Not to sidetrack this, but that is not the correct story about Siegel & Schuster.

S&S created Superman and sold their rights to the character when they signed to have the book published. That was normal business practice at the time.   They actually tried to sell the character for a few years before DC picked it up.   Once the character became hugely successful and S&S saw how much money they had given away, they tried to get the rights returned.   They were receiving rather high payment for drawing the character, but they were not participating in any money received from the toys, cartoons, radio and movie serials that were being made. They spent a great deal of money trying to sue DC, losing each time. DC "settled" with them in the late 40's, but they did not give back the rights to the character.

In the 70's, after seeing all returns on their character dry up, they sued again and lost - but the comic book industry took up their case and shamed DC into giving them more money. Each started to receive an annual salary for the remainder of their lives and, most importantly to them, they began receiving credit in the comic book as the creators of Superman. This is after DC won in court.

Yes, they did receive a paltry sum in comparision to the millions that DC has made from the character, but this is not unusual. They weren't screwed, they screwed themselves by signing the deal. Most comic book characters were sold in similar fashion.   Simon & Schuster were happy to get the comic book published and only began complaining when the character made money. While I do feel sorry for them, I don't think they could blame anyone but themselves.   They were not the only creators in this boat, they just happened to have created one of the most lucrative characters of all time.

The legendary Jack Kirby had a similar experience with Marvel & DC, and even Stan Lee sued Marvel for money from the Spider-man movies.