Quoting Journalista:

Last Wednesday, U.S. district judge Stephen G. Larson issued a summary judgment in the lawsuit between DC Comics/Warner Brothers Entertainment and the estate of Superman co-creator Jerome “Jerry” Siegel, giving half of the copyright to the original Superman story published in the 1938 Action Comics #1 back to the Siegel estate and backdating said ownership to 1999, when the Siegels filed notice of termination. Jeff Trexler broke the news on Friday afternoon and posted a copy of Larson’s full 72-page ruling to his website; on Saturday, the New York Times and the Bloomberg wire service had both issued news stories covering the landmark ruling. Both Jeff Trexler and Brian Cronin have crafted FAQs answering basic questions, and Andy Khoury discusses the judgment with intellectual-property lawyer Brendan McFeely. The best reading on the subject is really Judge Larson’s summary judgment itself, however: It’s an entertaining and informative document that contains a full history of the creation of Superman, a summary of how the case has progressed to date and of course includes Larson’s erudite resolution of several important issues involved in the case. Oh yeah, and in the appendix, a color reproduction of the original Superman story itself. Hey kids! Comics!

The heirs of Joe Schuster, the other co-creator of Superman, could get ownership of the other half of the copyright by 2013.

More from Journalista:

I wish I could remember where I read it — I’m tempted to credit either Neal Adams or R. Fiore — but one of the most damning things I ever read about the Siegel and Shuster legacy was that it was a refutation of the American Dream. One of the defining principles of the United States, after all, has always been the notion that regardless of the circumstances from which you began in life, if you came up with the right idea or hit the right motherlode you would profit from it accordingly, and pass the wealth along to your family when you died. I don’t know if the “rags to riches” story was invented by an American, but it was almost certainly perfected by one.

The story of how Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster brought Superman to DC Comics, and how DC subsequently treated them, turns this notion on its head. $130 and a job — that’s what Siegel and Shuster got, and they only had the latter so long as they were willing to play ball.[…]

Abhay Khosla refers to all of this as “the original sin of comics,” and he’s quite correct to do so. Arguments that Siegel and Shuster “should have known better,” circulating on comments threads all weekend, should be met with derision by right-thinking people. (”But — but Bob Kane¹ knew better,” said the strawman standing conveniently nearby. So? Bob Kane’s father was a successful East Coast lawyer. Siegel and Shuster were average kids from Ohio. They didn’t know copyright law from diamond mining.)

There’s lots more good stuff at Journalista, so go read.

Unfortunately, the precedent set by this case — even if it’s not overturned — is, due to a technicality, not likely to be applicable to comic books other than Superman. And exactly what this will mean in the long run is still up in the air.

But, symbolically, this is a wonderful victory for creators’ rights.

1. Bob Kane co-created “Batman.” (back)

The Sad-Faced Man is a character who has shown up in a lot of my doodles over the years, and appeared a few times in Pre-Structuralist Funnies.

I’ve also frequently doodled anthropomorphic spatulas and coffee cups. Don’t know why.

The Union express, the paper of the National Distribution Union, is one of the better union newspapers in New Zealand. But there was an appalling article about climate change in their latest issue (not available on-line but it’s February-April 2008 with a Bunnings protest on the front cover). I think it typifies what is ridiculous about much discussion about the environment.

The article is called Be The Change and is based on the website of the same name.

My main objection is to the section called Save Money and the Planet, which gave all sorts of advice about what union members could do. Much of the advice assumed that you own your own home, and have capital to make upgrades, with suggestions to install insulation, and consider solar water heating. Then there’s the advice to turn off your heated towel rail and your second fridge.*

I am angry to read this nonsense in a union magazine, which is going to some of the lowest paid workers in the country. While some of NDU workplaces, such as mills, are well paid enough that workers might own their own home and a heated towel rail, many are not.

I regularly turn off my hot water heater, not for energy efficiency reasons, because it’s the only way I can pay my electricity bill. The idea that workers need to be lectured at how to save electricity is ridiculous. Low paid people know from saving money. What they don’t have is capital, some people can’t afford to buy a $6 light bulb now to save $20 over the course of the year.

There was nothing about landlords and government’s responsibility to provide better quality housing, and what unions are doing about that (which is probably because the answer is ‘nothing’). There wasn’t even any information about the schemes that some councils are running which subsidise landlords to install heat-pumps and installation.

