The SuperHeroHype Forums

The SuperHeroHype Forums (http://forums.superherohype.com/index.php)
-   Man of Steel (http://forums.superherohype.com/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1 (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=350653)

Thread Manager 03-28-2011 08:44 PM

Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is Here

\S/JcDc\S/ 03-28-2011 08:45 PM

Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis
 
*This is written in a more coherent way of understanding than what I was presented with. However I must stress that no facts have been altered of changed and nothing has been added to make it more interesting. Just fixed the grammar up a bit. * ---> read on --->

Dan Harris-

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
"Fans are being pretty consistent on who they'd like to see in a sequel. To me, we go with a villain smarter than Lex even. I think we're (Dan, and Michael) on the same page. A villain that appears believable in being the brains behind a big operation."


also

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
"Lex is a great manipulator, he can sway some public opinion. He may leave that island finding himself in a new house."





---------

Been gone for months, got this info which is more than credible so posted it here. Not trying to stir any pot. I stake whatever reputation I have (don't make jokes please :rolleyes: ) that this is more than even rumor. I am confident to call this fact. I'm so sure that if this were to be debunked officially... I will leave the hype forever having my user name banned.

This happened.

The above spoilers are true.

Read on...

Lencho01 03-28-2011 08:45 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis
 
With the recent Lois news, comes the final letter from Joanne Siegel...

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/0...-final-letter/

Quote:

Mar 28th 2011 By: Laura HudsonThe Final Letter of 'Lois Lane' Joanne Siegel to Time Warner

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.comicsall...nne-siegel.jpg
Joanne Siegel, the wife of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel and the original model for Lois Lane, recently passed away at the age of 93. After her death, Joanne was widely remembered not only for her physical beauty and the inspiration it provided for the classic Superman love interest, but for her tireless determination to reclaim the rights to the Superman character, originally sold for $130 but now a billion-dollar franchise for Time Warner, which owns DC Comics.

Deadline has posted the final letter of Joanne Siegel to Time Warner, composed only two months before her death, where she appeals to CEO Jeffrey Bewkes to pay the share of Superman profits since 1999 that the Siegels are legally owed, and end the "mean-spirited tactics" of the Time Warner legal team that clearly aggrieved her in her final months. The letter exemplifies all the qualities she -- and the intrepid reporter she inspired -- were known for: fearlessness, grace, and a dogged pursuit of justice that never wavered, even to the very end:
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...
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?
For those unfamiliar with the legal battle between Time Warner and the heirs of Jerry Siegel, much of it hinges on a 2008 ruling that the Siegel heirs are entitled to half of the Superman copyright, and that they were owed money for the use of the Superman character since 1999. It also meant that the rest of the Superman rights could revert wholly to the heirs of the co-creators in 2013 -- if the ruling survived a legal challenge.

While the upcoming Superman movie continues its casting process, Time Warner has battled on to retain its rights to the highly lucrative Superman franchise, often with hardball tactics like filing suit against the Siegels' lawyer, Marc Toberoff, as well as the "harassment" that Joanne describes below:

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


hippie_hunter 03-28-2011 09:18 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
Poor Joanne. That letter really makes me take pity on the Siegels on the fact that it's not Warner Bros. that is screwing them over, but Marc Toberoff.

solidsnake86 03-28-2011 09:52 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
^agreed, the letter seems like it was heavily influenced by him, judging by the right to legal council comments.

hippie_hunter 03-28-2011 10:13 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
Or the fact that she's completely oblivious to the fact that the reason why this case hasn't been settled is because of Toberoff. If the Siegels and WB settled, Toberoff gets nothing because WB isn't going to give a share of the rights to a lawyer/producer. By going after them and winning, he gets 47.5% of the rights won by the Siegels and even the Schuster estate, or at least that's his plan.

Lencho01 03-28-2011 10:16 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter (Post 19956785)
Or the fact that she's completely oblivious to the fact that the reason why this case hasn't been settled is because of Toberoff. If the Siegels and WB settled, Toberoff gets nothing because WB isn't going to give a share of the rights to a lawyer/producer. By going after them and winning, he gets 47.5% of the rights won by the Siegels and even the Schuster estate, or at least that's his plan.

I knew he was going after the rights too, but not for that high of a percentage.

Wheels 03-28-2011 10:18 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
You're kidding right? This guy gets a share of Superman?

hippie_hunter 03-28-2011 10:18 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lencho01 (Post 19956813)
I knew he was going after the rights too, but not for that high of a percentage.

You know why we haven't heard much about the Superman case lately? This is why:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/bu...rner.html?_r=1

hippie_hunter 03-28-2011 10:27 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AntMan (Post 19956827)
You're kidding righ?

