Will Smith’s ‘MIB3′ Beats … 
Cannes Podcast: Pete Hammond On ‘Lawless’, … 
Over-Achievers Of This Year’s Upfront 
Australia Pay-TV Shakeup Could Impact Hollywood Deals Down … 
Could ‘Rebounding’ Become Companion For … 
Interview: Philip Kaufman At Cannes With ‘Hemingway … 
R.I.P. Lee Rich 
Cannes Biz Climate Shines Despite The Wind And Rain 
Full 2011-2012 TV Season Series Rankings 
2011-12 Season Network Rankings: Fox Still On Top But Down, … 
HLN Set To Air Daytime Emmy Awards 
Grant Bowler Cast As Richard Burton Opposite Lindsay Lohan … 
UPDATE: Dish Network And Broadcasters Ask Courts To Decide … 
Cannes Surprise Screening: Change Of Plans On Juan Antonio … 
Kevin Hart In Talks To Join Kevin James In ‘Valet … 
Anthony Hopkins Up For ‘Red 2′ Villain; Can … 
Cannes Conflicted Over ‘The Paperboy’ As … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘American Idol’ Posts … 
Ghost Of 2004 Hovers Over L.A. Screenings As Int’l … 
On The Road To Awards Season? Kerouac Book Finally Makes It … 
Michael Bay’s Name Pushed Paramount To Settle Injured … 
EXCLUSIVE: Today Lois Lane was cast for Warner Bros’ Superman movie reboot. So it’s fitting to note that, on February 12th, the widow of Superman co-creator Jerome Siegel died of heart failure in a Los Angeles hospital at age 93. While much has been made of the fact that she was the model for Lois Lane, Joanne Siegel also was a driving force along with the estate of Joe Shuster to recapture the entire original copyright to Superman. The Siegel heirs have already been awarded half the copyright for Superman. And in 2013 the Shuster heirs get the remaining half. After that, neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros will be able to use Superman without a financial agreement with the Siegels and Shusters. There are also stipulations on what parts of the origins story can be used in future Superman movies and which require re-negotiations with the creators’ heirs or estates. But Warner Bros keeps fighting the Siegel and Shuster heirs and last May seized on a new hardball strategy: to force their attorney Marc Toberoff to resign by filing a lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles raising questions about his alleged role as a financial participant in the Superman copyright. Before her death, Joanne Siegel was preparing the following letter obtained by Deadline:
December 10, 2010
Jeffrey L. Bewkes
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Time Warner Inc.Dear Jeff,
I am Joanne Siegel widow of Jerry Siegel, creator of Superboy and co-creator of Superman with Joe Shuster. It has always been my policy to be in touch with the Chairmen of the Board of your company going back to when Steve Ross formed Warner Communications.
Steve Ross knew how to take care of large vexing problems. He paid the price, whatever it was, then went on, and the company prospered. He was gracious and friendly when my late husband Jerry and I met him at a stockholders meeting after he sent Jerry, Joe, my daughter Laura and me company stock. He also phoned me to say if we needed anything I should just pick up the phone and call him. He said if he could not be reached for some reason, one of the top officers in the company, Deane Johnson, would handle things personally. Laura and I believe if Steve were alive our copyright ownership matter would have been successfully resolved long ago.
Jerry Levin was also reachable and thoughtful. He sent my husband and later me, cases of grapefruit at the holiday season. He remembered Jerry’s birthday with a Superman sculpture. When my Jerry passed away, Jerry Levin told Laura and me that we are part of the Time Warner family, part of its history. Unfortunately he retired before our rights issues were resolved. He had given his attorneys too much power so that negotiations were unsatisfactory and a settlement was impossible. Dick Parsons, on the other hand, was not friendly and, under him, the attorneys hired by the company were arrogant and pro-litigation.
Now you are Chairman and CEO. Because we are in litigation I held off writing to you. I now believe had we had contact early on, things might not have gone so far off track.
My daughter Laura and I, as well as the Shuster estate, have done nothing more than exercise our rights under the Copyright Act. Yet, your company has chosen to sue us and our long-time attorney for protecting our rights.
