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

[Lead Cenobite]

Is there proof that the suit redesigns (both comics and movie) have been done because of the lawsuit?

 

[Micromind]

No, they have been thinking of modernizing Superman for quite some time, when Singer's attempt to re introduce Donnerverse did not work, they decided to go ahead with what was originally planned (a new modernized Superman suit) for movies by Burton/ Abrams/ McG but this time they kept a balance of old elements and introduced some new elements according to Snyder's vision.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Another thing I'd like to know is if WB loses Superman, what does that mean for all the movies, comics, and merchandise released before the lawsuit? Will they no longer be allowed to sell them without paying royalties?

 

[Micromind]

Only US movie rights to superman are to be settled in the Court, the rights to publishing comics will remain with DC, but how much they would have to pay the S&S will be decided by the Court, actually its is more complicated than this but this is what known by the many. (IMO.)

Even if S&S win this case they will not get full control of Superman, only the elements that appear in Action Comics #1.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Superman: The Movie contains the basic origin of Superman as well as the classic suit, will WB have to pay royalties to continue selling copies of it?

 

[Micromind]

Earlier movies (STM etc.) are property of WB and they can sell copies but they will have to pay royalties, which will be according to the outcome of the lawsuit or settlement.

 

[Dr.]

Earlier movies (STM etc.) are property of WB and they can sell copies but they will have to pay royalties, which will be according to the outcome of the lawsuit or settlement.

I don’t believe that’s correct. S&S are reclaiming their copyright of Superman (which they’re allowed to do by law). They are not saying that WB/DC wasn’t the legal copyright holder prior to the date of reclamation (1999). Therefore, no past royalties are owed. It has been established that royalties post 1999 (including for SR and Smallville) apply; but I don’t think they’ve settled on a figure yet.

 

[Micromind]

I don’t believe that’s correct. S&S are reclaiming their copyright of Superman (which they’re allowed to do by law). They are not saying that WB/DC wasn’t the legal copyright holder prior to the date of reclamation (1999). Therefore, no past royalties are owed. It has been established that royalties post 1999 (including for SR and Smallville) apply; but I don’t think they’ve settled on a figure yet.

So, only royalties to be paid are Superman related movies /shows that are made after 1999, the figure will be decided in the court, I did not know this bit of technicality.

 

[Showtime]

No, they have been thinking of modernizing Superman for quite some time, when Singer's attempt to re introduce Donnerverse did not work, they decided to go ahead with what was originally planned (a new modernized Superman suit) for movies by Burton/ Abrams/ McG but this time they kept a balance of old elements and introduced some new elements according to Snyder's vision.

It is about showing that they are/were changing Superman and Superman has evolved over the years and isn't the same as when he was introduced. So yes, these changes are because of the lawsuit. The reason the suit is a version of what was almost previously used is because WB/DC wants to use whatever they can from previous attempts to justify money that was spent.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

'Superman' Lawyer Looks to SLAPP Away a Warner Bros. Lawsuit on Appeal
Warner Bros. attempts to get its reply brief in order in advance of a coming hearing that will explore the differences between lawyers and businessmen.
5:57 AM PDT 6/27/2012 by Eriq Gardner

In the ongoing war over the rights to the Superman franchise, Marc Toberoff has scored a small win as he prepares for an important hearing against Warner Bros. at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Warners is suing Toberoff for tortious interference emanating from his efforts with the estate of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel to execute a copyright termination notice on the property.

Toberoff responded by filing an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Warners' lawsuit, arguing that it amounted to an attempt to interfere with his client's First Amendment right to petition. A district court denied the motion, saying Toberoff's activity wasn't covered, leading Toberoff to make a challenge at the 9th Circuit.

The two sides will argue each other at a future hearing, and in preparation, Warners filed a brief that included information taken from Toberoff's stolen documents that the 9th Circuit recently held the studio could use. But after an objection from Toberoff, the appellate circuit said, not so fast.

