Cannes: The Weinstein Co. Books ‘Suite … 
BBC Confirms ‘Doctor Who’ Season 8 
‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ $22M Friday For Lower … 
Finally, Cannes Dealing! Radius-TWC Nabs Director’s … 
Hammond On Cannes: Wet Fest’s Official Competition … 
‘Vampire Academy’ Adds ‘Modern … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Shark Tank’ Finale Up, … 
Cannes: Worldview Options Andrew Dominik’s Marilyn … 
UPFRONTS 2013: The Overachievers 
‘Mike & Molly’ Creator Mark Roberts To … 
Carey Mulligan, Matthias Schoenaerts Set For … 
Hammond On Cannes: Weinstein Brings Out Stars For 2013 … 
Cannes: Fake Gunshots Interrupt Canal Plus Live Broadcast … 
‘The Great Gatsby’ Starts With $5.4M … 
Cannes: Music Box Snags Competition’s ‘Michael … 
UPDATE: Amazon Studios Begins Pilot Pickups; … 
Bruce Rosenblum Bids Classy Goodbye 
RATINGS RAT RACE UPDATE: ‘American Idol’ Hits … 
UPDATE: ‘Iron Man 3′ Box Office Crosses $1B … 
Upfront Market: Will Auto Makers Subsidize TV … 
Cannes: Thief Makes Off With $1M+ In Chopard Jewelry Meant … 
Letter From Lois Lane To Time Warner Boss
Warner Bros/DC Comics Sues ‘Superman’ Copyright Lawyer
UPDATE: There’s been another development in the Superman copyright litigation case. Actually, this is a carnival sideshow to that case and a disgusting exercise by DC Comics and its big Hollywood studio Warner Bros to continue to trample the rights of the Superman rights-holders, the estates of co-creators Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster. When DC and WB couldn’t weasel out of paying the families of Siegel and Shuster what is rightfully owed and reverting copyright back to them, they decided to go after their archnemesis, Superman copyright lawyer Marc Toberoff, who’s been a longtime thorn in Warner Bros’ side because he represents showbiz rights-holders and wins their cases against the studio. The result was that, a year ago, Warner Bros and DC Comics decided to sue Toberoff alleging he had a role as a financial participant in the Superman rights fight with the studio and therefore a conflict of interest repping his clients. Today, a U.S. District Court judge denied an appeal of a magistrate’s ruling which held that “the defendants waived privilege on numerous attorney-client communications stolen from their counsel’s law firm by producing such documents to the United States Attorney’s Office investigating the theft pursuant to a Grand Jury subpoena and a confidentiality agreement.” Forget all the legal mumbo-jumbo, let’s examine what’s really at work here. And it’s that DC Comics and Warner Bros are basing their entire case against Toberoff on stolen documents from his office. That’s right: stolen documents. In my view the Time Warner subsidiaries should be ashamed of themselves.
The idea was that the studio and publisher hired attorney Daniel Petrocelli to come up with a new strategy to prevent the studio from possibly losing a portion of the copyright to Superman in 2013 as a court has previously ruled. So Warner Bros’ new outside counsel obliged by filing a lawsuit last May obviously to put Toberoff in a position where he might have to resign as the Siegel and Shuster attorney. It was a hardball tactic by Petrocelli and the studio’s general counsel John Rogovin (hiding behind DC Comics), especially because it hinges on those documents stolen from Toberoff’s office by a Toberoff employee.
Warner Bros claims the documents mysteriously “arrived” on its doorstep and that the employee was a lawyer in Toberoff’s firm and a “whistleblower.” Toberoff has indicated that something much more nefarious may have happened and accused DC/WB of “unethical thug tactics.”
“Warner Bros, DC Comics, and Mr. Pertocelli disingenously claim that I have a financial interest in the lawsuits when they know full well that the only interest I have is a contingent legal fee. And the last time I checked, a lawyer working on a contigent fee basis is legal in the State of California. The goal here is to muddy the waters and avoid litigating on the merits,” Toberoff has told me. “The purpose is to defame me or potentially conflict me out of the case and thereby pressure my clients to sell back the Superman and Superboy copyrights they’ve recaptured at a distress sales price.”