Nope. Apparently Toberoff pissed off some lawyer so in retaliation he gave Time Warner's legal team a bunch of documents that prove that Toberoff has some intentions that went beyond just simply working to help the Siegels so that Toberoff would be disgraced.

Warner Bros. is now suing Toberoff.

FilmNerdJamie 05-26-2011 12:53 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
Quote:

DC may get Superman boost
May gain access to docs supporting case against Toberoff
By Ted Johnson
Posted: Thu., May. 26, 2011, 4:00am PT

DC Comics could gain access to a trove of documents that it claims bolsters its case against Marc Toberoff, the attorney representing the heirs to the creators of "Superman" who have so far been successful in winning back some of the rights to the Man of Steel.

A federal magistrate judge ruled Wednesday that the documents were not protected by attorney-client privilege but put the decision on hold until Toberoff and his attorneys can seek a decision from district court Judge Otis Wright.

In a suit filed last year, DC Comics, a division of Warner Bros., charged that Toberoff poisoned its relationships with the heirs to Superman co-creators Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster in an attempt to gain his own control over ownership of the character's copyrights.

DC Comics included in its suit an unsigned document, the "Superman-Marc Toberoff Timeline," that makes reference to documents detailing Toberoff's business practices and interactions with his clients. But Toberoff says that, as he was in the midst of litigation with DC Comics over Superman, the documents were stolen from his office in 2006 by a former attorney and then delivered to Warner Bros.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky said Toberoff "waived the privileges" when he turned in the documents last year in response to a grand jury subpeona, issued after Toberoff met with reps at the U.S. Attorney's office to discuss an investigation of the theft. Toberoff's attorneys say that they have an agreement with government that the documents would be "maintained as strictly confidential."

Toberoff has been representing the creators' heirs as they exercise a portion of the 1976 Copyright Act that allows authors to reclaim copyrights to their creations if certain conditions are met. In a counteraction, he's seeking to have the DC Comics suit against him dismissed and has called it a "desperate and cynical strategy" to distract from their claims.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118037634?refCatId=13

hippie_hunter 05-26-2011 08:40 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
I am really hoping that Toberoff loses big time because of this.

hippie_hunter 05-28-2011 04:14 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
Wanna know what's in the stolen documents that WB can now use in their court case?

- The person who stole the documents was indeed a disgruntled lawyer in Toberoff's firm. He attempted to take all of Toberoff's clients by offering reduced fees, but when that failed, he stole certain documents relating to the Superman case and delivered them to Warner Bros. with the intention to destroy Toberoff.

- One of the documents is a letter from Michael Siegel, the son of Superman creator Jerry Siegel. Toberoff attempted to get Michael to join the lawsuit against Warner Bros., but was rebuffed because Michael did not want to work with Toberoff.

- The letter in Toberoff's posession was a message to Michael's sister Laura Siegel Larson, warning her not to get involved with Toberoff calling him a "mysterious billionare" who has teamed up with William Morris Endeavor CEO Ari Emanuel to take control of the Superman franchise for themselves.

- Other documents include consent agreements with the Siegels and Schuster Estate not to deal with Warner Bros. independently and how to divide the Superman rights and proceeds if they are successful in terminating the copyright from Warner Bros. (i.e. the 47.5% that goes to Toberoff and others while the rest gets divided between the Siegels and Schuster Estate).

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...urglary-192768

SatEL 05-28-2011 04:52 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
Dam I hate greasy assed lawyers (then again they are all greasy to a degree), this Toberoff sounds like a really greedy bastard.

Kal-El.9859 05-30-2011 02:27 AM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
I honestly hope this gets resolved peacefully and no changes to Superman occur such as splitting him into two different entities or time lines. That would be ridiculous and out of control. This whole thing is already beyond stupid. WB just needs to pony up the cash, write a fat check and tell Toberoff to take a long walk off a short pier...

Kurosawa 05-30-2011 01:33 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
What's really disgusting is that of course WB doesn't have the Siegel and Shuster heirs' best interests at heart, but then they hire an attorney who is exploiting them just as much as WB has over the years. But it's not the first time-Jerry was conned into suing National for the Superman rights in the 40's by a shyster lawyer who he met in the Army named Albert Zugsmith. Siegel tried to get Bob Kane to come on board and sue over Batman as well, and what ended up happening is Kane (and maybe Zugsmith) finked Siegel and Shuster out to Jack Liebowitz and Kane got a massively favorable deal on Batman that gave him part ownership and a huge profit percentage, and Siegel and Shuster got ran off by DC. They got $100,000 in the lawsuit over Superboy, most of which went to Zugsmith, who went on to a successful career as a movie producer. So these people have been manipulated and used by crooks for years. It's a damn shame that they've only had a few people (Jerry Robinson and Neal Adams) that have helped them just out of care and respect.

