Lawsuite

tecnowraith

Sidekick
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
0
Points
31
Source: [URL="http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Television&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270355&obj_id=50967"]Cinescape[/URL]

Variety reports that the widow and daughter of Jerome Siegel, originator of the comicbook series SUPERBOY, is suing the WB over SMALLVILLE.

A federal judge in Los Angeles has found that WB's show may be infringing on the copyrights held on the Superboy character. The summary judgment also found that Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson had successfully recaptured the SUPERBOY rights as of mid November 2004.

The lawyer for Siegel and Larson told Variety, "Jerry Siegel's SUPERBOY focuses on Superboy's relationship with his parents and his adventures with school classmates in a small town which, by SUPERBOY #2, was named Smallville."

Warner Bros. said in response that it "respectfully disagrees" with the rulings and will pursue an appeal.
 
Oh, brother....

Variety said:
Super snit in 'Smallville'
Skein faces copyright infringement charges
By DAVE MCNARY

There's a big dispute in "Smallville."

A federal judge in Los Angeles has found that the WB's young Superman skein may be infringing on the copyrights held on the Superboy character by the widow and daughter of Jerome Siegel, originator of the comicbook series.

The March 23 summary judgment by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew also found that Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson had successfully recaptured the Superboy rights as of Nov. 17, 2004.

Lew's rulings in the copyright infringement lawsuit against Time Warner, Warner Bros. and DC Comics throw into question the ownership of "Smallville" episodes that have run since November 2004. Lew denied a request by the defendants for a ruling that "Smallville" did not infringe on the Superboy copyrights.

Warner Bros. said in response that it "respectfully disagrees" with the rulings and will pursue an appeal.

Still to be resolved is the question of whether "Smallville" -- now in its fifth season and centered on a teenage Clark Kent -- is actually infringing on the Superboy copyright. No trial date has been set in the suit, filed in 2004.

In their request for partial summary judgment, Siegel and Larson didn't ask for a copyright infringement ruling, which Lew said would require a "detailed factual comparison." But he noted, "Enough facts are presented, where this court, contrary to defendants' request, could find that the main character in 'Smallville' is in fact Superboy."

Lew also added in a footnote, "In the Superboy comic strip, a billboard on the side of a rural country road announces, 'Welcome to Smallville! Home of Superboy."

In response, Warner Bros. also pointed out that the suit is directed solely to rights relating to the costumed character Superboy -- not Superman. "Moreover, the court's ruling does not affect the television series 'Smallville,' which is grounded in depictions of a young Superman that pre-date the publication of Superboy in 1944 and which therefore are not subject to the termination notice, even if valid," Warner added.

Marc Toberoff, who represents Siegel and Larson, told Daily Variety that the only representations of a younger Superman which pre-date 1944 Superboy consist of one or two panels showing Superman as a baby or toddler. "Jerry Siegel's Superboy focuses on Superboy's relationship with his parents and his adventures with school classmates in a small town which, by Superboy No. 2, was named Smallville," he added.

The dispute over who owns Superboy goes back to 1938 -- the same year the first Superman comicbook, based on the story originated by Siegel and illustrator Joseph Shuster, was published.

A few months later, Siegel agreed to provide Detective Comics with a new Superboy comicstrip and submitted a plan that was turned down. Siegel unsuccessfully attempted several more times to pique Detective's interest in Superboy before entering the Army in 1943.

But Detective began publishing Superboy comics in 1944 while Siegel was stationed in the Pacific, resulting in a 1947 lawsuit in which New York state court Judge Addison Young found Siegel to be the sole owner of Superboy. In 1948, Siegel reached a settlement with National Comics Publications (predecessor of DC Comics) in which he sold ownership of Superboy and Superman to National.

Siegel and Shuster sued to regain the Superman copyright in 1973, but lost that suit two years later. Siegel then launched a PR campaign to protest DC Comics' treatment of him and Shuster, placing a "curse" on the upcoming "Superman" film and resulting in Warner Communications awarding annual pensions to the duo along with credit as co-creators.