But here’s what really disgusts me: Petrocelli’s tactic belies the fact that, when he defended Disney against the Slesinger family’s Winnie The Pooh underpaid royalty claims, he was able to get the entire case thrown out of court by alleging that the Slesingers were basing some of their documentation on paperwork “stolen” from a dumpster on the Disney lot.
Warner Bros should not be pursuing this strategy. Shame on them. DC and WB have to be careful, very careful, not to piss off the Superman fans who are steadfastly in the Shuster and Siegal corners. Bad enough those fans are now uncertain that studio choice Zack Snyder is the right director to reboot Superman even with the iconic Chris Nolan producing the movie. Besides, the clock is ticking. In 2013, the Jerome Siegel heirs along with the estate of co-creator Joe Shuster will own a portion of the original copyright to Superman — “and neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros will be able to exploit any new Superman works without a license from the Siegels and Shusters.” The heirs of Siegel have already been awarded half the copyright for Superman. And in 2013 the heirs of co-creator Joe Shuster get the remaining half. After that, neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros will be able to use Superman without a financial agreement with the heirs. 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.
At issue is the future generation of Superman movies, television programs, and comics would be placed at risk. The lawsuit asks the Court to confirm DC’s ownership of Superman rights, put an end to Toberoff’s activity allegedly interfering with the rights, and clear the way for all new Superman productions in the future. DC claims it filed this lawsuit only after exhaustive attempts to resolve these matters failed.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
It would seem that Warner Bros. has the opportunity to finally put this ongoing (60+ years) battle to rest without spending the millions it must cost to fight this thing. How much is Time-Warner worth? Billions? How much would it cost to cut a deal with the heirs and just move on? 10 million? 20 million? Drop in the bucket for TW. Nobody is denying the fact that Siegel and Shuster created Superman. Honor their memory. Borrow the money from Chuck Lorre if they have to.
Well stated.
V
Beautifully stated!
Gary Moore as in the great TV personality of the 50′s and 60′s?
Why do you think WB will get away with a mere $20 million? If that was the price, WB would have cut the deal by now. Superman comic books, film rights, cartoons, tv shows, video games, merchandising, action figures, etc., for the next 20 years (not to mention rights derivative from whatever they do during that time) … I’d think the figure would be closer to $500 million. Maybe a billion.
Perhaps the film should be put on hold long enough to complete negotiations with the rightful heirs as to not muddy the waters even further. AND so that the film can have complete script, moving into production. Just saying…
Warners isn’t putting “Man of Steel” in production without a finished script. They’re well into pre-production, and I’m sure Goyer and Snyder have already laid out the major plot beats and action sequences. Warners and Nolan aren’t going to half-ass this, especially if it’s going to be their last Superman film they produce.
Still, I’m unclear on how since the Siegel and Shuster estates own half of the Superman copyright, the movie will use characters that belong to the estates, like his origin story and Lois Lane. Does the studio have a clause that lets them use these characters in derivative works?
Warner is already half-assing it. You didn’t think Snyder was anybody’s first choice, did you? Warner went on the record stating that they had no intention to make any Superman film anytime soon. They didn’t have a handle on the character. Then a judge issued the order: Warner MUST make the movie pronto. Period. No excuses. No waiting around until they feel they know what they are doing. It had to be done immediately. Nobody is really expecting anything good to come of this situation. We just all pray it isn’t terrible.
I knew about the judicial order and that WB had to get cracking on another movie by this year. WB was lucky their golden goose Christopher Nolan came to them with the reboot story when he did, and that was incentive to get them going.
You still buy that thin cover story. How quaint. Even the fanboys abandoned that delusion long ago.
Short answer: DC Comics/Warner Bros owns half the copyright now by virtue of the fact that Schuster’s half of the copyright will not revert back to his heirs until 2013. At that point the estates of Siegel and Schuster will share ownership of the copyright.
That being said, they don’t actually get everything. Things that were born of the Superman mythology after they brought the character to DC Comics belongs to DC, including the familiar “S” shield, his ability to fly, X-Ray vision, Kryptonite, Daily Planet, Lex Luthor, etc. will always belong to DC. They will also maintain ownership of the name “Superman” as a trademark.
