The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Superman > Man of Steel

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-22-2013, 02:20 PM   #476
A.Stabelli
Man Of Steel
 
A.Stabelli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Reading, Pa
Posts: 933
Default Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1

I don't think we have anything to worry about regarding the promotion. Or at least I hope not.

A.Stabelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 10:35 AM   #477
dnno1
Side-Kick
 
dnno1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 12,600
Default Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1

Final Ruling?
Quote:
Judge: Superman Rights Transferred to DC Comics in 2001 Agreement



A federal judge said that an October, 2001 letter was an agreement that transferred to DC Comics the rights to “Superman” held by the heirs to co-creator Jerome Siegel, but the order is hardly the end of the lengthy litigation.
In fact, the decision by U.S. District Judge Otis Wright left many lingering legal questions unresolved.
Wright’s ruling was in response to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in November that an Oct. 19, 2001, letter from Kevin Marks, then the attorney for Siegel’s wife and daughter, to then-Warner Bros. general counsel John Schulman was an agreement in which the DC continued to get rights to Superman in exchange for “substantial financial consideration.”
That ruling reversed a 2008 district court decision that the parties actually “failed to come to an agreement on all material terms” back then, meaning the Siegels had rights to the character. A provision of the Copyright Act allows creators to reclaim the rights to their works after a certain period and under certain conditions.
Marc Toberoff, now representing the Siegel heirs, argued in court briefings that even though the 9th Circuit found that the Oct. 19 letter was a valid agreement, that did not mean that the heirs had actually transferred rights to DC Comics. Rather, the letter stated that the “Siegel Family would transfer all of its rights.”
Yet Wright wrote that he was bound by the 9th Circuit’s “implied finding” that the Oct. 19 letter did in fact transfer copyright ownership. Left up in the air is what either party has to do next to comply with the terms of the contract. “How DC would choose to proceed from here armed with a declaration that the contract remained enforceable but that the Siegels were still obligated to effect the transfer is beyond the purview of this court,” Wright added.
Moreover, Wright left it to the Siegels to seek a claim for breach of contract in state court. Their contention is that even if the Oct. 19 letter was valid, DC Comics breached it because they failed to make payments for the rights.
Although he seemed anxious to see a conclusion to the case, Wright asked for additional briefing on a further dispute over the rights to Superboy as well as to advertisements for the debut of the Superman comic in 1938.

__________________
Dno
dnno1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 04:52 PM   #478
Lencho01
Shazoogle! Shazoogle!
 
Lencho01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,194
Default Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1

Interesting...

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2013/0...19-credits-dc/

Quote:
Apr 18th 2013 By: Joseph Hughes

DC Comics' New Superman Credit: "By Special Arrangement With The Jerry Siegel Family"


Out this week is Justice League #19, an issue that officially debuts new members of the team while beginning to lay the groundwork for DC Comics' upcoming Trinity War storyline. As such, it's a significant issue in the series, but more significant is the noticeable change in the credits, one likely pertaining to the ongoing legal battle over the rights to Superman.

After the story title and creator and editorial credits, the following bit has been added:"Superman created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, by Special Arrangement with the Jerry Siegel Family"

While Siegel and Shuster's creator credits have been in place consistently since the 1970s, the reference to Siegel's family was not in any previous issue of Justice League, nor in any previous Superman-starring comic books, to this point. Its appearance in the credits of this issue stands out even more than it otherwise would, given the timing of its arrival: Justice League #19 debuted in stores and online the day before the 75th Anniversary of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster's Action Comics #1.

When contacted, DC Comics had no comment.

__________________
I was at some diplomatic party once. Got to talking to this princess who told me that when it came to Superman, I was missing the point. She told me, "His real strength lay in his generous spirit and sense of what's fair." - King Faraday

"
He’s much more of a working class superhero, which is why we ended the whole book with the image of a laboring Superman. He’s Everyman operating on a sci–fi Paul Bunyan scale." - Grant Morrison

"Self Portrait" By Batman
Lencho01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 01:38 AM   #479
Lencho01
Shazoogle! Shazoogle!
 