Shuster died in 1992; Siegel passed away four years later.

The Superboy copyrights -- granted originally for the standard 28 years -- were renewed for another 28 years between 1972 and 1975.

However, Congress amended copyright law in 1976 to extend renewal terms from 28 years to 47 years in order to allow authors and their heirs to recapture copyrights for the extended renewal period. So in late 2002, Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson served the standard two-year notice they were terminating the 1948 grant of the Superboy copyright.

But in August 2004, DC Comics notified Siegel and Larson it was denying the validity of the termination notice and asserting it would "vigorously oppose" any attempt to exploit the Superboy copyrights. Siegel and Larson filed their suit two months later.

In their legal responses to the Superboy suit, Time Warner and its co-defendants had contended Superboy was simply a younger version of Superman and that Superboy was "work for hire" solely owned by its predecessors. But Lew said those arguments were unpersuasive in light of rulings made by Judge Young in the 1947 trial.

Lew noted that Young had made those determinations after hearing evidence from the parties who were "directly involved" in the original dispute.

"Defendants' attempt to recast Superboy as a 'derivative work' or 'work for hire' stands in stark contrast to Judge Young's conclusion that Detective/National was 'perpetually enjoined and restrained from creating, publishing, selling or distributing' Superboy, based on the fact that Siegel was the sole and exclusive owner," Lew said.

"Defendants' argument also contradicts the fact that Siegel subsequently transferred his exclusive interest in Superboy to National in the May 19, 1948, stipulated settlement. Had Superboy been nothing more than a derivative work, Siegel would have owned no interest in the Superboy property to transfer."

Lew also noted that the defendants' predecessors had relied on Young's rulings in previous cases such as Siegel-Shuster's unsuccessful 1973 suit. "Defendants now take the inconsistent position that this court is not bound by the state court findings, as they relate to Superboy," he wrote.

Toberoff, a specialist in intellectual property, represented Robert B. Clark in his suit against Warner Bros., which was settled last year for at least $17.5 million for infringing on the copyright to the 1974 film "Moonrunners" by making the feature "The Dukes of Hazzard." "Moonrunners" became the basis of the Warner TV series "The Dukes of Hazzard."

http://www.variety.com/story.asp?l=story&a=VR1117941008&c=1236

Let the fun begin. :rolleyes:
 
Maybe they should've stuck to the "no flights" clause after all, LOL.
 
AgentPat said:
Oh, brother....



Let the fun begin. :rolleyes:

Look at it this way Pat

They name him Superman and this all goes away . . .:D hint hint WB.

Plus Superboy wore the tights Clark hasnt done that yet.
 
So basically what will end up happening is. Put on the Suit or get cancelled :o or the obvious one. Pay me money or get cancelled. But why wait 5 Years after the Show First started to sue ?
 
But how will putting on the suit and calling him Superman sovle anything since the WB and DC already are paying out of the ass to them for Superman as well.
 
Plus DC has already lost the rights to Superman which is coming up very soon where either they will have to kill him for good or pay the family the money they want.
 
I don't want them to kill Superman :o Smallville is just getting good & after all these years we are getting a Movie. Itd suck if they just kill Superman :o
 
Well thats what could happen remember DC has lost the rights to Superman I can't remember what year they have to turn everything over but if they dont buy it back from them you might see Superman in Marvel or hanging out with Spawn or whatever or you just may never see a Superman for a while. Though I am now wondering if they are going to kill SV because of this.
 
Tony_Montana said:
Though I am now wondering if they are going to kill SV because of this.