I would expect a union magazine to be the one place you could find discussion of environmental issues that goes beyond individualistic moralising. That it didn’t, that all the Union Express had to say was the banal ‘be the change’ is a really bad sign. Recently discussion about climate change and carbon footprints have gone mainstream. Airlines and power companies want us to believe if we do our little bit then everything will be fine. Some environmentalists seem to see this as a victory, but it’s not, it’s distraction and co-option. Individuals can’t save the planet, anymore than they can end war. The way the world’s resources are used is not decided by consumers, but at by companies at the point of production. Action around climate change which ignores this isn’t so much rearranging deck-chairs on the Titanic, but telling the passengers to lose weight so it’ll sink slower.

* It makes me want to write a whole series of climate change advice in a similar vein: “Turn off the heating system in your spa pool when you are going to be away for a few days. Consider an energy efficient air conditioning system for your second home.” etc.

Use this thread to discuss whatever you’d like, or post whatever links you want. Self-linking is encouraged.

These photos, part of a series on Damn Cool Pics, show the aftermath of an ice rain in Southern China.

Pseudopod, the biggest podcast of horror fiction, is currently featuring “Heartstrung,” a short story by Rachel Swirsky — who “Alas” readers know better as Mandolin. (Mandolin’s fiction appears regularly in professional venues, but this is the first time one of her stories has been podcasted.)

If you had asked me, I would have said that “Heartstrung” was fantasy, not horror — but I can see why a horror magazine bought it. It’s not traditional horror, but it is pretty horrifying. It’s also really good, and (in my opinion, at least) contains strong feminist themes. And it’s free! Give it a listen.

P.S. Mandolin is also editing a new podcast of fantasy fiction. More about that next week.

P.P.S. You can read a review of some of Mandolin’s other fiction here.

From Tapped, Dana advises pregnant workers to give written notice… of pregnancy:

That’s one of the lessons in Sue Shellenbarger’s latest Wall Street Journal column, which reports that pregnancy bias complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rose 14 percent last year to 5,587, a 40 percent increase from a decade ago. One woman in the publishing industry was fired while she was pregnant, supposedly for poor performance, yet those issues had never come up prior to her pregnancy. She wanted legal redress, but couldn’t prove in writing that her bosses actually knew she was expecting. So consider sharing your big news over email.

Shallenbarger also writes that many American women, until they get pregnant, have no idea that they are entitled to no paid leave under current law. Indeed, a study from Harvard University last year found that of 168 nations worldwide, the United States is one of only four whose government doesn’t require employers to provide paid maternity leave. The others are Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland.

(This is a edited comment I left on one of my favorite blogs.)

Wonderful post. But the comments section here - mainly B.C.’s comments — make me want to scream in frustration.

Fat Acceptance… Just what MLK, Jr was fighting for–so chubby white women could avoid lynchings,
michelin men being burned in effegies on front lawns, etc.

Fat is beautiful. Just what my family who ran like hell to get away from the lynch mobs in Mississippi was praying for–the rights of fat white people to feel good about themselves.

It’s true no one has been lynched for being fat (although fat people have died due to lousy good medical care for fat people). It’s also true that anyone who says “fat rights is just like the black civil rights movement!” is being an idiot.

But so what? Being Black is not like being fat is not like being female is not like being queer is not like being disabled is not like being Asian is not like being trans is not like being poor is not like being…

No marginalized group’s experience is exactly like any other’s. No one’s experiences are interchangeable. But the legitimacy of fat activists’ complaints doesn’t depend on us showing our experiences are exactly like the black experience, or the lesbian experience, etc..

It’s about justice.

The reason fat activists have formed a movement is that it’s unjust to be denied good medical care because we’re fat; we think it’s unjust that we can get fired for being fat; we think it’s unjust that we face job and wage discrimination because we’re fat; we think it’s unjust that we can be charged more for basic services (like insurance) because we’re fat; it’s unjust that people glance at us and assume that we’re lazy and care nothing for ourselves; and yes, although you’ll sneer at this as “the right to feel good,” it’s unjust that fat people are taught from childhood to think of themselves as deficient, wrong, and disgusting.

Anit-fat bigotry isn’t wrong because it’s the same as facing lynch mobs. It’s wrong because it’s unjust. It’s unjust because we’re human and don’t deserve to be treated as second-class people because of the shape of our bodies.