They need to ditch Toberoff and DC needs to give them the exact same deal the Kane family has. That's the right thing to do.

Kurosawa 05-30-2011 01:38 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
Hype lag ftl.

KyleDW2 05-30-2011 02:34 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
As insensitive as it may seem, I really want the heirs to crash and burn with this entire lawsuit. Seigel and Schuster had their shot, they signed the character over, it was a dick move on WB's part, it was a stupid move on the heir's part, but the past is the past. You can't judge the past by the rules of today. All the heirs are doing now is screwing up the character. Its like they don't even care about the thing their grandfathers produced, they just want the money and damn the consequences. Their lawyer is a scumbag doesn't really help their case in my opinion either.

hippie_hunter 05-30-2011 10:05 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurosawa (Post 20461703)
What's really disgusting is that of course WB doesn't have the Siegel and Shuster heirs' best interests at heart, but then they hire an attorney who is exploiting them just as much as WB has over the years. But it's not the first time-Jerry was conned into suing National for the Superman rights in the 40's by a shyster lawyer who he met in the Army named Albert Zugsmith. Siegel tried to get Bob Kane to come on board and sue over Batman as well, and what ended up happening is Kane (and maybe Zugsmith) finked Siegel and Shuster out to Jack Liebowitz and Kane got a massively favorable deal on Batman that gave him part ownership and a huge profit percentage, and Siegel and Shuster got ran off by DC. They got $100,000 in the lawsuit over Superboy, most of which went to Zugsmith, who went on to a successful career as a movie producer. So these people have been manipulated and used by crooks for years. It's a damn shame that they've only had a few people (Jerry Robinson and Neal Adams) that have helped them just out of care and respect.

I wouldn't be surprised if it were Kane that screwed them over. I remember reading that Kane was a lot like Stan Lee, kind of a dick who took all the credit for a lot of stuff he didn't even do and tended to screw people over.

Quote:

They need to ditch Toberoff and DC needs to give them the exact same deal the Kane family has. That's the right thing to do.
VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

Lencho01 05-30-2011 10:21 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
I remember reading about Toberoff a year or two ago. Didn't he do the same thing with some other character? I think a dog.

Kurosawa 05-30-2011 11:36 PM

Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter (Post 20465719)
I wouldn't be surprised if it were Kane that screwed them over. I remember reading that Kane was a lot like Stan Lee, kind of a dick who took all the credit for a lot of stuff he didn't even do and tended to screw people over.


VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

Kane was like Stan on steroids. At least Stan actually scripted all the stories his name was signed to even if he didn't edit them. Kane did pencils on Batman until about 1941 and the occasional story afterwards, and treated his ghosts and his main writer, Bill Finger, like garbage. Conversely, Jerry Siegel wrote most of the Golden Age Superman stories and although the Shuster studio had ghosts, they were actually paid well-which is where a lot of the money S&S made went. Kane later on went into painting, selling portraits of clowns (don't ask), and he was later on sued by an artist because he hadn't paid her for the work she did for him...or to quote writer Arnold Drake, "The clowns, he even had a ghost for the ****ing clowns!"

Stan is (for the most part) a decent guy who was lucky enough to be partnered up with a genius when he worked with Kirby. Although much like the way Kane ratted on Siegel and Shuster over the Superman lawsuit in the late 40's, it's widely suspected that Stan told his uncle, Martin Goodman, that Simon and Kirby were planning to leave Timely for National when Goodman reneged on the contract S&K signed for doing Cap which was supposed to pay them a substantial percentage of the profits from Cap.

kal-el1990 05-31-2011 07:31 AM

Two Movies depending on the law suit?
 
Has anyone seen this??

http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/117/1171309p1.html

The article speaks for itself, I don't know how reliable it is or anything.

Worth a look!

Lord 05-31-2011 07:37 AM

Re: Two Movies depending on the law suit?
 
I saw it on IGN 3 days ago, it's a bit stupid but what should we do?
In the other hand i would like to see a superman film set in the 30s

kal-el1990 05-31-2011 07:45 AM

Re: Two Movies depending on the law suit?
 
Same here, I think a film set in the 30's or 40s would be great. Especially for using a villain like Braniac who has super advanced tech, the time period would make it that bit more spectacular.

DIRECTOR 05-31-2011 09:19 AM

Re: Two Movies depending on the law suit?
 
i don't want a film set in the early days, it loses it's appeal. I could see how it will be fun to watch, i will love it, but the general non-fanboys (which is alot) just won't get it.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com, A property of CraveOnline, a divison of AtomicOnline, LLC © 2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.