They can't kill SV now. But now thanks to this I would not be surprised if Season 6 = the Final Season. But this Show must get One More Season :o Then again WB shows have an habit of ending very crappily :o
 
Brainiac 8 said:
Oy, people sue over anything anymore.:down :o

Its the land of Freedom of Speech, but if you say something I dont like, I'll sue you. ;)
 
Dnsk said:
They can't kill SV now. But now thanks to this I would not be surprised if Season 6 = the Final Season. But this Show must get One More Season :o Then again WB shows have an habit of ending very crappily :o
Really? Look at Lois and Clark it was a highly rated show but was killed to bring back the wonderful world of Disney
 
Tony_Montana said:
Really? Look at Lois and Clark it was a highly rated show but killed to bring back the wonderful world of Disney

Even that ended crappily :o
 
True but it was not their fault the network went out of its way to try and kill the show and couldn't even do it show they just said we're not bringing it back.
 
Tony_Montana said:
True but it was not their fault the network went out of its way to try and kill the show and couldn't even do it show they just said we're not bringing it back.
I just hope this lawsuit does not effect Smallville & Superman that much. The WB has money they need to step up. This World is full of greedy bastards & the greedy bastards win :o I just hope WB is careful & knows what its doing
 
3 things....

1. tony, love the new avatar, but i cant see it to well, bigger version maybe?

2. isnt it pissin anybody else off that lawsuit is spelled "lawsuite" in the thread.

3. I'm not going to throw legal advice around on the web, BUT the WB is in kind of a damned if you damned if you dont situation, because it seems to me any actions they would have to take to quiet title to the superman properties would put them in the precarious situation of having superman come into the public domain. Paying them off might be the easiest and in the end, least costly thing they could do.
 
Theyll have to jump some years ahead to put on the suit.

If Clark puts on the suit at 18, he will be Superboy.

I guess this is why they named Superboy's university from the 1980s TV series into Shuster College and why Superboy was retconed out of postcrisis origins (good move).

I wonder how DC still managed to make Kon-el and Superboy Prime work?...


Spoilers...





Though it may be no coincidence that both are dying for good in todays issue of Infinite Crisis.
 
Give me a break, it was early in the morning (for me that is) when I posted this. And now I can not even edit it the title.
 
avidreader said:
Its the land of Freedom of Speech, but if you say something I dont like, I'll sue you. ;)


LOL:up: :D

That is the way the nation works now.

Just like the "I spilled hot coffee on me, and McDonalds didn't tell me ahead of time it was hot" lady. It's just stupid, stupid, stupid.

Also, DC wouldn't ever lose the property of Superman. He is their flagship, iconic character. If they were ever in danger of losing him, I'm sure they would go as far as going bankrupt if it meant keeping him.
 
Crisis Superman said:
Though it may be no coincidence that both are dying for good in todays issue of Infinite Crisis.


Crisis, you just reminded me why I dread going to the comic shop to pick up #6 today. I like Kon-el, and don't want him to croak.:(
 
Where's Hulk when you need him.

I have a little legal experience, but I'm nowhere near the legal eagle that :hulk: is.

First thing I note is that Smallville started before 2004, which is when these ladies assumed the copyrights to Superboy.

Secondly, Clark has never been referred to as the Superboy character and he doesnt wear the costume.

Thirdly, its in the story of Superman that he grew up in Smallville when he was a teenager.

Anyway, this dispute has been going since 2004 and probably wont be settled before Smallville ends.
 
Brainiac 8 said:
Crisis, you just reminded me why I dread going to the comic shop to pick up #6 today. I like Kon-el, and don't want him to croak.:(

:D I would! Hes served his purpose and they seem to be going back to an older classic version of TT anyways.

Just as Supergirl and Barry died in issues 6 and 7 of COIE, Kon will die in IC #6 and I predict Wally will fall in IC#7.

The new Flash in the new series, I think, will be Bart Allen.....he comes out of the speedforce having aged several years and is now an adult.
 
avidreader said:
Anyway, this dispute has been going since 2004 and probably wont be settled before Smallville ends.

It may actually end sooner than you think, especially with DC killing off its Superboy characters.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,153
Messages
21,907,334
Members
45,704
Latest member
BMD
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"