First, let's review what's happening.

In the long-running, complicated saga over legal rights to Superman, the coming 9th Circuit hearing will focus on the scope of anti-SLAPP laws, which are meant to discourage individuals and companies from using the courts to stifle First Amendment rights. Typically, this means free speech. A celebrity can't bring a meritless defamation lawsuit against a media outlet, for example, just to scare off a damaging news article. California's anti-SLAPP statute goes further, though, to prevent legal retaliation against those who speak their minds in public forums, and Toberoff argues his activity on behalf of the estates of Siegel and Joe Shuster, such as sending notices to terminate Superman copyrights, qualifies for such special protection.

Warners, of course, sees things differently. First off, the studio doesn't think that that what Toberoff does is really lawyering. Instead, they consider him to be an entrepreneur whose business dealings with the estates were meant to eventually gain a big percentage of revenues from the exploitation of Superman.

The parties have been going back and forth with legal briefs as well as a substantial discovery process. Some of the key documents that Warners has under its fingertips came from documents stolen from Toberoff's office and sent anonymously to the studio.

In April, the 9th Circuit ruled that these documents were fair game, rejecting Toberoff's contention that they were subject to attorney-client privilege. Since he disclosed them to law enforcement investigating the theft, he had already pierced the privilege.

Warners then attempted to use the documents to buttress its claims that Toberoff is an entrepreneur, but the 9th Circuit now says that Warners has to file a new answering brief without the newly obtained evidence. The studio may attempt to get the evidence into record with a separate request for judicial notice, but the appellate circuit typically frowns on parties adding to the record at this stage.

All that said, if Warners survives the appeal as well as any motions at the lower court to dismiss the tortious interference lawsuit against Toberoff, the rejected brief offers a pretty good preview of the arguments that the studio is prepared to make before a jury.

The brief, prepared by pitbull lawyer Daniel Petrocelli and obtained by THR, says that Toberoff set his sights on Superman around the turn of the century, before the Siegels broke off negotiations with Warners on a new deal on Superman. Toberoff allegedly made a deal with one of the Shuster heirs to own 50 percent of their rights to Superman through a joint venture, Pacific Pictures.

Toberoff purportedly held himself out to be president of the venture, assigned rights to IP Worldwide, and then his IPW, and allegedly made filings at the copyright office that concealed the interest of his companies. He's said to have had the estates sign business agreements, and contacted some heirs like Michael Siegal offering substantial up-front investment for Superman rights. In one of the documents that probably will be stricken from Warners' amended brief, Michael tells his half-sister that a mysterious billionaire wants to put up $15 million. The investor is said to be talent agent Ari Emanuel.

The brief goes on and on about activity between Toberoff and the estates in 2001-2002, the period of controversy where Warners believes it had a contract in hand before things went south and headed to court. The studio asserts that the Siegels didn't have a retainer agreement with Toberoff until 2004 and continued to adjust their business arrangement with each other up to 2011, when Toberoff was filing his anti-SLAPP motion.

Warners now believes that Toberoff's anti-SLAPP motion should fail because his activity shouldn't be protected merely because he has a law license. Toberoff thinks that Warners' lawsuit is a bullying, desperate attempt to punish him for successful legal work on behalf of his client.

The case over Superman rights continues, including a separate appeal before the 9th Circuit that deals with the scope of termination, but as all of this shows, the dispute has also become an important side battle that deals with the not-trivial difference between what a lawyer does and what a businessperson does. A hearing will commence later this year.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/superman-lawsuit-warner-bros-marc-toberoff-341785

 

[KalMart]

As we discussed before, the heirs went from trying to defend themselves against one corporate monster to teaming up with another.

 

[Dr.]

This is a sideshow/soap opera; it doesn't advance anything to do with the actual case.

 

[KalMart]

But it seems the problem is that it does impede it, maybe even strategically.