A whole lot of good that trademark will do them when they can’t do Clark Kent, Lois Lane and the iconic image of the Man of Steel. All Siegel and Shuster have to do is trademark Siegel & Shuster’s SUPERMAN and they’re off to the races, hiring new talent to produce new adventures without the corporate interference of DC and Warners suits in whatever medium. Trust me, there is talent out there that can do far more justice to the characters and property as a whole than the current assemblage of work-for-hire talent has been. (In fairness to these creators, they probably could do a lot better without the suits riding herd over them constantly.)
Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster are long dead and their estates
contributed nothing to Superman’s creation or popularity.
The muck of this case is Copyright law run amuck.
After more than 60 years Superman should be in the public domain.
Both sides in this case epitomize greed enabled by antiquated law.
Clearly you are clueless of the whole story and bigger picture.
Jerry & Joe were cheated out of their promised fair share of revenue from the newspaper strip,the radio show,the cartoons,the movie serial and the licensed products. That’s what set this whole chain of events off in 1947 to begin with.
The law isn’t antiquated – they,and the estate had all rights to reclaim copyright as the original material in Action #1 was pre-existing and not “work-for-hire”.
The Book “Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book” Covers this in full detail.
Hardy clueless, Sunshine. Thanks for the insult. Feel tough now?
And by resorting to insult you automatically lose any argument.
Copyright laws are antiquated and stifling free speech
in many venues and especially soon the internet.
There have to be limits and 60 years are more than enough.
The “heirs”are in the process of destroying the creation
they supposedly care so much about. Please.
Jerry Siegel’s heirs included his late wife of 50 plus years and his daughter, both of whom often lived just above the poverty line while Siegel worked a series of menial jobs in the many decades before DC and Warner saw fit to pay them a pension.
I think, rather than greedy individuals wanting something a distant relative produced, they’re a family who are seeking what is frankly due them. I only wish Joanne Siegel lived long enough to receive it.
Dear Herb: Finally You set The Record Straight. I worked on Superman 1 & 2 Feature Films. Criptonite didn’t Kill Superman Off.Corporate Greed did.
#1 Pre-Existing is Correct.
Sincerely,
Doc
by your logic the heirs of any property owners should give up property rights? What did you contribute to the value of your grandma’s wedding ring? Nothing, but you’d still argue you’re entitled to inherit it.
I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as you’re trying to make it out to be. There’s a big difference between handing down a wedding ring and handing down intellectual property. Since the intellectual property is just an idea, physical work needs to be done by some party at some point in order to turn that idea into a tangible item that can be sold. In the case of Superman, DC Comics (and thus Warner Brothers) has to do the work of creating, publishing, marketing and distributing new Superman stories in all different forms of media (comics, TV, movies, etc). And by publishing things on a regular basis, they’re able to keep the concept of Superman popular enough to license it off to other companies that want to make Superman toys, clothes, games, etc. The point being is that a lot of work is put into turning the intellectual property of Superman into something profitable. Siegel and Schuster came up with the concept, but Warner Brothers has been the mechanism responsible for keeping the concept alive and profitable for the last 60+ years. So, as far as making amends with the heirs of Seigel and Schuster goes, while I don’t inherently like the idea of money being handed to people for work performed by their parents, grandparents, etc, I can get behind the idea that Seigel and Schuster would like for their heirs to receive some money to set right the fact that they were screwed over pretty significantly during their careers. That being said though, I by no means feel that entitles the heirs of Seigel and Schuster to any ongoing revenue generated by the Superman IP. A lump sum of cash as an act of reparations makes sense, but that is the end of it. Unless they are planning on taking over all of the work currently being done by Warner Brothers to maintain the popularity of Superman, I don’t feel that they are entitled to any portion of future revenue generated by the IP.
Whoa, Dave. Warners didn’t enter the picture until the mid-70′s, when they bought DC out from the previous owner. SUPERMAN was already a cash cow long before that and Siegel & Shuster had something to do with that as well. They didn’t just do one story with Superman and everyone else filled in the blanks later. They contributed the key parts of the mythos upon which everything else was built upon. Take away their material and not only do you not have SUPERMAN, you conceivably have no comics industry, which came about BECAUSE of Superman’s early success, not in spite of.