Lencho01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,194
Default Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1

More stuff...

http://www.deadline.com/2013/04/warn...s-rights-case/

Quote:
Superman Birthday Present For Warner Bros As Court Ends Co-Creator Heirs Rights Case

By DOMINIC PATTEN | Thursday April 18, 2013 @ 5:54pm PDT

On the 75th anniversary today of Superman’s debut, Warner Bros got some more good news about the Man of Steel. The last elements of WB and its subsidiary DC Comics legal issues with the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel effectively came to an end Thursday with a US District Court ruling on the rights to Superboy and some Superman ads. “The Court holds that the 2001 settlement agreement between DC and the Siegels re-granted the Siegels’ Superman, Superboy, and a Superman advertisements that ran in the 1930s to DC in return for substantial advances and royalties,” wrote Judge Otis Wright III today (read it here). “The remainder of Defendants’ Motion is therefore Granted and this litigation of superhero proportions now draws to a close,” the federal judge added in not uncharacteristic fashion.

This order adds to the March 20 decision by Wright granting WB and DC a partial summary judgment in cases brought by Laura Siegel Larson and the estate of Joanne Siegel. The order confirms the studio and its subsidiary’s long contention that the multi-million dollar 2001 agreement between itself and the heirs granted them the rights to Superman character. In a February filing for summary judgment, WB and DC asked the judge to reconfirm the earlier ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in January that basically gave them full rights to the superhero character and the freedom to move forward with its Superman big screen reboot Man Of Steel and other related properties without the threat of any more legal action by the creators’ heirs and estates. The Ninth Circuit ruling in January overturned a 2008 ruling that the Siegel heirs still controlled the lucrative rights to the Man from Krypton and his younger selfbecause a binding agreement was never actually reached by the parties 12 years ago as WB and DC claim. While ending the federal court aspect of this case, Judge Wright did suggest in today’s ruling that any additional legal action should be filed in state court under a breach of contract status. Warner Bros is represented by Daniel Petrocelli and Matthew Kline of LA firm O’Melveny & Myers. Laura Siegel Larson and the estate of Jerry Siegel are represented by attorney Marc Toberoff and Richard Kendall of Kendall Brill & Klieger.
http://www.deadline.com/2013/04/supe...-jerry-siegel/

Quote:
Superboy Leaps Warner Bros Legal Hurdle

By DOMINIC PATTEN | Thursday April 18, 2013 @ 7:52pm PDT

The latest Superman reboot Man of Steel is hitting the big screen this summer. But today’s ruling by the U.S. District Court in the studio’s favor means Warner Bros now has full license to make a Superboy movie. Thursday’s order by Judge Otis Wright III affirmed a contested 2001 agreement between the estate of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel and DC Comics. Granted it’s premature to start talking about a Superboy movie. But not if Man of Steel‘s June 14-16 opening weekend box office is a big as anticipated.

The initial Superboy legal squabble between the Siegel estate and Warner Bros and its subsidiary DC Comics stemmed from the character’s first appearance back in 1943. Siegel pitched DC the idea of a “comic concerning the exploits of Superman as a young man” back in 1938 says the Siegel’s 2007 lawsuit against Warner Bros and DC. DC rejected the pitch yet in the middle of World War II, when Siegel was overseas in the Army, the company printed a five-page Superboy story. Siegel contended this was done without his permission and without any notice. Consequently, there was litigation, deals and disputes over young Superman until the two sides came to an agreement in 1948 over Superboy. DC paid Siegel and co-creator Joe Shuster $94,000 to end all claims, which they did.

Over the following decades, DC had its copyright to Superman and Superboy extended on various occasions. A 1976 deal with the creators extended the copyright another 19 years but unlike past extensions the new Copyright Act allowed a termination clause that could take effect in 1999. In 1997, the Siegel estate gave WB/DC the termination notice. Warner Bros contested that notice and everything seemed to be worked out in a lucrative and comprehensive 2001 settlement agreement that heirs and DC came to. Then that fell apart and the Siegel estate went to the courts to reclaim the rights to Superman and Superboy and related properties.