That — not the claim that being fat is at all like being black — is why fat activists fight.

See also: Kate Harding and Red No Three. (I didn’t read Red’s post until after I wrote this one, but there’s a lot of overlap).

The first “Hereville” story is now available in electronic form! This comic is 57 pages long (not including covers, title page, and stuff like that) and in color.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the comic, you can read the first 18 (and counting!) pages for free by going to www.hereville.com. Here’s what the Webcomics Examiner had to say about it:

Barry Deutsch’s Hereville is the story of Mirka, a young girl living in the orthodox Jewish commune of Aherville. She is a strong-willed girl, who dreams of becoming a dragon slayer, while struggling with the duties imposed by being a female in a community that values traditional gender roles. The story is leisurely and steeped in cultural tradition; even troll killing must wait until after Shabbot rituals. Smart, yet heartwarming, quiet, yet with a genuine sense of adventure.

I’ll be selling the dead tree version beginning in May — but I’m taking pre-orders now, to help defray printing costs. Buy a copy! Buy 5 to give to your friends! Buy 35 to give out to strangers on the street!

Ahem.

For details on how to buy either the dead tree version, or an E-copy, or even a copy with a sketch in it, please head on over to the Hereville website. Thanks.

The sun was shining as I sat down at the Cenotaph. Like most war memorials it looks like a giant penis. No-one else was there, but I was I knitted a few rows, and the mother of kids I used to babysat for walked by. We talked a bit, mostly about knitting and she left. I knitted a few more rows; no-one else showed up. I packed my knitting away, and walked off. For ten minutes, I’d vigiled alone in solidarity with the people of Iraq.

That was the political action in Wellington on the fifth anniversary of the War on Iraq. Maybe the people who had called the vigil turned up after I left, I don’t know. It’s been a hard six months for many of us here - there are extenuating circumstances

But it’s not just here, the movement against the war in Iraq was at it’s peak in the first six months of 2003. I own this book:

I’ve always loved it, I flick through and look at the sea of placards in London, the shivering scientists in Antarctica, the incomprehensible naked demos and the mass of people in Santiago. I think back to what we were doing on the fifteenth of February 2003, and what a crazy chaotic time it was, and how much we managed to do.

But tonight, I thought different things at I looked at the photos of the young woman in Sydney who had written ‘Make Love Not War’ written on her arm and was making out with an equally young man; the school kids on strike in London, on the first day of the war; the soccer fan who ran on the pitch with “Stop Bush” written on his backs; the hundreds of windows in Milan with peace flags flying; the two women in Washington DC who had written Peace Womb on their pregnant bellies - their children would be five by now. I want to know where they all were on Thursday, the fifth anniversary.

Almost everyone in those pictures must still oppose the war, five years later. It’s not as if it’s gone better than planned. But in those five years they must have lost something, all those people who came out and took action in so many ways. They must have lost hope.

I think we, by which I mean the anti-war movements in the broadest sense, must have done something wrong, not to be able to build on that hope that existed in those months. I can tell you some of the specific things that I would do differently in Wellington. But those details are too specific to explain the world-wide shrinking in the anti-war movement (unless every anti-war group had massive disagreements around meat).

The fifteenth of February 2003 was amazing, but a war cannot be stopped in one day, even one day with millions of people. Anything we do must be sustained longer than the period where urgency overwhelms us. I think the question for those of us who took part is how we can build, next time.

In order to keep the discussion focused, comments on this post are only open to those who supported the goals of stopping, and then ending, the war on Iraq.

Tara at Fatshionista writes about people of color and the fact acceptance movement:

There are reasons why people of color aren’t flocking to the fat acceptance movement, and they’re probably not the reasons you’re thinking of. […]

I also need to say that if I hear the “fat is the last acceptable oppression” meme one more time, I am going to scream (louder). Fat hatred is often blatant, shameless, vitriolic, and completely public. But guess what? So is racism! (And classism, heterosexism, ableism, and sexism.) Racism is institutionalized into our laws, our classrooms, our work places, and our daily interactions. Just because some white folks think it’s unacceptable to say the n-word, doesn’t mean that racism is gone or that it’s not “acceptable.” When people in the fat acceptance movement say that fat is the last acceptable oppression, it alienates and invalidates the struggles of people of color, who know first-hand that racism not only exists, but that it is also very much “acceptable” in polite society.