On December 1st I turned 93. I am old enough to be your mother. I have grown grandchildren. Unfortunately I am not in the best of health. My cardiologist provided a letter to your attorneys informing them that I suffer from a serious heart condition and that forcing me to go through yet another stressful deposition could put me in danger of a heart attack or stroke. I am also on medications that have side effects which force me to stay close to home and restrooms. Nonetheless your attorneys are forcing me to endure a second deposition even though I have already undergone a deposition for a full day in this matter. As clearly they would be covering the same ground, their intention is to harass me.
My dear daughter Laura too has painful medical conditions including multiple sclerosis, arthritis, glaucoma, spine disorders, and fibromyalgia. She has already had her deposition taken twice by your attorneys while in pain. Her doctors have given written statements saying she should not be subjected to a third deposition, yet your attorneys are insisting on re-taking her deposition in an effort to harass her as well.
So I ask you to please consider – do these mean spirited tactics meet with your approval? Do you really think the families of Superman’s creators should be treated this way?
As you know, DC and Warner Bros. have profited enormously from 72 years of exploiting Jerry and Joe’s wonderful creation. Superman is now a billion dollar franchise and has been DC’s flagship property for all this time.
As for this letter, the purpose is three-fold:
To protest harassment of us that will gain you nothing but bad blood and a continued fight.
To protest harassment of our attorney by falsely accusing him of improper conduct in an attempt to deprive us of legal counsel.
To make you aware that in reality this is a business matter and that continuing with litigation for many more years will only benefit your attorneys.
This is not just another case. The public and press are interested in Superman and us and are aware of our and your litigations.
The solution to saving time, trouble, and expense is a change of viewpoint. Laura and I are legally owed our share of Superman profits since 1999. By paying the owed bill in full, as you pay other business bills, it would be handled as a business matter, instead of a lawsuit going into its 5th year.
Even though you will no doubt pass this letter on to your attorneys, the final decision is yours. Your image as well as the company’s reputation rests on a respectable and acceptable outcome, and I hope you will get personally involved to insure this matter is handled properly.
The courtesy of a friendly and meaningful reply from you will be most appreciated.
Sincerely,
Joanne Siegel
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
So glad you posted this, Nikki. I sincerely hope that the AP and various other news organization pick it up and turn your post into a national news story, exposing Jeffery’s shameful behavior and Time Warner’s bullying tactics to the world at large. How horrible that those entrusted with the protection of a character who is an international icon of justice would allow their own greed and self-interest to torment a 93 year old widow.
After 2013, I hope all future Superman movies will be made through Sony or Disney or even Universal. Any place other than WB (or Fox, who has proven to be another inherently evil corporate monolith.
Yeah, neither Sony, Universal, or Disney will make a Superman movie, even if WB loses. Mostly because no one wants to make a Superman movie where Superman doesn’t have his \S/ shield on his chest, cannot fly or do most of the stuff he can do today, lacks most of his supporting cast and villains, etc. since Warner Bros. will continue to own almost all of the trademarks surrounding the character.
And I will add that almost everyone will automatically dismiss a Superman movie where he cannot do most of the stuff he does, only has very few supporting characters like Lois Lane, and doesn’t even have the \S/ on his chest.
Actually, if you read any of the recent court decisions, it is the Siegel and Shuster version which everyone knows which Disney, Sony or Universal could make into a viable, recognizable film. What Time Warner owns is the right to market a property featuring a super strong individual who can’t fly wearing a black and white leotard with a cape. That decision was rendered after Time Warner lawyers produced an ad of ACTION COMICS #1 in court. The judge ruled in favor of Time Warner based solely on the elements displayed in the ad, which did not include his name, his origin or his list of powers.
As a result, DC Comics has been experimenting with getting audiences accustomed to a black and silver Superman, and it was the probably the reason Clark went all Matrix-like with a silver S in Smallville.
If you want the real Superman, it starts with Siegel & Shuster.
Jeffrey L. Bewkes = Lex Luther
Boycott everything Superman until this is resolved.
corporate douchebags….they should be mortified
Like Ma Kent taking on Lex Luthor…
The idea to stop the profits of WB should not be in protesting the Superman franchise, but instead stop all products that WB sells, i.e. Potter, etc. Once the full boat pulls up to the dock with no cargo on board , then the shareholders can change the captain of the ship. Protest at the box office, cable box all avenues. If everyone stops for one day, one week there is a serious bubble in the profit flow.
why wasn’t this settled with the grapefruit givers etc….i don’t think Bewkes should be totally blamed…Levin sounds like an asshole….and what about her attys…what were they doing all these years…letting their client be placated with a kind word and a xmas gift…
Good to see some people are willing to let the truth come out. Warner Bros, hang your head in shame!!!!!!