In 2006, a federal judge granted the Siegels the right to Superboy retroactive to 2004. In a further blow to WB, Judge Stephen Larson in 2008 granted the Siegel estate the full copyright to Superman material first published in 1938. However, the victory was relatively short-lived. Over the last year, WB/DC have received a series of rulings that has affirmed the 2001 deal with the Siegels and given the studio the rights to Superman and today Superboy.

Still, during the legal battle, Warner Bros were very careful with Superboy even as they rebooted Superman in 2006 and, after scoring a legal victory in 2009, started production on Man of Steel in 2011. The legal entanglements have kept the studio walking a tightrope on using the term ‘Superboy’ and depictions of the character. The studio has tried various workarounds in the comics. Warner Bros also only released one season of the 1988-1992 syndicated Superboy TV series on DVD, around the time the legal writs started flying. The Siegel estate filed a lawsuit, now dead, in 2004 over the Smallville TV series, which is essentially the story of Superboy. (Smallville is embroiled in a separate legal mater of its own between its co-creators and WBTV.) Smallville never actually referred to a “Superboy” except for one offhand remark. Smallville ran first on the WB weblet and then on its successor CW from 2001 to 2011. Now that caution can end and Warner Bros can put a cape back on the young Man of Steel and leap more box office in a single bound.

__________________
I was at some diplomatic party once. Got to talking to this princess who told me that when it came to Superman, I was missing the point. She told me, "His real strength lay in his generous spirit and sense of what's fair." - King Faraday

"
He’s much more of a working class superhero, which is why we ended the whole book with the image of a laboring Superman. He’s Everyman operating on a sci–fi Paul Bunyan scale." - Grant Morrison

"Self Portrait" By Batman
Lencho01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2013, 06:34 PM   #480
Lencho01
Shazoogle! Shazoogle!
 
Lencho01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,194
Default Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1

WB settles their Smallville issues too...

http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/smal...it-1200484650/

Quote:
‘Smallville’ Producers, Warner Bros. Settle Self-Dealing Suit



May 20, 2013 | 05:04PM PT Suit filed in 2010 claimed studio short-changed profit participants with low-ball network license fees


Ted Johnson

Senior Editor @tedstew

The producers of “Smallville” have reached a settlement with Warner Bros. in a vertical integration suit that claimed that the studio was low-balling the fees it was charging to license the show to sibling networks WB and CW.

Showrunners Miles Millar and Alfred Gough (pictured above) filed suit in 2010, and their litigation had the potential to once again expose studio accounting and deal-making practices should it have gone to trial next month. In one of the most famous cases involving vertical integration, Celador Intl. won a $319 million judgment against Disney over the profits to “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” A federal appellate court upheld the verdict late last year and the media conglomerate in February was denied a request for rehearing.

Chad Fitzgerald of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert, representing the “Smallville” producers, said that the settlement was announced by attorneys for the parties at a hearing on Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court. He declined to comment on the terms or other details. A spokesman for the studio said they had no comment.

The production company behind “Smallville,” Tollin/Robbins Prods., also was a plaintiff in the $100 million suit but settled earlier this year.

“Smallville” ran on WB and CW from 2001 to 2011.

__________________
I was at some diplomatic party once. Got to talking to this princess who told me that when it came to Superman, I was missing the point. She told me, "His real strength lay in his generous spirit and sense of what's fair." - King Faraday

"
He’s much more of a working class superhero, which is why we ended the whole book with the image of a laboring Superman. He’s Everyman operating on a sci–fi Paul Bunyan scale." - Grant Morrison

"Self Portrait" By Batman
Lencho01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 10:05 PM   #481
Lencho01
Shazoogle! Shazoogle!
 
Lencho01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,194
Default Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com...perman-battle/

Quote:
‘This case is by no means over,’ vows lawyer in Superman battle

by Kevin Melrose | June 13, 2013 @ 8:00 AM | 15 Comments |

From Action Comics #1

Despite a series of seemingly definitive decisions in DC Comics’ favor, the nearly decade-long legal fight over the rights to Superman continues, with the estate of co-creator Joe Shuster asking an appeals court just three weeks ago to overturn a ruling barring the family from reclaiming the artist’s stake in the Man of Steel. At the center of the battle is tenacious and controversial attorney Marc Toberoff, the longtime nemesis of Warner Bros. who represents the heirs of Shuster and his collaborator Jerry Siegel.

