Could two SUPERMAN versions be on the horizon?

Zack Snyder's Man of Steel is set for release in 2012 and is poised to be epic. At least Warner Bros. and fans alike hope that is the case. I would love to see the film spawn a franchise much like Christopher Nolan did for Batman. It does not hurt that Nolan is involved with Superman. Unfortunately, there is the little problem of Warner losing ownership of the rights to a significant part of the early Superman universe.

The Siegel and Shuster estates may end up owning th rights to part of the Superman story, while the other parts would be owned by DC Comics. The heirs could get Superman's blue leotard, red cape and boots, and the ability to leap tall buildings while DC retains villains like Lex Luthor plus Superman's ability to fly. I know fans like me are hoping that the two parties will come to an agreement. The possibility of two separate Superman versions coming to the screen in 2013 could technically become a reality, even though it makes little sense.

Superman is a hero fighting for truth, justice and the American way and should not have to deal with these legal woes. The problems first arose in 2008 and 2009 when a series of rulings were handed down by U.S. District Judge Stephen Larson. Larson "ruled that Siegel's heirs had successfully reclaimed their share of the copyright to Action Comics No. 1, which marked Superman's 1938 debut; Action Comics No. 4; and other early depictions of the character and storyline. (Shuster's heirs are on a separate timeline that begins in 2013). Larson was acting on a provision of the 1976 Copyright Act that allows authors to regain the copyrights to their creations after a certain period of time, subject to a series of intricate conditions."

It is very unlikely that there would be two Superman projects going on, because it would be almost impossible to market the film. The heirs would own important parts of the character, but not the trademark. This would pose a significant limitation on marketing and merchandising. And their reclamation of the copyright applies only to the U.S., so international rights would remain in the hands of DC.

In 2013, DC could move forward with the Superman projects it has already made, but under the Copyright Act, the company could not create new "derivative" works based on Action Comics No. 1 and other properties held by the heirs. More sequels though, would add up to more legal roadblocks.

Here is a bit from Variety that is best for me to just quote:

In a recent article published in the Columbia Journal of the Law & the Arts, Anthony Cheng writes that 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner's decision in Neil Gaiman's suit against Todd McFarlane "could provide the rationale for both parties to continue legally exploiting" Superman. Posner determined that Gaiman's "Medieval Spawn" was "sufficiently distinct" to justify a separate character copyright from the original Spawn.

Along this line of reasoning, one way to settle the Superman dispute would be to "split the character in two -- a 1938 Superman and a Modern Superman -- and allow both sides to create new works based on their versions," Cheng writes.

Moreover, because both sides would independently be exploiting their respective versions of the Man of Steel, they wouldn't have to go through the tricky work of accounting for each others' profits. They'd own what they own. One downside, though, Cheng writes, is that DC would have the more valuable version of the character, given the length of time it has been transforming Man of Steel projects into popular culture.

The other, more obvious, option is that all parties come together. But that's no easy feat. The heirs' attorney, Marc Toberoff, is appealing Larson's decision to the 9th Circuit to get a more definitive ruling on who owns what, while DC is proceeding with its suit against Toberoff, charging that he has poisoned their relationship with the Siegels and Shusters.

Amid all the acrimony, it's easy to forget the original intent of the "rights termination" clause of the Copyright Act: to give authors another opportunity to share in the rewards of their creations, not to parcel them out in bits and pieces.

Larson's point wasn't to parcel out the rights but to compel everyone to come to the same table for potentially mutual benefit. As he wrote in one ruling, Superman is an "aggregate whole," not "a red cape here, a particular villain there."

I can see a modern and a classic Superman, but it would limit the storyline abilities of the writer. I just wish that the two parties could come to some arrangement to just make something happen for the fans, which is why the creators came up with the Superman universe in the first place. I would rather just see one unified front moving forward.

What are your thoughts?