Another offensive myth that I hear parroted around fairly often is that people of color are more accepting of fat bodies, and that men of color love a “thick” woman. Let’s just say that that is NOT my experience. In many different Asian communities, that is the opposite of the truth. By Taiwanese (where my mom is from) beauty standards, my 5′4, size 20, size 10 shoe body is enormous in almost every sense of the word. The last time my mom went to Taipei and tried to buy me a pair of shoes, the vendor asked her if they were for a man. The last time I saw my uncle 8 years ago (when I was a size 16), his friends laughed at me and he said that he wanted to put me on a diet program. Of course, Asians and Asian culture is not a monolith, and this standard is not true for everyone, everywhere. In fact, among other communities of color, it is not necessarily true that bigger women are more accepted. Our communities are also capable of internalizing fat-hating messages, so to say that people of color are more accepting of fatness is not only false, but it also marginalizes us further and contributes to perpetuating the invisibility of our struggles with our bodies.

I don’t agree with everything Tara writes; for instance, I don’t agree that the fatosphere rarely brings up the connection between class and access to healthy food. (I rarely see it brought up anywhere but the fatosphere). But it’s a great post.

Hat tip: Racialicious, which also quotes this great post by Fillyjonk:

…As people who are interested in social justice, we have a responsibility to give a shit about causes other than our own major concerns. Any oppression diminishes us. I am lucky enough to have a skin color that people can ignore, a relationship that I can get officially recognized, and enough financial stability that I don’t have to worry about where the rent is coming from. That means that racism, homophobia, and classism don’t affect me as much as fatphobia and misogyny; it means I could ignore them if I wanted to. But I invite them into my consciousness, not because I’m a glutton for emotional stress, but because I want to live in a just society. And I believe a just society is one in which the concerns and the marginalization of others matter to us.

Nobody is asking us to give up being fat activists and be anti-racism activists instead. But these things are not mutually exclusive; even if we don’t have the resources to do active work for both (or some other additional activist issue), we can give a shit about both simultaneously. If you do have the resources, by god, keep it up, but I know I just don’t have the energy to try to address all inequities and injustices. It’s hard enough to keep talking about large-scale attempts to disenfranchise and vilify fatties. But even if this isn’t a place where every oppression is equally addressed (which I don’t think anyone expects or even really needs), it’s really crucial that it be a place where every oppression is considered and important. That means that we do not minimize or dismiss people’s concerns. Right now, it means we listen to Tara when she talks about the things that hurt or alienate her; that we believe that these things are alienating; that we take this into account in the future; and that we understand that this awareness is not an unfair onus, but part of the greater work of social activism.

On the same subject, I’d also highly recommend this post at The Rotund.

I’ve decided to experiment with posting scans from my sketchbook here. Hope folks enjoy it. You can click on it to see the bigger sizes on Flickr.

People who flip through my sketchbook always ask me if these drawings are supposed to be of any particular individual. It makes me wonder what the people they know look like.

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), speaking to rally attendees in Medford, Oregon on Saturday, took issue with how recent political campaigns have used wedge issues to divide the electorate, but have ultimately done little to make a real difference, especially when there are more important things to worry about.

“I mean, think about what these last few election cycles have been about,” the Senator said. “We argue about immigration, but we don’t try to solve the immigration problem. It’s an argument that is all about people’s passions instead of trying to figure it out.

“We argue about gay marriage. You know, in the meantime the planet is, you know, potentially being destroyed. We’ve got a war that is bankrupting us. And we’re going to argue about gay marriage? I mean, that doesn’t make any sense.”

I have three responses to Obama:

1) It’s not an either-or choice. Caring passionately about equal marriage rights doesn’t preclude me from caring passionately about Iraq, or about the environment.

2) It’s too easy for heterosexuals to decide that equal legal rights for lesbians and gays is trivial. Obama has never been treated as a second-class citizen because of his choice of life partner. He doesn’t have to worry about whether the hospital will acknowlege him as a relative if Michelle is injured or sick. He doesn’t have to worry about his two girls receiving the message that their family is less legitimate and real than their peers’ families because of the sexes of their parents.

So of course he sees the issue as trivial. But that doesn’t mean it is.

3) Fuck you, Barack Obama. Seriously.