As sympathetic as this is the law is blind to pity stories as it should be. If the Siegals are in the right they should find comfort in that and have confidence that the law will find in their favour. Joanne was a wonderful woman and I hope she has found peace.
It’s all about money, money, money.IT’S THE AMERICAN WAY.
Exactly. And the talentless progeny of the actual artist is now trying to rob a company of a commodity they bought, fair and square
Read the post a bit above – S & S earned a LOT of money from the contract.
Why is Warner/DC obligated to compensate people who pissed away their fortune?
Bullshit. I don’t care if she’s 93 or not, I have ALWAYS been in DC’s favor here.
Her husband signed a contract. DC took a semblace of the character he co-created and turned it into an ICON. The character he made is DEAD in all but name and shallow details. Now, years later, people who had NOTHING to do with its creation want to get paid off a dead man’s work, effectively reneging on the contract HE signed. And Warners is the bad guy?
I’m a big liberal, but I get real conservative very quickly when I see something so black and white. People are on her side cuz she’s the “little guy” and they’re all “creator’s rights!” like sheep. Nah, I don’t buy it
It doesn’t matter if their Superman differs from our Superman. Bob Kane’s Batman is nothing like Frank Miller’s Batman. The point is, they created Superman. Turning him into an icon is what DC’s supposed to do – that’s their business model.
Warner Brothers could dip into that Batman (or Harry Potter) fund and resolve this in an hour.
@Trama
For future reference, I wouldn’t bring Bob Kane’s name into this discussion.
This is because Bob Kane, who is credited as the sole creator of Batman, in fact owes nearly everything that made Batman great to writer Bill Finger. Why is it, you ask, that Bill Finger receives no credit? Because his creations and additions to Batman were done while in a work-for-hire situation for Bob Kane. Sound Familiar?
Legally, Bob Kane had every right to assume the credit for himself, even though he didn’t deserve it. But history will label Kane every bit the ungrateful benefactor of someone else’s genius the same way WB benefits from Siegel and Shuster, except Finger doesn’t even receive the courtesy of credit from Kane or his estate.
Wrong and wrong.
For starters, as his wife she is unequivocally entitled to the proceeds generated from her husband’s work, in exactly the same way that Jeff Bewkes’ wife is entitled to receive the wealth that he has earned if he were to die (even if Mrs. Bewkes’ herself didn’t “create” this wealth).
Secondly — what on earth makes you think she had “NOTHING” to do with the creation? You sound like someone who has never been married. People depend on their spouses in ways that cannot be summarized here, but artists especially so; they depend on them for stability and support and quite typically FINANCIAL support as they pursue their silly artistic endeavors.
I know a whole slew of male writers/directors who either A) were able to get a foothold in their professional only because they had a wife paying the bills, or B) are still looking for their foothold and currently have a wife paying the bills. In the same way I have a brother finishing up residency as a specialist, but was put through med school by a wife working her ass off to support them both.
So no, she won’t be holding the scalpel or “earning” the money he makes as a specialist, but she got him where he is and dear God she will certainly deserve the money he makes if he were to die early.
Maybe you should try sustaining a marriage as a struggling artists supported by a hard-working wife, you might be a little less likely to come across as a jackass and declare that she had “NOTHING” to do with its creation.
Bullshit, yourself. DC has STOLEN more work from fans trying to turn pro since Dan Didio (aka the Didiot) became publisher than at any point in the company’s history, and has no intention of offering recompense for any that work. Just look at the Mary Marvel and Captain Marvel Junior entries in DC’s so-called Encyclopedia if you don’t believe it.
Joanne had EVERYTHING to do with the creation of Lois Lane and Superman … she was THE model for Lois and muse for both Jerry and Joe.
Joanne and Jerry’s heirs DESERVE fair compensation, as do Joe’s heirs, and the heirs of C.C. Beck, Otto Binder, Kurt Schaffenberger, and Roscoe Fawcett.
They don’t have to, they own the characters (Cap Jr. and Mary Marvel) uncontestedly. There are no heirs to CC Beck contesting their ownership. Beck and Binder knew they signed work for hire agreements. DC goes out of it’s way to offer creator compensation, from creator owned to creator incentives, royalties etc. So everything you’ve said is a colossal crock of shit.