Uh, yeah, intellectual property and characters like Superman are “just an idea,” what’s your point? Ideas make the world go round and the right idea at the right time and place are worth millions of dollars and make empires rise and fall — and their creators are protected by law.
Say your hard-working immigrant parents open a restaurant and spend years busting their asses to make it profitable. They pass the business on to their children — who’ve done nothing to “earn” the success of the restaurant — in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY ROBINOV’S WIVES AND CHILDREN WILL REAP THE REWARDS OF HIS WORK even though they don’t clock in at WB every morning.
No one would suggest once the restaurant in the above example turns fifty years old, it’s taken from the children and divvied up and given away for free — but for some reason when it comes to IP people feel just fine about that. Robinov’s wife and children and grand children will be swimming in his money for decades to come. The hypocrisy of this situation is jaw-dropping.
You are correct. Copyrights should expire after 50 years.
The heirs 60 years later are as greedy as Warner Brothers.
Slammer you are so right. Copyright law has not kept up with reality. When does this nonsense end? How many years is enough? The 50 year limit mentioned above sounds generous and should be the maximum no matter who was dealt unjustly in the past.
It’s not that copyright laws have “failed to keep up.” Quite the opposite. Back when Superman was created, a copyright had a maximum term of 56 years. But then, in the 70′s, that was extended to 70 years, and then in the 90′s, it was extended to 90 years. These acts were actually the crux of the heirs’ claims, because those statutes allowed the original creators of works to recapture their copyrights for the newly-extended periods. The idea was that someone like Jerry Seigel sold the Superman rights for 56 years, not 90 years, and that the original author of the work should benefit from the extended period, not the later purchaser.
All this being said, the irony is that the statutory extensions were driven by Disney in an attempt to forestall Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain. Corporate greed drove these extensions, and now Warner Brothers has to live with them.
Um, yes, but didn’t the court validate WB’s claim by denying Toberoff’s appeal? So WB/DC must have SOME ground to stand on here, right?
What a shame, blood sucking studios, what else is new? I’m thinking about boycotting this “new” movie with every new slimey detail.
I wonder how this will tie in and affect the rebooting of the entire DC comics line that is happening in September. I’m awfully curious to see what would happen if DC/WB lost all rights to Supes in 2013. It would be interesting if the character was rebooted, re-imagined and re-launched under Dark Horse Comics, or, weirdly enough, licensed by Marvel and brought into the Marvel universe.
These people created it and deserve something. Not sure who is worse, the slimy little Toberoff or the WB folks lead by little weasel Robinov. Robinov and Toberoff should be put in a cage and the midget winner takes the rights.
I can’t really blame WB/DC for trying to get the best deal they can. That Toberoff guy must want a truckload of money for himself for this to have dragged on so ridiculously long as it has.
“Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster are long dead and their estates
contributed nothing to Superman’s creation or popularity.
The muck of this case is Copyright law run amuck.”
So what? It’s not like WB is a charitable organization and underdog in this matter. If WB/DC has been exploiting the work of the original creators without fair compensation, then restitution must be made regardless, in order to build a precedent to prevent other media corporations from doing the same to original content creators who are still alive.
What’s the fuss? Anyone wants a Superman fix, just rent Seasons 1-4 of “Smallville.” The first four years of Smallville were better than any movie, and probably better than any movie could be because they had nearly a hundred hours to tell the story.
I’ve written off hope of a good movie coming out of the current studio system. But the first four seasons of Smallville are on DVD. There forever. Enjoy.
Even “Magnetic?” Or “Velocity?” lol
Season 5 was pretty darn good too though.
Smallville is terrible. Always has been.
The early seasons of Smallville were brilliant. And as Mark says probably better than any movie of the character could be, given the luxury of time it had, and the bizarre constraints the studio puts on the movies.
There’s a precedent issue here. I’ve seen commenters suggest that Warners could settle this for $10 million. Pure speculation, and the absense of numbers in this article is noted. (The writer certainly seems to be getting info from Toberoff’s team – so how about some settlement offers sums?)
