Mike Fleming On Memories Of Covering James Gandolfini And … 
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: The Projects James Gandolfini Left … 
R.I.P. James Gandolfini 
Photos: James Gandolfini, 1961-2013 
Masterpiece To Co-Produce ITV Medical Drama … 
Sony To Consider Proposal To Spin Off Entertainment Assets, … 
Warner Bros Sets Morten Tyldum To Helm … 
Zac Efron Thriller ‘The Falling’ Gets Jeremy … 
Why Was Ex-Soft Porn Filmmaker Recently Hired As Movie … 
ReelzChannel Cancels ‘The Big Picture’ After … 
Cillian Murphy Boards ‘In The Heart Of The Sea’ 
John Legend To Produce Comedy Project About Music Managers … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Crystal Fairy’ 
Sam Taylor-Johnson To Direct ‘Fifty Shades Of … 
Inside AMPAS Board Of Governors’ Meeting: Conflict Of … 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Spectacular Now’ 
Glenn Geller To Run Current Programming For CBS & CBS … 
Shailene Woodley’s Mary Jane Role Cut From ‘The … 
New ‘Star Wars’ Film Cast Breakdown Unveiled 
CAA Signs Florian Henckel Von Donnersmarck, Oscar-Winning … 
UPDATE: Dan Abrams Named New ‘Nightline’ Anchor … 
Freelance journalist Dominic Patten is a Deadline contributor
In a strategic move in the copyright battle between Warner Bros and the heirs to Superman’s creators, the studio has filed an appeal to reverse earlier rulings in the case and put everything out in open court in a trial. “This long-running dispute should be brought to an end,” Warner Bros wrote in a dense 117-page appeal (read it here) filed Friday with the 9th Circuit Court. In typical Hollywood legalities, the move actually resolves nothing — expect to see a response from the heirs and then another back from Warner Bros, and all off it to end up one way or another in the Appellate Court sometime in the late summer or early fall.
Related: Letter From Lois Lane To Time Warner Boss
Through the courts, the estate of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel recaptured half of the original Superman rights in 2008, with the estate of co-creator Joe Shuster to do the same in 2013. Warner Bros, which owns longtime Superman publisher DC Comics, disagrees with those decisions. “This case is about the ownership of copyright in the earliest comics that introduced elements of the iconic Superman character and story,” the appeal from Warners lawyer Daniel Petrocelli states. “The case presents an unusually broad array of doctrinal, factual, and procedural issues. But much of the case reduces to a familiar proposition: a deal is a deal.”
Warners contends that Laura Siegel Larson, the heir to the Siegel estate, “reneged” on a copyright deal with DC that “guaranteed the family many millions of dollars in cash, royalties, and other compensation.” In its call to have the issue decided by trial, the studio says “the family asserted there was no deal without a long form and the district court agreed, casting aside established California contract law principles — principles essential to the entertainment industry, where many business deals are never formalized.” The latest legal move by Warner Bros follows a win last year in the matter, when Judge Otis Wright tossed out a First Amendment suit by Marc Toberoff, a rights lawyer for the heirs.
None of this will have any immediate effect on the upcoming Zack Snyder-directed Superman reboot Man Of Steel, scheduled to be released June 14, 2013, or any potential sequels from that property.
Loading ...
Now, only Zack may stand in the way of the release. Love Superman…
Warner Bros. should just hire better staff. They screwed up with Superman and Hangover 2 and I can’t remember the other recent copyright screwup. Hangover 2 was really over the top. The clearance person did not realize that the tattoo was art that needed to be cleared? I wonder how much that screwup cost them and now this.
L O L
I remember a lawyer once said to me that no one signs contracts in Hollywood and I raised my eyebrows because I always get signed contracts. I remember telling some suit that I’d have to take a famous person’s name off the billing block if I did not get the signed agreement. I explained that a studio would not pay on delivery without it. I had the signed contract in a few days. That lawyer I spoke about? Was canned in about a month.
Like I said, Warner Bros. needs better staff.
Super Big Shots don’t have to sign their contracts because they get a contract that specifies everything they demand from the studio. Warners should stop screwing the creators of Superman they owe Siegel and Shuster millions of dollars they should do the right thing and pay them then they will get all the rights for another hundred years and they won’t have to keep filing appeals.
That’s not Karen’s point. If the creators are owed money, then they are owed money. The fact remains, someone at WB was lazy and thought the rights were cleared or that the rights 100% belonged to them.
Just because you think that the creators are owed money, doesn’t mean they are . . . its unfortunate but people can and do sign their rights away.
(And, yes, super big shots do have to sign their contracts, or, they have someone else sign who is accountable.)
You made some good valid points but you’re also missing the big picture here.When the creators of Superman sold him to Dc comics that was a time when the copyright laws weren’t set to protect the artist as it is today.Not to mention the fact that Dc comics shunned the creators of Superman after handing them a measly $130 for the rights to the man of steel but in total they got $412.00.
You fail to realize that when the copyright law changed it created a doorway for those creators that gave up their rights at a certain time period, thus a window of opportunity for them or their heirs to go after those copyrights.