He’s the subject of a lengthy feature in the latest issue of Bloomberg Businessweek, in which he pledges he’ll take the Superman dispute to the Supreme Court, if necessary. “This case is by no means over,” he tells the magazine. “My clients and I are prepared to go the distance.” It’s an interesting article that’s part history lesson and part personality profile, with several tidbits (of varying importance) that I can’t recall seeing previously:

• Toberoff is charging the Siegel family a 30 percent contingency fee, but Laura Siegel Larson points out that “He has not made a penny out of this.” He won’t say how much he’s spent on the case.

• The attorney and his children barely escaped a 2007 wildfire that destroyed his Malibu home and all of his possessions; he appeared in court in a hoodie and sweatpants until he could buy a new wardrobe. He also survived a near-fatal car accident that same year while on his way to a deposition in Philadelphia: Although his car was crashed, trapping him within, “Toberoff snacked on half a sandwich in his briefcase awaiting the police. He made the deposition on schedule.”

• While I knew that Toberoff’s movie-making interests became a point of contention in the Superman case — he and the Shusters set up a joint venture in 2001 that would’ve given his Pacific Pictures half of the family’s character rights — I hadn’t realized he was a producer on such films as My Favorite Martian, Black Irish, Bottle Shock and 2010′s Pirahna.

• Toberoff acknowledges it was “a mistake” for him and Hollywood super-agent Ari Emanuel to approach the Siegels in 2002 with an offer to license their Superman rights for $15 million. (They said no, and he later dissolved the joint venture with the Shusters.)

• Mark Warren Peary, Shuster’s nephew and the executor of his estate, is the author of The Ten Biggest Diet Myths and Greatest Health Secrets Revealed.

__________________
I was at some diplomatic party once. Got to talking to this princess who told me that when it came to Superman, I was missing the point. She told me, "His real strength lay in his generous spirit and sense of what's fair." - King Faraday

"
He’s much more of a working class superhero, which is why we ended the whole book with the image of a laboring Superman. He’s Everyman operating on a sci–fi Paul Bunyan scale." - Grant Morrison

"Self Portrait" By Batman
Lencho01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 10:28 PM   #482
Panthro
Catman Begins
 
Panthro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cat's Lair, Third Earth
Posts: 18,115
Default Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lencho01 View Post
And Toberoff continues to be a disgusting individual.

__________________
SUPERMAN: You know something Bruce? You're not always right.

New 52 Flash SUCKS
Panthro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2013, 03:07 AM   #483
Gabe99
Side-Kick
 
Gabe99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Greeley, Co
Posts: 1,543
Default Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1

Superman Heirs Seek To Pull Warner Bros Back To Court In Copyright Battle
Quote:
Originally Posted by DOMINIC PATTEN
Regardless of where this goes or if it goes anywhere at all, WB still can move ahead with its Batman Vs. Superman sequel to this year’s Man Of Steel. Thanks to some swift production deadline moves by WB back in 2010, the previous recent rulings in the case between DC/WB, the Shuster estate and the heirs to Supe’s other creator Jerry Siegel had no hold on the first Superman reboot or its sequels. However, the question is whether the 9th Circuit would be willing to take another look at the case? Hard to call, but it is clear that the November 21 opinion certainly wasn’t kind to Toberoff personally — something WB, which has gone after the lawyer himself, enjoyed. Judges Stephen Reinhardt and John Sedwick were stern with the lawyer and the estates for not revealing from the beginning of the litigation that Toberoff’s Pacific Pictures was pursuing an effort with the heirs to create new Superman pics and properties if the courts granted them the rights back from WB. “We note that their failure (and that of Toberoff, their attorney and business partner) to disclose this information in the 2003 notice of termination itself appears to violate the relevant regulations governing notices of termination,” the majority opinion said. Bet WB’s lawyers Daniel Petrocelli and Matthew Kline of LA firm O’Melveny & Myers will note that in any response that they make in to this week’s petition.

Gabe99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:56 PM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.