It doesn’t matter if the Siegel family did nothing towards Superman’s creation, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Siegels are entitled to at least something and I’m pretty sure that Jerry Siegel would like to see his family taken care of from the work he’s done.
I have full sympathy for the Siegels. The Siegels’ lawyer on the other hand, Marc Toberoff, that man is a massive bag of douche whom I firmly believe is taking advantage of the Siegels. I think that if the Siegels had a different lawyer, someone who isn’t as exploitative as Toberoff, this case would have been settled a long time ago.
I completely agree!!! A contract is a contract is a contract. It does not matter if people YEARS later do not like the contract.
This is the unavoidable side effect of extending copyright laws so long after the creator’s death (due to the Walt Disney and Burroughs estates). If they didn’t sign away the rights (even though it wasn’t standard to sign away all rights) in the original contract, then the estate retains them.
Intellectual Property laws, my friend, allow this perpetual debate. Does a creator deserve more if his creation is successful? I don’t know anyone would not answer yes to that question.
Carnahan’s premise is a Big Lie: “The character he made is DEAD in all but name and shallow details.” Superman was never a shadow or minor character; he was alive through WWII to today. (He thinks we are stupid illiterates). Superman was a tent-pole comic, designed to be an icon by Siegel and Shuster. While DC and Warner did keep it alive, they did NOT ever revive a “dead” character. The entire emotional argument by Carnahan is based on his Big Lie.
I and every other comic book collector I called, now think the Warner Luthors have long screwed over the Siegel and Shuster Farm. We are glad the BAD KARMA of Warner is catching up to them. I know two Florida pornographers who are way more ethical and decent than Warner. Someone should hang a sign over their gates: ABANDON ALL HOPE ALL THOSE WHO ENTER. BEND OVER CAUSE YOUR GONNA BE SCREWED.
You’re right! Nobody should be making piles of money off of something that was created 70 years ago. The copyright should have been up long ago, and Superman moved into the public domain, as was always intended.
However, since we seem to be perfectly happy with that not happening, I’d much rather see the money go to the person (or the person’s family) who was smart enough to actually create the property.
Shame on you Warner Brothers!!!!! Pay the woman what you owe her so she and her daughter can be taken care of. The money alone can’t be worth all the bad press that you’re getting now and will continue to get from harassing a frail widow and her daughter, both of whom are in ill health.
Would any of you want to be known as the exec who gave grandma a boat load of cash because she happened to marry the right guy?
She’s the model for Lois Lane, as wife she probably helped her husband with the story, and the family that created SUPERMAN damn well should be taken care of!! For generations, it has been the American symbol of right and wrong to young people all over the world. You’re a WB stooge.
Estates have a right to earn from the billions made from their work. And this isn’t for the wife; it’s for the kids now. And Superman makes enough for the studio to give back to the family that generated so much income, class, and iconography for them. WB is a massive and brilliant company, but for a woman to fight in her nineties as the studio rakes in billions in merchandising and TV shows like Smallville…
The problem is that rude, thoughtless people like you that are part of a greedy generation would rather screw over creatives and their families on whose backs conglomerates make their fortunes. The world is obviously sick with cynical, cocky, screw everyone else mentality. The fact the aging family of Superman’s creators has to even ask to be paid or respected is reprehensible. I’m infuriated just reading the letter- so how that woman showed such grace and dignity after years of such treatment is nothing but class and decency which I am happy so many of us recognize it.
Thank you Nikki, and yes, you should be totally ashamed WB!
Absolutely. I’d love to be known as the exec who does the right thing and treats those of the family responsible for creating one of the most profitable brands of all time the way they deserve to be treated.
Can’t wait until they get the rights back and tell WB to go where the sun don’t shine.
It’ll be a miracle if Snyder’s Superman take is any good. His casting is shaping out well but going off his last 3 films… ugh. I’d really like to know what Nolan was thinking in hiring him against the others shortlisted.
How, look at me I am a poor sick widow with my poor sick daughter against the big greedy studio. All I want is just to be treated like a Queen, be sent cases of grapefruit, and get million and blocking rights for a franchise my husband created. That’s right, I did not actually did anything to deserve all that, but because of anti-competitive copyright law, I’m entitled to it anyway.
And I’m seeking a friendly negotiation that’s going to fill my bank account for the next 80 years and I am against litigation, but I’m still sending a copy of this letter to a website million of people read.