 

[Panthro]

As we discussed before, the heirs went from trying to defend themselves against one corporate monster to teaming up with another.

And they do not deserve a penny for the character that the senior Siegel and Shuster gave us.

 

[KingKane88]

This is a sideshow/soap opera; it doesn't advance anything to do with the actual case.

Not necessarily, if WB can somehow get Toberoff out of the picture, WB can take the head off the snake and finish up negotiations in a more fair and timely manner.


Toberoff is the one with the demands, I personally do not feel the Family's have much involvement with his demands.

 

[KalMart]

And they do not deserve a penny for the character that the senior Siegel and Shuster gave us.

Toberoff? I agree...outside of his legal fees. As far as WB, they absolutely deserve a large part of the revenue for making it possible to distribute and keep telling these stories, as any producer/distributor would. The only question is the percentage splits, which only offered minimal compensation for the creators until now.

 

[Panthro]

Toberoff? I agree...outside of his legal fees. As far as WB, they absolutely deserve a large part of the revenue for making it possible to distribute and keep telling these stories, as any producer/distributor would. The only question is the percentage splits, which only offered minimal compensation for the creators until now.

I was referring to the heirs, but Toberoff doesn't deserve anything outside the basic legal fees either.

 

[kal-elrebooted]

Why can't this lawsuit end?

 

[Dr.]

And they do not deserve a penny for the character that the senior Siegel and Shuster gave us.

If a best-selling author is recouping royalties and (unfortunately) dies, those royalties don’t automatically become the property of, say, the publisher. They go to the author’s heirs.

 

[KalMart]

I was referring to the heirs, but Toberoff doesn't deserve anything outside the basic legal fees either.

Legally, they do. But the more we find out about this case and Toberoff, the more it becomes evident that both the negotiations and the heirs would be better off without him. Maybe find a lawyer that isn't already known for going after studios and doesn't have his own production company.

 

[Kal Kent]

Copyright laws need to change. Imagine 50 years from now where the S&S decedents are spread across 30 or 40 people, trying to claim majority percentage of the character. It's going to be a bigger mess then it already is.

 

[KalMart]

Copyright laws need to change. Imagine 50 years from now where the S&S decedents are spread across 30 or 40 people, trying to claim majority percentage of the character. It's going to be a bigger mess then it already is.

Well, they did change to give the heirs a cut. They changed so that no one entity can maintain exclusive ownership of an entertainment property or the like forever.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Copyright laws need to change. Imagine 50 years from now where the S&S decedents are spread across 30 or 40 people, trying to claim majority percentage of the character. It's going to be a bigger mess then it already is.

As already pointed out, they have. But the real case for this lawsuit was the Warner never stuck to the agreement made in the 70's in that Jerry and Joe's immediate families would still receive the royalties once they had died. Warner didn't even continue paying while they were alive, so since that contract was made void, Warner do owe the families. However the estates are only going to damage the character if they succeed with this lawsuit, they should try to find a settlement with Warner.

 

[Dr.]

Well, they did change to give the heirs a cut. They changed so that no one entity can maintain exclusive ownership of an entertainment property or the like forever.

Well… much like money and possessions, legal heirs were always entitled to copyright/royalties. What changed with the new law was that original authors were allowed to reclaim copyright that had been sold (given certain conditions and only after several decades had elapsed). And if the original author was deceased, his/her heirs could reclaim.

 

[KalMart]

Well… much like money and possessions, legal heirs were always entitled to copyright/royalties. What changed with the new law was that original authors were allowed to reclaim copyright that had been sold (given certain conditions and only after several decades had elapsed). And if the original author was deceased, his/her heirs could reclaim.

That's what I mean, yes. S&S, as I recall, were getting something of a royalty over the years, perhaps not much. I forgot what analogy was made but I believe it had to do with public domain and Shakespeare, and how the point was to avoid someone having sole copyright over all shakespeare used anywhere...or something like that.