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

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.

As has been discussed before, the heirs will have no ability or resources, or even interest really, to do anything with their 'parts' of Superman without WB/DC, so it's in everyone's best interest to settle somehow. Some may feel that the recent 'changes' in Superman are a sign that WB is willing to go on without the heirs' story parts that are split to them if negotiations aren't made. But again, I think Toberoff is the biggest monkey wrench in this whole thing.
 
Last edited:
Looks like the Shusters are going to have a hard time pretty soon. DC Entertainment is claiming that the Shuster Estate made an agreement with DC Comics that in exchange for $600,000, DC gets their claim of the Superman copyright and thus they cannot terminate what is not theirs. If the courts agree with DC's claim, they will be put in a legal stalemate with the Siegels and Toberoff with them being forced to come to an agreement.

http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com.au/2...rike-600000-buys-50.html#.UAagr6QRgJ4.twitter
 
Looks like the Shusters are going to have a hard time pretty soon. DC Entertainment is claiming that the Shuster Estate made an agreement with DC Comics that in exchange for $600,000, DC gets their claim of the Superman copyright and thus they cannot terminate what is not theirs. If the courts agree with DC's claim, they will be put in a legal stalemate with the Siegels and Toberoff with them being forced to come to an agreement.

http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com.au/2...rike-600000-buys-50.html#.UAagr6QRgJ4.twitter
Well played DC well played

:applaud:applaud:applaud:applaud:applaud:applaud
 
Ruling near in Superman rights battle
Federal judge could invalidate heirs' efforts to reclaim rights

By Ted Johnson
Posted: Tue., Aug. 14, 2012, 6:31pm PT

The battle for control over the rights to "Superman" is about to see another significant decision, as a federal judge will decide whether to invalidate an effort by the heirs of one of the co-creators of the Man of Steel to reclaim their stake in the character.

U.S. District Judge Otis Wright cancelled a hearing that was slated for Monday on DC Comics' motion for summary judgment in the dispute, saying he will decide the issue without oral argument.

Mark Warren Peary, nephew of "Superman" co-creator Joseph Shuster and executor of his estate, filed a notice of termination in 2003, which means the rights to early Man of Steel works would be reclaimed in October 2013. A provision of the Copyright Act allows creators and their heirs to recapture their works; the aim is to afford authors a greater share of the proceeds given that they often have little leverage at the start of their careers.

In 2008 and 2009, a federal judge ruled that the family of Shuster's partner, Jerome Siegel, had successfully recaptured portions of the "Superman" storyline.

The case is one of the highest profile -- and most bitterly fought -- disputes over copyright termination. Warner Bros. is seeking to reboot the Man of Steel in a tentpole slated for release next year.

DC Comics, a unit of Warner Bros., is challenging the Shuster termination notice, arguing that it is invalid for a number of reasons. Among them: a 1992 agreement that Shuster's sister Jean Peavy and brother Frank made with DC Comics in 1992, shortly after Shuster died, that paid off Shuster's debts and provided them with survivor benefits, which DC claims amount to more than $600,000 so far. The agreement also regranted DC all copyright interests in Shuster's works and released it from all future claims.

"Because the 1992 agreement had the legal effect of extinguishing all pre-1978 copyright grants and replacing them with a new all-encompassing 1992 grant, there was nothing left for Peary to terminate in 2003," DC, represented by Dan Petrocelli, said in a court filing on July 16. "A deal is a deal, and like the Shuster family's claims to the Superman copyrights rejected by the courts in the 1940s and 1970s, the new claim must, too, be rejected."

Marc Toberoff, who represents both families, challenged DC's contention that the 1992 agreement superceded the Shusters' termination rights. He characterized the survivor payments as a "modest" pension increase, raising it to $25,000 from a prior agreement, and said the 1992 pact did not make any mention of termination rights.

Morevoer, he wrote, Shuster's brother and sister did not hold termination rights at the time, as they could be only passed to a spouse, child or grandchild in the event of a creator's death. In 1998, a new law extended the class of people who could terminate a copyright to executors of estates, which cleared the way for Mark Warren Peary to do so after he was appointed executor in 2003.

Wright gave no indication of when he would issue his ruling.

Contact Ted Johnson at [email protected]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118057852?refCatId=13
 
I don't think this case will ever end. I'm feel more sympathy for the family than I do for WB/DC, but fighting a corporation with that type of money is a losing battle. They'll all be dead before this is ever settled, IMO, and we'll be talking about this in 2020.
 
I feel sad for the family....it seems like a lot of comic book writers are being shafted in regards to the BILLIONs that have been made from their creations. Even Stan Lee is getting into the action....
 