But if Warners caves on this suit, then the whole Justice League will hire lawyers and it will be a run on the DC comics vault.
Not all Superman fans are on the Siegels’ side. Thanks to the greed of Toberoff & co. let’s see the Man of Steel get ruined in a worse way than even Bryan Singer was capable of ruining him.
I’m sure without Toberoff involved, an appropriate deal with the Siegels could have been made.
And no, not a Warner Bros. plant so if your finger’s on the reply button to say that… save yourself the time.
Define “appropriate”.
@ Professor Byse:
SUPERMAN is a billion dollar property, in which the character is licensed on anything and everything you can imagine. To do a proper audit, you would have to audit the revenue streams both DC and Warners derive from hundreds if not thousands of different sources from around the world.
Neither $10 or $20 million to each estate would be a fair settlement in this case. If anything, a settlement somewhat higher plus a piece of all future action is what it would take to resolve the situation between all parties.
And no, I’m not on Toberoff’s team, but I do have knowledge of the situation involving both companies’ treatment of creators. If anyone has been paying attention over the years, the day of reckoning is fast approaching when the creators will finally reclaim what’s theirs unless the companies are finally willing to do what they should have done in the first place.
@ CK:
Anyone who sides with DC and Warners in this battle would be proven hypocrites if they were in the shoes of the creatorsor their heirs in this battle or any other involving any intellectual property that has proven popular over the past several decades.
Toberoff is not the greedy one here by a long shot. There is not a creator or a creator’s estate who would stand a chance getting out of the starting gate in an effort to reclaim their intellectual property if there weren’t a lawyer willing to take the case on a contingency basis. The odds of success are so monumental without it and the companies know it. They literally have a license to steal in the absence of the creators or their estate’s ability to fight major corporations.
@ Filmlover 24/7
Superman is a billion dollar property, but in this business it takes half a billion just to make a billion. You seem to suggesting that it would take about $60 to 80 million plus royalties to resolve this. Now multiply that times ten to resolve copycat claims from creators of Wonderwoman, Batman, Green Lantern, and the rest of the Justice League. Hey – why wouldn’t artists who sold work to Hannah Barbera file similar claims too?
I would have to know more about who contributed what to the creation of anything at Hanna-Barbera to comment intelligently on whether and who would have a claim or not.
With regards to the comics industry, publishers were looking for something, anything to print, because they had these distribution networks set up and needed to feed the beast in order to keep the cash flow rolling along. The writers and artists provided that material with neither party aware of anything other than a business transaction allowing both parties to pursue their interests.
When the publishers realized what a gold mine they hit upon, it was then they began claiming ownership to the detriment of the creators, who were often young and totally naive about the business end of the industry.
Only a select few creators were experienced and savvy enough to protect their interests, such as Bob Kane, Will Eisner and to some extent Joe Simon. But for the most part, many of the creators were like babes in the woods. Some of the industry’s most revered talent – Gil Kane, Carmine Infantino and Joe Kubert – started working back during those early days when they were only 16. Think they had a clue back then about copyrights? Most creators accepted the word of the publisher that they gave up ownership of whatever they created when the reality was more along the lines of selling them a bill of goods without the documentation to back it up.
That’s why the comics industry is like a house of cards today with all of these battles breaking out between the creators and the companies. Back when the Copyright laws were rewritten in the mid-1970′s, nobody thought about the Pandora’s Box that was being created at the same time.
Well, under the copyright laws that existed at the time Superman was created, he would have been in the public domain in 1994 and all of this would have been moot. I find it funny that these big companies, in trying to keep their stuff from ever going into the public domain, created a situation where creators could get their copyrights back. Ha ha!
Oh, and I think the license fee for Superman is probably much higher than $10 million. It might be more like $50 million to $100 million. One movie could generate $1 billion in revenue!
Except no studio is going to pay between $50 and $100 million to license a character for a movie…
How much did Rowling get paid for Harry Potter?
Marc Toberoff seems just as money hungry and greedy as the studios. He is not looking after the Siegel and Shuster estates, just his own pocket.