Get real guys.
The old lady died, so at least show some decency.
I know it is hard for you, but try HARD.
So I’m assuming you’re going to home to tell your wife she won’t be the recipient of a single dime in the event you die early — because she didn’t earn it? Yeah, go have a lawyer draw up your will to reflect that and be sure to let her know. I’m sure she’ll understand. I mean, it’s only fair.
Kidding of course. You’re obviously single and will be for a long long time if that’s truly your attitude about how marriages and relationships work.
You realise she’s dead right? Whoever leaked this letter, it’s probably not the dead lady.
Is anyone surprised about this? Movie studios and investment banks are Satan’s factories on Earth. They suck the souls and wallets out of everyone they can profit from.
Why worry? If Zack Snyder works his ‘magic’ on Superman the franchise will be deader than the Man of Steel in Kryptonite underpants and butt plug!
I dunno, pretty manipulative ploy for public support that has no basis in the law. If it was valid harassment the court would stop it. Discovery is about fairly getting to the truth and there’s no way that can come out in one deposition with an interested party. You ask questions, then go check if they pan out, then come back and ask follow ups. It doesn’t matter if you’re a lawyer, a police detective, or a doctor trying to figure out a tricky diagnosis. The issue they’re being deposed for is a tricky one since it involves their legal counsel purportedly manipulating them into breaching agreements illegally, so of course this is something you need to do in repeated sessions and through depositions (interrogatories will likely get drafted by the counsel you’re trying to suss out).
A woman able to compose a nearly 1000 word response as coherent and plying as that can stand up to a deposition. It’s not like they’re water boarding you. They can happen in your home or be quick so long as the responses are direct. If it takes all day, it is either because the deposed needs breaks or they are stalling or incoherent or contradictory (which, from the letter above, does not seem to be the case). If it is stressful, it is because the deposed is trying to maintain a highly scripted lie, because simply telling the truth from your bedside at your leisure is hardly cause for anxiety. Rather, it’s likely your counsel has coached you with specific prompts and trying to keep that facade up against a skillful series of questions is a strain.
The letter is an unrealistic ploy for public sympathy. A deposing lawyer can’t stop her from taking her medication, going to the bathroom, taking a rest, taking a drink, or going far from home, etc. just because of a deposition. Nor is it the “same” material otherwise the court could stop it on a motion. It’s a manipulative painting of the process since she has no real legal recourse to stop proper discovery.
A person with the time, energy, and sophistication to write such a letter can and should be assisting discovery, not playing victim and bemoaning the system, if it’s genuine harassment, then motion and get opposing counsel sanctioned.
I highly doubt she actually wrote the letter. It was more likely drafted by someone on her legal team to reflect her position and she approved it. It doesn’t mean getting deposed all day by a team of Time Warner attorneys is no problem for her.
And wouldn’t it be nice if everyone just played fair and the no one bent the rules? The Time Warner attorneys can quite easily make life pretty miserable for a terminally-ill 93 year old woman without actually breaking the law or even meriting a judge’s intervention.
And no, she’s not claiming that they’re repeated and aggressive depositions “have no basis in law,” she’s claiming that they’re serving no further purpose and that the intention behind them is pure harassment.
This is a personal appeal to a CEO, it’s not a legal argument. She’s citing the way she was treated by an earlier CEO and she’s suggesting things could have and perhaps still could be resolved more quickly with a change in how she’s being treated. Heck, who knows if it’s an effective strategy, and the fact that this letter comes out AFTER her death is a pretty clear indication it wasn’t that calculated of a PR move, but I can’t say “Buck up old woman and give every deposition those corporate pit bulls demand of you with a smile on your face” is a very reasonable response.
You’re a warner Bros. hack! why not sign off with the corporate logo while you’re at it.
Unfortunately, the letter writer has passed away. Some things you state make sense and may be so, but Warner Bros. could easily save embarassment and negative press by paying what would be a minimum sum for a major corporation. The families of the Superman creators are the copyright holders and should be treated fairly. They were ripped off for far too long. I know some very good attorneys, but they are always fair and above board. These corporate attorneys sound like the type who give lawyers a bad name and really should lose their license to practice law if they were harassing the surviving families.
Thomas, with all due respect, are you an attorney affiliated with this case? Kind of reads that way.
