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

[AntMan]

Originally Posted by Doc Ock

Well, thats still odd...I mean the very idea of Superman being at Marvel.

Well with the bad blood between the parties involved I wouldn't have been shocked if after winning the legal battle the heirs just decided to stick it WB by taking their rights to Marvel rather than hold the studio up for more cash.

[metaphysician]

And its not like Disney wouldn't sign a check for the Superman rights in picoseconds. They wouldn't even be the only ones; any entertainment corporation would want a chance at Superman.

[solidsnake86]

^the only flawed logic with that scenario is that WB owns the S symbol. Probably the one thing that makes consistent profit on merchandise.

No company would want to touch it with WB breathing down their neck everytime they so much as hinted at an element that WB owns.

[BH/HHH]

Originally Posted by metaphysician

And its not like Disney wouldn't sign a check for the Superman rights in picoseconds. They wouldn't even be the only ones; any entertainment corporation would want a chance at Superman.

I'd actually love to see a Disney version if Superman like I.e. Hercules.

[LibidoLoca]

Get Steven Spielberg and Alan Menken and I think we have a hit on our hands.

[AntMan]

Originally Posted by BH/HHH

I'd actually love to see a Disney version if Superman like I.e. Hercules.

Ewww Disney's Hercules. Greek myth mixed with Vegas and Gospel music

Why was that considered a good idea?

[Lencho01]

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/1...perman-rights/

Nov 6th 2012 By: Graeme McMillan

DC Appeals Siegel Ownership of Half of Superman Rights

Having seemingly secured the rights to Joe Shuster's half of the rights to Superman, DC Comics and parent company Time Warner's never-ending battle over collaborator Jerry Siegel's share of the rights continued yesterday as the case went before a Federal Appeals Court.

Arguments were heard by a California Appeals Court in Pasadena, CA, yesterday over whether or not Laura Siegel Larson -- Siegel's daughter -- has the right to terminate her family's share of Time Warner and DC's existing copyright to the Superman character as ruled by a Californian court in 2008. Daniel Petrocelli, a lawyer working for DC, argued that the 1938 copyright that would be terminated under existing US copyright law is actually invalid due to a 2006 agreement between Joanne Siegel, Larson's mother (and Jerry's wife), and DC from 2006. "At the very minimum, we believe we're entitled to a trial," Petrocelli told the court, going on to say that, should the Appeals Court agree that the 2006 agreement supersedes the 1938 agreement -- or the 1947 post-lawsuit agreement, or the 1973-1975 lawsuit and subsequent agreements -- between DC and Siegel, it would "dispose of the entire dispute."

Marc Toberoff, the attorney working for Larson, is familiar with this argument, as he has recently lost a lawsuit for the Shuster half of the rights to DC on very similar grounds (In that case, a 1992 agreement between DC and Shuster's sister invalidated any future claim to the rights, it was ruled last month). He argued that the 2006 agreement was itself invalid as DC/Warners changed the royalty terms after the fact, something that Judge Sidney Thomas seemed unconvinced about yesterday; he reportedly asked Toberoff "If there's a legitimate offer on the 16th [of October, 2006] and the acceptance on the 19th, does it really matter what happens afterward? This suggests there's probably a genuine issue of material fact."

No ruling was handed down from the three judge Appeals Court yesterday. Keep looking up, in the sky, for developments.

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I feel like this battle will go on till the end of time.

[FilmNerdJamie]

And that's all she wrote...

The most recent judgement in the DC Comics vs Marc Toberoff case is a doozy and an outright win for DC Comics. Not only has the judge ruled that, "...the copyright termination notice served by the Estate of Joseph Shuster on November 10, 2003, is deemed invalid and ineffective," but Marc Toberoffs, "...rights-encumbering agreements—including the 2001 Pacific Pictures agreement, 2003 Pacific Pictures agreement, and 2008 consent agreement—are deemed invalid and unenforceable." This means he no longer has a claim on Superman - DC Comics have all but won the case, with a few more outstanding issues yet to be resolved.

There'll be some who will celebrate this, and those who will decry it, but worry not, as expected an appeal has been filed, meaning that the case is far from finished and will soon drag on into it's ninth year - or fifteenth, if you started counting from when the Siegels first filed in 1999. How this will affect the forthcoming Superman movie, publicity wise, is yet to be determined, but surely there will be some form of a protest. Wait and see.

http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com.au/20...q0bpE.facebook

[Kal-El Fan]

Now it's a question of how long the appeals drag out or if the appellate judges just dismiss them/refuse to hear them.

[Motown Marvel]

so whats this mean? DC completely owns all rights in regards to superman?

[BH/HHH]

To be honest I think the appeals will get rejected

[A.Stabelli]

I hope this doesn't affect Man Of Steel too badly. I don't want the movie's success to be a victim of this.

[Kal-El Fan]

I don't think much of the public is even aware of the lawsuit, so I think any "protests" or whatnot from the family would just confuse people more than rally any support. Who knows though.

[FilmNerdJamie]

There goes that appeal...

Big Superman news: Appeals court finds that Siegel's heirs made deal with studio in '01 b4 effecting termination of copyright on Superman.

https://twitter.com/Borys_Kit/status/289451633354620928

As a result, a federal judge's 2008 decision to allow the Siegel estate to recapture Superman rights is about to be wiped out.

https://twitter.com/Borys_Kit/status/289452126818684928

The Hollywood Reporter has more details.

[batman44]

Wow.

[Zorex]

So, at the risk of oversimplification, that's it, then? This is done and over with? (Until the NEXT legal battle.)

[BH/HHH]

So WBs has full rights?

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by Zorex

So, at the risk of oversimplification, that's it, then? This is done and over with? (Until the NEXT legal battle.)

The Siegel copyright reclamation has been deemed invalid (due to a prior deal). But I was under the impression that this has no bearing on the Shuster half of the case. However, deadline.com is saying that the Shuster heirs are (likewise) stymied by a prior deal. This was ruled on, apparently, back in October (something I didn’t know). If that’s the case then, yes, it might be “over.”

[Lead Cenobite]

I figured the Siegel case was the big one anyway.

[Rodrigo90]

For dummies like me, is this good or bad?

[FilmNerdJamie]

It's great.

Means this is over.

[Rodrigo90]

So Superman is officially safe with WB and DC? Thank God

[chamber-music]

Its over lets party!

[Lead Cenobite]

Originally Posted by Rodrigo90

For dummies like me, is this good or bad?

WB winning means that the Superman mythology remains whole, since if either the Siegel or Shuster estate won, WB would lose everything in Action Comics #1, meaning the prototypical version of Superman, Clark Kent, Lois Lane, and the origin, while WB would still have the rights to many Superman related characters and concepts such as Lex Luthor, Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, the Daily Planet, the Fortress of Solitude, and the Phantom Zone.

On the other hand, National (the precursor to DC) committed an injustice against Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster and their heirs deserve their fair share.