for all purposes he is Young Superman called Kent calling himself Superboy.

Well, they haven’t used Superboy Prime SINCE Infinite Crisis, right?

And I think when he DOES show up, he will likely have a new name (and note that by the end of the series, his costume was totally changed as well).

I have one concern, with Warner releasing the 60s Superman cartoons in June. Will we ever get the 60s Superboy cartoons?

Toomuchtimeonhishands!

May 31, 2007 at 9:13 am

@ TONY: Actually it would be very simple to bring Conner Kent back since he really doesn’t share the same origin or even powers and lineage as the proposed Golden Age Superboy pitch by Siegel. Dan Didio even once stated that all they had to do was change his codename. He also said Superboy was dead-dead and not comic book dead. In actuality, they had to get him out of the way for a new character, Christopher Kent. He’s a boy from Krypton adopted by Superman who ironically looks and acts like that poor little bastard Superman refused to take responsibility for in the movies. Don’t depair though. Robin is trying to clone Conner Kent, whether DC chooses to follow up on that subplot is entirely their call.

@ Jon: Other than the name, they can use Superboy-prime. Even the name is doubtful because of the “-PRIME” (They call Christopher Kent “Super-boy” and there is a Super-boy in the LOSH cartoon, the hyphen apparently makes a difference). DC retconned Superboy-Prime so that he’s Superboy from a reality created by the Elsworlds series “Secret Identity” about a kid who just happened to be named Clark Kent and just happened to have Superman’s power by accident.

@ Jon: You better believe it! They’ll probably call him Anti-Superboy or some dumb thing just to thumb their noses at the Siegel Estate.

@ Dan: Doubtful. That is way, way, WAY too close to the original concept. Warner will probably not pay royalties for it.

So if DC can publish comics w/ Captain Marvel but not with his name in the title, why would it make a difference if they had comics w/ Superboy, w/o the name in the title of the comic? Is it something completely different from the Cap. Marvel issue?

So if DC can publish comics w/ Captain Marvel but not with his name in the title, why would it make a difference if they had comics w/ Superboy, w/o the name in the title of the comic? Is it something completely different from the Cap. Marvel issue?

Captain Marvel is a trademark issue (Marvel has the trademark), so it doesn’t affect the stories inside the comic.

Superboy is a copyright issue, so it does affect the stories inside the comic.

Although, as mentioned before, DC owns the trademark on Superboy, so can publish their own original character called Superboy, so long as it is different enough from the original.

Hey, I noticed in the Teen Titans 50th Issue that Smallville’s billboard Sign was obscurred due to Bart’s recklessness, and you guys keep covering Superboy’s “S” on his with something, whether it be an object blocking it, Conner wearing a shirt under it, since you guys say that you guy’s own the “S” shield and also on July 27,2007, Warner Bros. got the favor of the judge to dismiss some of the Seigels claims about the Superboy character, and there’s something else, Superboy has been used for over a year after Infinite Crisis, They Stop doing it around April 2007? Is DC Comics teasing the fans on how they are working with the Kon-El Superboy? As long as their are fans that deeply care about Conner Kent, I don’t think he will go away.

Also, you claim that DC no longer owns a Superboy story, but I see Every comic with Kon-EL being called Superboy in whatever graphic novel available. Does this that all Teen Titans issues from #40 and under will be heavily edited or something like that?

Oh, and there’s is something I always wanted to ask. If WB gets the Superboy copyright back, will you guys introduce a “SuperBOY” character into the series? Maybe Prime, Conner, DC One Million Superboy?

“S” on his chest* sorry for the typo.

Legion of Super-Hero Series. My Apologies.

Superman Prime and the Legion of Superheroes TV series really tells you all you need to know about where DC currently stands with the Superboy suit.

So long as they’re going out of their way to avoid calling characters Superboy, you know they don’t think they’re in good shape.

Yeah, I noticed you guys call him “Earth-Prime Superman” Now. Although it’s true that Prime has aged since he first appeared in infinite crisis by 5 years, I don’t think that it was necessary to change the name, although if the Judge had something to say about the Superboy-Prime character, I mean the storyline plot is from Smallville. The Custody battle is an ongoing one, I know that.

Was the lawsuit the reason you guys omitted the Supermen in Superman: Doomsday, or would you guys have cut the 4 characters even if you owned the copyright?

I just thought of something. You guys can call Kon-El Superboy and he can have the same costum. You guys can just retcon his powers and BOOM! He’s a brand new Superboy!

I think people are under the impression that Brian Cronin controls DC comics. If only that were true…

I never said that. I just thought he was the Brian Gerwitz of DC Comics (For the Reference to this person go to wrestlingobserver.net) Like a current update on Superboy

It’s okay. No one’s attacking you.

Oh, good. First Amendment and all that.

Hey, Brian. I noticed that on the Superman: Doomsday release that The Superboy Kon-El original pictures are not shown. If it’s just a copyright issue and not a trademark issue, wouldn’t DC still count that as a Tradematk and therefore allow Kon-EL to be in the DVD extras?

SINCE CONNOR KENT WASN’T CREATED FROM THE 1940 PERIOD BUT AFTER THE DEATH OF SUPERMAN SEVERAL YEARS. CONNOR KENT BELONG TO TIME WARNER AND HE CAN BE CALLED SUPERBOY OR ANY NAME SUPERNOVA. HOW BRINGING BACK THE ADVENTURE COMICS STARRING CONNOR “SUPERBOY”KENT. JUST GIVE HIM A NEW COSTUME THAT ISN’T A SUPERMAN COPY VERSION. GOOD LUCK TO TIME WARNER AND THEIR BATTLE WITHG THE SIEGEL. YOUR TRULY CHARLES DAVID HASKELL

Yeah, they could bring back Conner Kent, but I disagree about them being able to call him Superboy.

Hey, since the trial is 1 week from today, I was wondering. What are the chances of Kon-El returning in Final crisis. I’m not looking for spoilers, but perhaps a hint of what we’re going to see in Final Crisis.

Leave a Comment

 

Categories

Review Copies

Comics Should Be Good accepts review copies. Anything sent to us will (for better or for worse) end up reviewed on the blog. See where to send the review copies.

Browse the Archives