I feel sad for the family....it seems like a lot of comic book writers are being shafted in regards to the BILLIONs that have been made from their creations. Even Stan Lee is getting into the action....

I don't feel sad for the heirs or estates. Their creators legally sold the rights to Superman to DC and WB for a set-upon amount, and then when the copyright law was extended further, the estates sold them again when they exercised their option.

I really don't buy the excuses bandied around by Siegel's daughter about medical expenses and that it was "her father's dying wish that he regained the copyright for Superman". I'm sure the settlement payments she's receiving from WB are more than enough for her to live comfortably and treat her MS.

Her letter just stinks of a money-grab and trying to paint WB and DC as these soulless companies who aren't giving her father the dues he deserves. She and Marc Toberoff aren't angels either.
 
I don't feel sad for the heirs or estates. Their creators legally sold the rights to Superman to DC and WB for a set-upon amount, and then when the copyright law was extended further, the estates sold them again when they exercised their option.

I really don't buy the excuses bandied around by Siegel's daughter about medical expenses and that it was "her father's dying wish that he regained the copyright for Superman". I'm sure the settlement payments she's receiving from WB are more than enough for her to live comfortably and treat her MS.

Her letter just stinks of a money-grab and trying to paint WB and DC as these soulless companies who aren't giving her father the dues he deserves. She and Marc Toberoff aren't angels either.

That is actually a pretty fair assessment of the comic book industry at that time however. I mean its not just siegel & shuster, its bill finger and jack kirby and many others.

Hell the only reason stan lee is probably not suing is that they keep giving him those token movie cameo appearances. It was very shady what they did to those guys not dissimilar from a lot of black musicians in the 50's who were bilked out of the rights to their music and became destitute.

If you felt a company cheated your parents out of something you'd probably fight for it.
 
That is actually a pretty fair assessment of the comic book industry at that time however. I mean its not just siegel & shuster, its bill finger and jack kirby and many others.

If you felt a company cheated your parents out of something you'd probably fight for it.

True. But the continuing fight over the Superman rights has never been in black and white terms. And the fact she (or most likely her reps) have released the letter now is trying to sway the public to their side and get their way. Highly unprofessional.

If she had released this back in 1999, I would've been more sympathetic. I just wish WB would settle this out of court and give the heirs a more fair settlement... that would be preferable than relinquishing the copyright.
 
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/warner-bros-wins-big-court-379770

Warner Bros. Wins Big Court Ruling in Fight Over Superman

4:31 PM PDT 10/17/2012 by Eriq Gardner

superman_a.jpg


Timothy A. Clay/AFP/Getty Images

Warner Bros. has won a blockbuster victory that could entitle it to maintain its copyright stake in Superman.

On Wednesday, a federal judge in California granted the studio's motion for summary judgment on the question of whether a 1992 agreement with Jean Peavy, the sister and heir of Superman co-creator Joe Shuster, precludes the estate's attempt to terminate a copyright grant. The decision by U.S. District Court Judge Otis D. Wright comes four years after another federal judge in California confirmed the validity of a termination notice from the estate of the other co-creator, Jerry Siegel. The termination attempts have threatened Warners' hold on its lucrative Superman franchise.

Here's the full ruling.

According to the decision, the judge ruled "that the 1992 Agreement, which represented the Shuster heirs’ opportunity to renegotiate the prior grants of Joe Shuster’s copyrights, superseded and replaced all prior grants of the Superman copyrights. The 1992 Agreement thus represents the parties’ operative agreement and, as a post-1978 grant, it is not subject to termination."

As Warners is in the middle of production on next summer's big-budget Man of Steel, directed by Zack Snyder and produced by Christopher Nolan, the studio likely will take tremendous comfort with the latest ruling. It comes after years of nasty litigation with Marc Toberoff, the attorney for the estates.

Warner Bros. had no comment. We've reached out to Toberoff for comment.

More to come on this developing story.
 
I honestly don't know if this is a good or bad thing.
 
I honestly don't know if this is a good or bad thing.

Agreed, I excited and frightened at the same time. I still think something better should be given to the heirs.

With that said, can DC give Superman his better iconic costume back?
 
If WB/DC would have lost you could have said goodbye to Lois Lane, Clark Kent Persona, Super Strength and Super Speed. So a good thing. It also sets precedent for when WB/DC tries to overturn the Siegels win.
 
If WB/DC would have lost you could have said goodbye to Lois Lane, Clark Kent Persona, Super Strength and Super Speed. So a good thing. It also sets precedent for when WB/DC tries to overturn the Siegels win.

however, this also gives DC full control over the character, including the visual aspect. the look of Superman that has existed for 70 years will never be again.

some on here would not call that a good thing, especially with DC's history of changing Superman for the sake of change.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,286
Messages
22,079,289
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"