As for the Zack Snyder comment, I’m a huge Superman fan and I think he is a perfect fit for the reboot… as do all of the Superman fans I know.
The Superman we know and love today is a completely different character than the one that appeared in Action Comics #1. Without DC Comics, the character would have never grown to icon status. To say that they shouldn’t own a large part of the property is ludicrous.
Strange. All the Superman fans I know dread Zack Snyder and his Zod rehash. In fact, they are completely frustrated with what they see as an inevitable train wreck and sad bomb. It’s like that feeling that came before Superman Returns and all the leaks about it, when we knew that project had gone off the rails, but there was nothing we could do to stop it or fix it. It was too late even then. It was like watching a slow motion car wreck. And here we are again, with something that feels even worse.
Yep. It’s gonna be yet another stinker.
Are you kidding me? The casting alone sets this thing worlds apart from Returns. Amy Adams, Diane Lane, Michael Shannon and Kevin Costner are top notch actors that are spot on perfect fits for their roles. I don’t know much about Henry Cavill but he has a lot more in his filmography than Routh did and he looks more like Superman (and not a Reeves clone). Add to the mix the rumor that Russell Crowe might be Jor-El and we have real actors here.
Bryan Singer’s problem was trying to rewrite history and make a new Superman 3. Zack Snyder is starting fresh and actually using the comic as reference, instead of just trying to mimic the past films.
I respect that. Any true fan should also love the fact that Snyder is focusing on a time period in Superman’s life that had been completely ignored in Superman: The Movie (one of the film’s two giant missteps — the other being time travel, ugh). The period after Clark left Smallville, traveled the world helping people in secret, and how he ended up in Metropolis is by no means a “rehash”.
Would Zod have been my first pick of villain? No, but it will be damn nice to see them duke it out with today’s technology and no S-shield saran wrap weapons (ugh again).
I had no idea anything like this was going on until I read this article. Thank you for truly informing me about this.
In my world it seems rather simple, the Superman story and images belong to the creators who where working men trying to take care of their families, seems obvious to me their families are not in receipt of their fair share of the billions be made.
I’m sure it severs no one for Superman to disappear, work out a fair share payment, for the corporations I’m sure it’s a tax right off, for the families it’s the future for generations to come.
Ah well what do I know, I have no money in the bank, I don’t own anything worth any thing, I’m just the person who pays to see Superman and would be sad to see it Superman go, but I’m sure I could find something to replace Superman.
Nikki, all I have to say is shame on you for even thinking that this scumbag of a lawyer that is defending the Siegels and Schuster estate deserves any kind of sympathy. As a massive fan of Superman, I am in full support of the Siegels and Schuster estate getting more for what Joe and Jerry created. But Marc Toberoff is screwing them over just as badly as DC Comics screwed them over.
Both Toberoff and DC Entertainment should be ashamed for how they treat these families. And it makes me sad that they haven’t gotten their fair and just compensation because of a greedy lawyer and a greedy entertainment conglomerate.
Will not see ANY Superman movie “directed” by zack snyder. Period. WB–MAN UP!
Why? I’ve heard several people say they think Zach Snyder is a great choice. I’ve also heard several people say that he is a terrible one. What I haven’t heard is why. What specifically do you think he will do wrong? Why, based on his other movies, do you think he will make THIS one poorly. I’m not arguing here, I’m asking for justification.
This is obviously a one sided story that Nikki Finke has written here. Toberoff is trying to get 45% or so of the Superman rights so he can make his own movies. Not only is he a lawyer but he’s a film producer as well…the man is slim! And not all Superman fans are in the corners of the heirs. I appreciate that Superman was created and I feel bad that the family has gotten involved with such a horrible little person. I’m not unsure of the movie reboot at all because I’ve enjoyed all of Zack Snyder’s films. So try again lady before you make up more lies
I love how you give Toberoff and the heirs a free pass in this article. If the families win this case they will give partial rights to Toberofff a man who has never made a contribution to Superman. Do I think the families deserve payment? Yes. Do I think they give a damn about the character their fathers created? No. They want money just like WB/DC. This idea that all fans are solidly behind the families is absurd. If the heirs win the case outright Superman is doomed because DC owns alot of iconic elements from the comics.