Sure Dc comics did not have to pay the creators after the rights was sold to them but all the bad press and pressure from the artist and writers in the comic community made them pay Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.What they did not anticipate was that their hold on Superman had an expiration date.
They already lost the copyrights from Action comics #1 and if I’m correct issue #4 as well.Those went to Jerry Siegel family and the other half of the copyrights is going to go to Joe Shuster family.Warner Bros is greedy but they had to know this was coming when the Shuster family walked out of the meeting before any ink could touch paper.Sorry Warner Bros but that’s the Biz.
It can be done. And had Warner Bros. gotten a signed contract, they wouldn’t be having these problems now would they?
It started when I was very young and a major entertainer was wanting his/her payday and it did not get paid until I received the signed contract.
“I remember telling some suit that I’d have to take a famous person’s name off the billing block if I did not get the signed agreement.”
– overheard on a bus in glendale
It’s simple: Hire Joss Whedon to write a new Superman and it will probably be the best one since Richard Donner’s Superman The Movie.
I don’t know the specifics about the case but it just seems logical to me (again, I don’t know the full dispute), that DC is potentially shooting themselves in the foot by continue to fight this expensive and seemingly losing battle. If they settle with the heirs, sure they lose money but they get to continue to make money to exploit this character which is, aside from Batman, synonymous with DC. If they continue to drag this out, they stand to lose Superman and having the Siegel/Shuster heirs burn their bridges with DC. Imagine Superman in Marvel Comics because that may be a possibility if DC doesn’t pony up.
@JA
That will never happen.The judge hearing this case has already stated that Superman is a much
bigger franchise then the character created by Siegel and Shuster.The Judge has also stated DC owns the trademark and all international rights tn Superman,along with most of his supporting characters and expanded mythology.
If the heirs were to gain the rights back to Superman,it would be the 1938 version and still,WB would be owed large fees because they still would own the trademark.If Marvel were to try to publish Superman DC would likely jump in on the side of the Kirby family in it’s suit
(ironically using the same lawyer as the Superman heirs) against Marvel.
I’m sure the thought of Batman and Green Lantern on the Avengers would be enough for Marvel to keep a wide distance from this.
The only trademark they’d own is the name Superman and not the 1930′s Superman appearance since the Siegel family currently own the copyrights in the Action comics.Oh and you brought up Warner Bros owed large fees? For what? They may own the name Superman but for some odd reason that hasn’t stopped them from using the name Captain Marvel in the Young Justice cartoon.A name currently Tradmarked by Marvel comics.
Oh wait…how are they able to do this again? Now I remember Dc comics uses the name Captain Marvel in the interior of the Young Justice cartoon, thereby avoiding Marvels Trademark on the name.What a cool loop hole.That means the heirs to Superman can pretty much do the same thing but they’d have to call their comic book something else when titling the book.
The word Superman would be in the interior of the book and thus avoiding Dc comics Trademark of the name, just like the giant comic book company does when using the name Captain Marvel owned by Marvel comics.It’s genius! and no way could Dc comics or Warner Bros take them to court over the name if the family take a page out of these two giants handbook.
This is because if somehow (when pigs can fly)a judge were to say the family was in the wrong over the use of the name Superman inside the comic book then this would open the door for Marvel comics to sue Dc comics over the use of the word Captain Marvel.
You brought up the Jack Kirby case but you forget that this attorney was representing the Siegel and Shuster family before he attempted to help the Kirby family on a lose lose case.This is because Jack Kirby was working for Marvel comics when he created his most iconic creations.It’s called Work For Hire.”Nuff said.”
Warner Bros sound just plain desperate right now.If the two creators were still alive then it would be Joe Shuster waiting to reclaim his portion of the copyrights to a character that he and Jerry Siegel created.Of course we all know that Warner Bros wouldn’t give a damn about the creator rights.
The only thing on their minds right now is the golden goose superhero that practically fell in Dc comics lap for a measly $100.Warner Bros is scared because they know when 2013 comes it will be close to over 30 years if not more that Dc comics have managed to cling onto Superman’s back and make big money off of two young jewish lads creation.
Young men who were discarded aside like trash, once Dc comics got their greedy hands on Superman and shaped and molded the character as they saw fit.I can’t say that I didn’t like the 80′s revamped version of Superman because that would be a lie but I also can’t blame the family of the creators of Superman either for fighting back against a company they hand bad blood with for decades.
The Copyright law was revamped and fixed to protect not only the rights of the creators but also the heirs and their is a 30 year waiting period thing in there that allows the creator or heir to get the rights back to said creation, whether it is art,book,music or invention.
Warner Bros obviously have missed that part in the copyright law and that Superman is not a work for hire character.Their hold on certain Superman rights is about to end and they can’t stand the idea of losing him so they want to get this over with now before 2013 rolls around.
It’s been proved in court that Superman was just an already created work that was sold to Action Comics so the copyright was just transferred to DC. It wasn’t a work for hire product. So with all these copyright extensions laws passed in congress from the 70s and 90s, the fact that DC still owns a piece of Superman in the US, is just because the heirs didn’t file to reclaim their rights in the appropriate window. Superman copyright should have expired long ago, but the extensions approved by congress were to benefit the original creators, not the companies that bought a copyright thinking they’d get it for a certain amount of time.