* * *

P.S. And a word to Clinton supporters: Try not to get smug over this. Clinton never has and never will lift a finger to support equal marriage rights for lesbians and gays, and she never will (until she retires from politics, a la Al Gore.) Clinton and Obama both suck on this regard.

But unless Obama clarifies his statement, I think he’s the suckier of the two.

UPDATE: By the way, an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment, which is worded so broadly that it would probably effect civil unions, just passed out of committee in the Pennsylvania Senate. Since both Clinton and Obama are very concerned with Pennsylvania right now, let’s see if either of them has the guts to speak out against this. I bet that neither of them will.

Lots of Obama supporters have been arguing that it’s time for Clinton to drop out of the race. I can see the arguments, but I think it makes more sense for Clinton to decide when Clinton drops out. Sandy Levinson argues that the extended primary should be welcomed:

Consider the following: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama actually have had to visit states like Texas, Wyoming, and Mississippi, which they will certainly not do for the general election. They will also find themselves in North Carolina and South Dakota before too very long. This means, among other things, that they are actually forced to become familiar with issues that might matter to people in those states and address them as, gasp, the equal of Democrats in safe states or the fabled swing voters in the few “battleground states.” […]

Puerto Rico’s delegates are suddenly precious commodities, so that Obama and Clinton will have to pay attention to what is, at present, the largest remaining colony in the world. […] I, for one, will be extremely interested to hear what the candidates have to say about the future of Puerto Rico, as I assume is the case with Puerto Ricans themselves. Obama has supported “self-determination.” Is he prepared to fight for statehood if that should be the majority’s desire, including the retention of Spanish as the island/state’s primary language? Ditto Hillary. Would either accept an unlikely vote in favor of independence? I am absolutely confident that neither would feel the slightest need to learn anything about Puerto Rico in the absence of the need actually to campaign for votes there.

That seems persuasive to me.

It’s possibly true, as many have argued, that an early decision would allow Democratic guns to swival McCainward. But maybe not; after all, campaigning in every state forces Clinton and Obama to build ground organizations in every state, which will give them a compensating advantage in the general election.

(Now if only Democrats could manage not to rip each other apart with hatred before then.)

From the opening of Clinton’s speech a few days ago:

I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went.

I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

That’s not what happened. There was no sniper fire. There was a greeting ceremony at the airport, with the President of Bosnia. An adorable eight-year old read Clinton a poem on the tarmac, while Chelsea waited nearby. There were no press reports of Clinton being under fire in Bosnia.

This isn’t an unimportant lie; Clinton’s lie here, and her exaggeration of her role in Ireland, relates directly to her contention that she’s qualified to answer a phone ringing at 3am and Obama isn’t. This is, in fact, the central argument of her campaign.

My first reaction was that this is Clinton overreaching to establish her creds as a foreign policy veteran. Charles disagrees; he told me that he thinks this is Clinton reacting to sexism by trying to prove she’s tough and unafraid, fighting against the stereotype of women’s roles. It seems to me that probably both motivations are at play here.

Curiously, Clinton’s also fibbed about her role in domestic policy — for instance, taking credit for the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which she apparently had nothing to do with.

What really bothers me is that Clinton’s lying is so transparent, indicating that Clinton — who by all accounts is brilliant and disciplined — has decided she can get away with blatant lies. So far, she’s been right, which says a lot about how bad our media is.

Clinton’s supporters claim the media is biased against her; but compare the near free ride Clinton’s lies have gotten from the media to the hysteria over Obama’s minister. This is because the mainstream media is less “pro-Obama” than “pro-narrative.” The media has bought into a narrative frame which says Clinton represents experience, Obama represents hope, and lies that support this narrative aren’t questioned.

Of course, the media is biased against Clinton, both because she’s a woman and because she’s a Clinton. But the bias isn’t the one-way street Clinton’s supporters believe.

* * *

Incidentally, I think Clinton has impressive foreign policy creds; in particular, she’s been a consistent and dedicated voice for women’s rights for many years. That’s a real argument in Clinton’s favor, and it’s a record she should be proud of.

But that’s not the foreign policy experience she’s been claiming for herself, or running on. And the experience she has been claiming for herself isn’t true. And her longstanding hawkishness, regardless of if it’s rooted in a defensive reaction to sexism or in genuine inclinations, is extremely problematic.

The death of discourse is funny.