The Shuster and Siegel familes have had to endure decades of injustice and Warner Bros. is, in my opinion, merely looking to inflict as much pain as possible upon those who dared challenge them while they [WB] seek to delay the inevitable. “Superman” is on course to become the biggest “free-agent” in history. Warner Bros. knows this. The Shuster and Siegel families know this.
At this point, I speculate, Warner Bros. might be taking the tact that their best hope for retaining the rights to the Man-of-Steel maybe to fight so hard the families involved will deal with them just to end it and move-on. The Siegel’s and the Shuster’s seem intent on taking their joint creation to the free-market (as I believe they should).
And considering DC Comics history of using ligitation to stiffle competition (e.g. “National Comics Publications v. Fawcett Publications”) I find this whole affair as testament to the old saying “what goes around comes around.”
And why the need for a third deposition…? That’s B.S…. Here’s one ticket price they won’t get at the B.O….
You have clearly never been deposed in a big case like this. STFU @$$hole. What’s your position at wb?
WB is notorious for just going in for the kill. Make it cheaper, screw the crew…a few years short of retirement? You’re laid off. Won’t the karma train ever come by 4000 Warner Blvd.?
Ladies and Gentlemen.
As Sympathetic as this letter may seem, it as usual glosses over some very glaring facts. The Rights to Superman may be legally contested on terms of copyright but not ownership. Seigle and Shuster sold the rights to Superman to DC Comics twice. The second time they signed an agreement for a very large settlement with the proviso that they would not pursue the rights again. They honored that contract. theses men made hundreds of thousands of dollars over the 10 year period they were involved with Superman. They stopped being directly involved with the character in 1943. They continued to be paid through 1946 when they tried to sue for the rights when Jerry Siegel’s other creation “Funnyman” failed miserably. Superman as we know him isn’t the creation of Jerry and Joe, he’s been molded and changed by hundreds of writers and artists in Comics, Radio and Televsion. The copyright is useless in the long run without the trademark and Warner Bros. owns the trademark. This suit will never be settled, even after the Shuster estate gets their share of the copyright.
You don’t know what you are talking about. See DASTAR v. 20th Century Fox. Copyright ALWAYS trumps Trademark. ALWAYS.
You obviously don’t get how much trouble Warners and DC would be in if the Siegel and Shuster estates recover their rights. Anyone following the actual court cases knows once the estates recover the copyrights, the trademarks don’t have the same value as DC and Warners would still be unable to produce SUPERMAN as everyone knows him. Besides, the estates are also going after the trademarks on the basis their value is derived from their creation, which they are.
Actually that’s incorrect. Warner Bros. owns the S Sheild and everything else related to the character wholly Including Lex luthor, Perry White and Jimmy Olsen since none of those characters were created by Seigel and Shuster. Right now all nthe Seigels have are the copyrights to Superman as published in Action Comics #1, and the only have ahlf the copyright, with DC owning the other half until 2013.
Actually, the estates and Time Warner will be duking it out soon in court over who owns those rights, and whether they’re derivative works. What will probably happen to those elements of the property is that Time Warner won’t be able to use them unless they pay Siegel & Shuster a chunk of change as none of those elements would exist without their initial creation.
This ruling would extend to affect anything created within the confines exclusively of the property, such as the Chloe character in Smallville, who wouldn’t exist if not for Siegel & Shuster’s creations.
Perhaps I’m being a bit simplistic but come on: Red cape, blue tights, big “S”, kind of strong, wicked vertical. It’s Superman no matter how many Electric/Metro/Undead coats of paint other writers try and slap on it it’s still Superman and apologies to Phillip Wylie but my Google Maps sez that’s the corner of Siegel and Shuster.
Awesome post. Best one. Bravo.
A truly gracious lady. If only more tedious lawsuits could be handled with such aplomb.
To Counterpoint and Carnahan:
It’s obvious you must work or WB, by the way you defend their offensive behavior. It was the WB who reneged on the contract by not paying all the money owed, therefore making any contract null and void. If you buy a car and make a couple of payments does that mean you now get to keep the car without making the rest of the agreed upon payments? No, you don’t! And you can’t keep that house either if you don’t make the payments!