Did you miss the last trial that awarded the Siegel Estate the copyrights from Action comics issue #1? In other words the Siegel Estate owns Superman origin and everything in that book, including his red tights look,Lois Lane,Clark Kent and Superman love triangle.So what you just said is thus invalid and you might want to get your facts straight there.If you’ve been following the past trials closely you’d know this.Dc comics do not own the copyrights anymore from Action comics #1.
That is a fact from the trial in which the Jerry Siegel family was rewarded 50% of the Superman copyrights and it does not include Dc comics later creation that did not involve the creators of Superman.The copyrights that rightfully and legally belong to the families of the two creators are what’s on the line now or should I say the Joe Shuster family portion of the copyright.The Shuster heirs window to terminate Dc comics rights is in 2013 just as their attorney proudly told the reporters and that is when they can get the other %50 of Superman copyright.
Did you read the first sentence? I said that Superman was ALREADY created and WAS NOT a work for HIRE. I was saying Warner Brothers doesn’t own the copyright now. And I said the only reason why Shuster doesn’t own a piece was because the heirs didn’t file in the appropriate window like the Siegal family did. But the Shusters did file when the copyright law was extended again in the 90s.
Since Superman already existed before they sold it to Action Comics they get the rights back. As opposed to work for hire where they’re paid by Action comics to create something, then WB would be the original owners who would benefit from any copyright extensions.
You call Superman a work for hire character? lol.excuse me while I dust up the legal books on that term and spell it out to you the meaning of work for hire.Work for hire is a work created by an employee as part of his or her job, or a work created on behalf of a client where all parties agree in writing to the WFH designation.
Did Joe and Jerry create Superman as an employee of Dc comics? If you said yes then I’d like to know what you’re smoking.
For Superman to be called a work for hire creation his creators would have to be working under Dc comics for that claim to be valid.You’ve seen what happened with Jack Kirby’s family who tried to lay claim to his creation to no avail.
Unfortunately in this case it was a work for hire relationship.Jack Kirby was working for Marvel comics when he created his most iconic creations.No judge would grant Kirby heirs anything because of that fact.
The Superman situation is a bit more complicated but thanks the copyright law, Termination of Book & Music Publishing Copyright Contracts that can all change once 2013 comes around the corner.This is a very important year as it allows authors (and their heirs) to terminate contracts 35-years after the contract date.Guess you didn’t read that new fine print that was put into place in the copyright law.
That is why the Siegels and Shusters attorney appeared so confident that they’ll be able to regain the rights back to Superman.He read the law and found that one glimmer of hope that brought a smile on the two families faces while pissing off Warner Bros and Dc comics.They know that unless they can change the heirs mind to sign away their rights to Superman, there’s a chance that they could indeed lose Superman in 2013 or worst case scenario there will be two Superman running around.52 Superman and the 1930′s version.
ignore my post on the whole work for hire thing.I missed that part before I went on a bit of tear.I shall now punish myself by walking over broken beer bottles while singing a hymn.
Warner Brothers is disgraceful.
Of course we all know that Warner Bros wouldn’t give a damn about the creator rights.
They sold those rights decades ago. What part of that is too difficult to understand?
“They sold those rights decades ago. What part of that is too difficult to understand?”
What part of being able to legally reclaim your rights after a certain period is too difficult to understand?
It’s truly amazing; the monsters at DC comics started this, and then the sleazy creatures (re executives) at Warners continued this act of ongoing theft. It is remarkable how amoral, corrupt, coldhearted, and venal, the people at Warners are. These guys are crooks out in broad daylight, and that includes their lawyers & litgators, beings (I wouldn’t call them human) who will bend & distort the law for a buck…just pay ‘em.
A boycott of the next Superman movie by all of the fans would make Warner Bros notice.
It will never happen. Just like people aren’t going to boycott The Avengers over Jack Kirby’s creative role in the Marvel universe.
These legal squabbles mean nothing to the five year old that likes to dress up as Superman for Halloween.
Comic readers are a minority. They are a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of people that go see a big budget tentpole. And most of them probably couldn’t even tell you who the creators are off the top of their head.
boycotting the next film won’t affect WB/DC and how they view superman.
if “man of steel” is a box office failure they will simply assume that it’s the CHARACTER’S “fault” for not being “kewl” like wolverine and what we saw in the dreadful “new52″ will be nothing to the revisions they will make to superman in order to make him “modern”
The Copyright Termination notice is a beautiful thing as it protects the authors,musicians and heirs.here is the link that explains when the two families ,the Siegels and Shusters filed their termination notice.
Warner Bros don’t want them to own any part of Superman but it’s too late and not even the mighty Warner Bros backing Dc comics can fight the law that was created to protect the rights of the heirs.Dc comics and Warner Bros received their termination notices and even tried to claim that the two families did not file it correctly to delay the process but the judge saw through their tricks and lies and granted the heirs the wish. http://www.hahnloeser.com/references/755.pdf
I mean their wish.