Did DC Sue Mad Magazine Over Its Superman Parody, Superduperman?

by

In today’s edition, number 952, let’s delve into three stories about myths, rumors, and legends. We’ll be finding out the truth behind one of them: Did National Comics (now known as DC Comics) actually sue Mad Magazine over their Superman parody, Superduperman?

In this second installment focusing on lawsuits related to Mad Magazine’s comics, we uncover the facts.

When Action Comics #1 was published in 1938, it significantly transformed the comic book industry. Upon recognizing the potential profits from comic books, other publishers swiftly introduced their own renditions of Superman, the star character from Action Comics. One of the first competitors to National Comics (now DC) was Fox Feature Syndicate, headed by Victor S. Fox. During this period, a novel business model known as the comic book packaging studio emerged. These studios would create and illustrate an entire comic book for you, allowing you to own the characters while only publishing the comics and pocketing the profits. However, you had to pay them upfront.

At that particular time, Eisner-Iger stood out as the leading comic book packaging studio. It was largely due to Will Eisner, one of the most imaginative figures in comic book history, that the company thrived. Not only was he an exceptional artist, but also a prolific generator of innovative comic book concepts. This was beneficial because he had to introduce numerous ideas simultaneously to keep up with the high demand for them.

Despite this, Fox explicitly requested Eisner to create a character strikingly similar to Superman. Consequently, Fox established his company with the publication of Wonder Comics, featuring the main character, Wonder Man.

Initially, National successfully obtained a temporary restraining order and eventually went to court. In this case, Fox suffered the loss. This defeat, however, likely boosted National’s confidence, as they encountered another issue with yet another Fox character, but this time it appeared to be an exceptionally far-fetched claim that this character was a blatant imitation of one of their own characters.

Jim Mooney created the superhero The Moth for 1940’s Mystery Men Comics #9…

In response to National’s claim that Fox was using their Batman character without permission, Fox retorted by encouraging Mooney to emphasize more traits similar to Batman, somewhat petulantly, and they renamed the character Lynx.

In a turn of events, I found myself on the winning side when I took legal action against Fox. The courtroom erupted in laughter as the judge quipped, “I trust you’ve learned something from our last encounter?

To clarify, let me emphasize the legal challenges National Comics faced, and the concerns that arose for EC’s Mad Magazine when they introduced Superduperman in issue #4 of Mad Magazine, published in 1953.

So, did National sue EC, as well?

Why would National sue over a parody?

In 2025, you might wonder, “But Brian, isn’t it clear they can’t sue for a blatant parody case?” However, it seems that even when fair use parodies are obvious, as in the case of the book combining Star Trek and Dr. Seuss titled “Oh, the Places You’ll Boldly Go!“, they aren’t always straightforward. In fact, this book was also a clear parody, but it turned out that such cases can be complex.

Back then, I wouldn’t be too confident that EC comics would be shielded from infringement claims, but even if they were, the understanding of fair use parodies in 1953 was vastly different compared to today. The legal landscape was still uncharted territory, which is why National Comics was able to sue Fawcett over Captain Marvel – a case that wouldn’t likely occur nowadays.

Clearly, they found themselves in uncharted waters, given the Superduperman spoof penned by the genius comic pioneers, Harvey Kurtzman (the scriptwriter) and Wallace Wood (the illustrator).

National was NOT happy about the story, and threatened to sue EC.

Did National sue over Superduperman?

It’s interesting to note that both National and EC Comics had the same attorney. This lawyer advised Gaines to cease producing these parody comics, claiming they were too legally questionable. However, Harvey Kurtzman managed to find a legal precedent that he believed justified EC’s right to satirize Superman. Intriguingly, the story even pokes fun at National’s lawsuit with Fawecett over Captain Marvel.

In a different turn of events, Gaines sought advice from an external attorney who aligned with Kurtzman’s viewpoint. Consequently, Gaines opted to roll the dice, and despite numerous tales hinting at National filing a lawsuit against EC, they ultimately chose not to sue in the end. The success of Superduperman, which gained traction solely through word-of-mouth, made EC realize it was a hit. This success prompted Mad magazine to explore new territories of parodies, as Kurtzman managed to convince Gaines that their parody work was on firm legal ground. Over the years, this is what Mad became most renowned for.

Ponder for a moment what it might be like if the National party had successfully sued and won their case…that’s a hypothetical scenario I’d rather not dwell too deeply on.

Check Out a TV Legends Revealed

In the latest TV Legends Revealed –

Swing by again real soon for the following episode! Don’t forget to explore additional urban tales linked to the realm of cinema and television on my site. Notably, there are some fun pop culture tidbits waiting for you as well!

Hey there fellow gaming enthusiast! If you’ve got some fresh ideas brewing about potential comic legends, don’t hesitate to shoot them over to me at either cronb01@aol.com or brianc@cbr.com. I’m always on the lookout for exciting new characters and stories to explore!

Read More

2025-05-12 04:04