In case you didn’t read my earlier post, Toberoff will have EARNED his share of the SUPERMAN rights by virtue of the fact he took on the case which resulted in the creators and/or their estates reclaiming their rights. He’s not getting his share out the goodness of anyone’s heart, but rather an arrangement that was agreed to between him and the estates. There is no way the families of the creators would stand a prayer’s chance of reclaiming their rights without someone like Toberoff fighting on their behalf.
DC does not own the most iconic elements to the Superman franchise because those were created by Siegel and Shuster in the first place. Everything else that came after only added to the mythology, but the key pieces – the reason for the character’s popularity – were always present from the very beginning.
If DC and Time Warner lose control of SUPERMAN, it will be the estates that dictate future exploitation as is their right. SUPERMAN will still exist, just not with the DC and Warners logos attached to the property.
He doesn’t earn almost half of the Superman copyright.
As a matter in fact, he deserves 0% of the copyright. If Warner Bros. lost the copyright to Superman, all of it should go to the Siegels and Schuster estate. Toberoff deserves a big wad of money for representing the Siegel’s interests, but he doesn’t deserve to make money off of what Siegel and Schuster did in the 1930′s for the rest of his life.
Toberoff is defending his interests, not the interests of the heirs.
What you or anyone else think Toberoff deserves is immaterial to this story, and frankly shows off your ignorance of the situation. There is no way on this planet in this country for the estates to reclaim what’s theirs without someone like Toberoff. Like it or not, at the end of the day, he will have earned whatever compensation was agreed to between all parties, even if it included ownership of a percentage of the copyrights. If I was them, I would make that deal, given all the expenses that Toberoff is incurring fighting on their behalf. The legal action to date more than likely is running close to seven figures, and I don’t know any comics creator who could shoulder that load without cutting a deal.
I guarantee you Joanne Siegel totally believed Marc Toberoff was protecting her interests, a thought I’m certain her daughter now shares.
Do you know anything about Superman? In the “very beginning” he did not fly and he killed people. Two qualities that are not the Superman that I know and love. Also, all of his villains (his whole rogues gallery) came later, created by dozens of other writers and artists for DC.
I don’t get why Superman fans are behind Shusters and Siegals? If DC and WB don’t win getting anything Superman will be almost impossible.
These families could hold Superman hostage and fans will lose him forever.
I’ve been a Superman fan for over 30 years and I’m not on their side.
At some point, money will have to trade hands.
Lots of money. And Euros by the time this settles out.
To say TimeWarner is desperate seems beside the point, and they must think they can save lots of money by dragging this out.
In a scenario where the Siegel-Schuster estates actually win and receive title to rights, I can’t see any reputable company wanting to capitalize on that since TimeWarner will nuke whatever company tries to produce Superman media- and probably have a justifiable reason to do so. To say nothing of what might happen to other properties at long established corporations.
Ever hear of a film called NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN? This was the James Bond film both EON Productions and MGM/UA did everything they could to prevent this from seeing the light of day. We all know how that turned out. The same thing will happen here. Toberoff and the estates will own the SUPERMAN property in 2013 and do anything they want with it, and there won’t be anything DC or Warners can do because there will always be interested parties with money looking to cash in at DC’s and Warner’s expense. You think any of the other studios wouldn’t be interested in putting out their own SUPERMAN film? Do you see Sony or FOX looking to relinquish their rights to any of the Marvel properties they have under their control now? Come 2013, it’s going to be a free-for-all should DC and Warners lose control, and they’ll have no one to blame but themselves.
WB/DC own critical pieces of the Superman character. The idea that the Schuster and Siegel estates could take the property out on their own is completely out of touch with the reality of the lawsuit.
Both sides need each other or the Superman property gets stuck on hold indefinitely.
What part don’t you get?