Also it was never a work for hire to WB, either as you stated! Screenplays were written as a work for hire, Superman was a comic book character that was created by Siegel and Shuster, whose movies rights were purchased contingent on Warner Bros. and DC comics meeting certain criteria, i.e., make the fucking payments you greedy sons of bitches!!! Or lose the fucking rights ass holes!!! Now that’s black and white you corporate fucking trolls!!! I personally will not watch another Warner Bros. movie ever again, even if they settle with the family estate now. Just because I now know the evil that is behind that corporation and I refuse to put a single penny in their pockets ever again and hopefully I’m not the only person who feels this way!
go to an anger management class…you will live longer and those around you will benefit..and you are all talk..u will watch warner products, prob wont even know it most of the time so just calm down and go away.
1. All the more reason she needs to be deposed. Interrogatories show how easily responses can be manipulated and massaged by counsel. When the issue is whether your counsel manipulated you into breaking agreements with WB, how does allowing said counsel respond via interrogatories make sense? It’s like trying to ask a battered child or spouse questions with the abuser in the room. You need to ask her the questions face to face.
2. Actually it’s not. Depositions are for the record. The court reporter is an agent of the court. Between the record, the impartial recorder, and the interests of the deposed, it is very easy to go after opposing counsel for improper activity- heck that’s exactly what she’s being deposed for! The alleged improper activity of her counsel!
3. And yes, that’s exactly what she’s claiming, “no further purpose and pure harassment” means “no basis in law”. Such depositions would be easily stopped and sanctioned. Again the questions (as well as breaks, rests, etc) are for the record. If there was no purpose in them, competent counsel can stop them.
4. This is not a personal appeal, it’s a public manipulation. I’m not telling an “old woman” to “buck up”, which is exactly my point about public bias. The law is meant to be impartial. I’m telling a party to use the law to stop alleged harassment rather than the court of public opinion. If her position has merit the court will respond IRRESPECTIVE of whether she’s an old woman or not.
I’m sorry, but this case is just not that simple. There is a serious, continuing dispute over who created what, when, and how important and profitable those creations turned out to be. Jerry and Joe’s original Superman is the basis for a great deal of important work done by others during the decades. Jerry Siegel even did some of that work himself, as a freelance comics writer through the 1960s. It’s that Superman who we know today.
Joanne’s letter is — well, I don’t know if it’s ex parte, but it seems more an exercise in public relations than anything else. Even at that, it might wind up doing Laura some good. Jerry and Joe won limited benefits from Warner thanks to a p.r. campaign around the time of the release of the Superman film in 1978. There’s another big film scheduled for release at the end of next year, and of course there’s the expiration of the original copyright in 2013 — if Congress doesn’t usurp the law again, as it did for Disney.
Huh? If you’ve read ACTION #1, you’ll see that everything was there. I don’t think kryptonite, the Atomic Skull, or any ancillary stuff is involved.
I’ve lost all respect for Lois. This story makes me think of Infinite Crisis when the old Lois Lane of Earth-1 died from old age. Man, that was sad! Shame on Warners!
Regardless of who’s right and wrong in the legal aspect, there is a way to properly and respectfully deal with people in this world. Jeff Bewkes is scum in this regard. Always has been.
The nature of depositions is relevant because it goes to the substance and validity of Siegel’s letter.
Brett N,
1. If not, this shows the need for depositions. Counsel can easily massage and manipulate responses to interrogatories. Given that the issue is being manipulated by counsel, it’s obvious why the questioning needs to be face to face.
2. Depositions are for the record. The recorder is an agent of the court. The deposed is an opposing party. With those three levels of accountability, it’s not easy to harass with a deposition and it is easy to go after improperly acting counsel, which is exactly what the WB is doing in this round of depositions (trying to see what Toberoff did).
3. Yes, she did. Again, the questions, breaks, etc. are all on the record. If she faced an undue burden competent counsel would have the court stop it immediately.
4. This is not a personal plea but a public manipulation. If her requests had merit the court will stop it, impartial to whether or not she’s an “old woman”, whereas the public eats up biased portrayals of victim status.
You can’t really call this letter public manipulation unless you can demonstrate how/when/where/why it made its way to this website. There are 1,000 ways it could have happened, and not all of them can be directly attributed to deliberate public manipulation by Ms. Siegel. The fact it was made public after she died is pretty clear evidence it was NOT intended as a public manipulation ploy on her part.
Not sure why you’re putting “old woman” in quotes. She’s an “old woman,” if you know what I mean? Wink wink?
Most reasonable people would stipulate that 93 is old. Including 93-year olds.