The Siegel & Shuster estates can produce a line of comics, films and other multi-media productions featuring a mild-mannered newspaperman named Clark Kent who in reality is really Superman, who has a relationship with reporter Lois Lane. They may not be able to call the books, films or whatever simply SUPERMAN, but if they trademark Siegel & Shuster’s SUPERMAN, that’s enough of a difference for the US Trademark Office, especially if the font is totally different from what we’re used to. As for all the other powers, a case can be made that the Siegel & Shuster character can feature most if not all of the powers of Superman, due to the fact of a number of characters published by numerous companies feature similar abilities.
DC, on the other hand, can market a character named Superman, but without Lois and the Kent identity nor the iconic costume. The other powers are debatable beyond super-strength, according to a judge who ruled that all DC owned from ACTION #1 was the image of a man wearing a black and white costume with cape displaying super strength, based on a black & white ad published in DC Comics just a couple of months prior to Superman’s 1938 debut.
Toberoff will be able to legally get a number of projects off the ground without DC and Warners say so. He’s also making a valid case that the Siegel & Shuster estate deserves a share of ownership of the trademark as well by virtue of the value the trademark derives from their original creation, and if he wins that argument, I’d say that’s when things will really get interesting.
Marc Toberoff is the BOMB. He is a defender of copyright! I love this article for exposing Warner’s limp case. It’s kind of like their argument about the tattoo in Hangover 2. I just can’t help but wonder if it’s the same person making these copyright mistakes and why is that person still in the job?
CK: Bryan Singer didn’t ruin Superman. The film just wasn’t what the audience was looking for. But it was still a good film. Superman is modern mythology, and mythology is open to many different interpretations. Take note of Lois & Clark, or Smallville, or the various cartoon incarnations, or the stand-alone graphic novels, as well as the aborted Tim Burton/Nic Cage film from the 90s. Granted, the Singer film was on a grander scale, with a bigger budget and higher hopes than anything I’ve mentioned — but you can’t just say it “ruined” the character. Nothing can: Superman is modern mythology, as is Batman. And just as Schumacher didn’t ruin Batman (he ruined that particular *film* incarnation, but a new one sprung along less than ten years later), Singer didn’t ruin Superman. His take just wasn’t met with adoration by the masses.
Now, as for the idea that Superman would move to a different company ie. Marvel, Darkhorse, etc…
1. DC/Warner Bros would never let that happen. The character generates so much money it’s disgusting. His “S” symbol alone is on a bazillion things from t-shirts to tattoos. Why they’re letting this go on so long, I really don’t know, but there must be some reason we don’t know about, because of course they’re going to do everything they can to hold onto the character. Maybe the WB/DC folks are just hoping eventually it’ll all turn in their favor, and if not, in the 11th hour, they’ll pay up — because they know they can. Don’t be surprised if that’s how this goes down.
2. If Superman did, in some crazy turn of events, go to a different company — IT. WOULD. NOT. MATTER. This is Superman. It would probably, first off, generate MORE buzz if he was now interacting with new characters like Spider-Man and X-Men, and it would be wild to see new takes on the mythology.
Ah yes, the mythology: Metropolis, Lois Lane, Lex Luthor, Kryptonite, Krypto (ruff ruff!) — this would all have to be taken into account if Supes flew to Marvel. I know this itself is part of the lawsuit, but it is so complicated to shift all of this that Superman staying in DC/Warner Bros just, well, makes sense for everyone. It hurts the character and the integrity of the families fighting for their share if the Superman legacy is destroyed or revised in some awful way due to litigious going-ons, so I don’t see this happening.
FINALLY… I’ll just say it: Smallville seasons 1-3 produced some of the greatest television episodes of all time.
Could someone explain to me how copyright laws have changed and why it is that the S&S estates have claim to the Superman property? For a significant period of time, other than in comics that are specifically creator-owned, the stories and characters appearing in them are presumably owned by the publisher under work for hire? When did this come into effect? Does this actually mean that all characters from a similar time period as Superman can be reclaimed by the heirs of the creatprs or is something specific to S&S? Is it something specific to DC’s agreements or are Captain America, original Human Torch, etc also likely to be reclaimed? It seems odd that creators working in the 30s enjoyed greater claim to their works for what was a pulp industry than most do these days when they are well aware of the potential value of their creations.
You can read all about copyright law changes (in the big picture) at the Copyright Office – http://www.copyright.gov.