Even though I wouldn't want to see this happen it would be interesting in the family decided to move Superman over to Marvel if a deal wasn't reached. Maybe do a lighter Supreme Power type thing with him. I am not saying I would like to see this I am just saying it would be interesting to see what Superman might be like over at Marvel and how he would be handled there Movies, Cartoon, even comic wise.
Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis
- Thread starter \S/JcDc\S/
- Start date
- Status
Superman's looks change all the time as for the symbol it would be easy to come up with a new shield. The main problem would have been the name of Superman and Clark Kent and Lex, Lois etc.
romeogbs19
Civilian
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Exactly; this really is an interesting case (and being a 1L makes it even more interesting).
I know it sounds crazy, but there is a very real possibility the WB will lose its Superman license. I'm not educated on all the particulars yet, but recent changes in the copyright laws are what is enabling this lawsuit to take place. The very fact that the courts are willing to listen to this case spells a lot of trouble for the WB.
On a lighter note, putting Superman in the hands of another studio might be a good thing for the franchise anyways.
NotFadeAway
Superhero
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,584
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
SingeReturnS
Civilian
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
Hi, everyone! This is my first post and thread in the Superman forums.
Anyway, according to Nikki Finke from DeadlineHollywoodDaily.com:
Ruling Against Warner's On Superman Copyright: Creator's Heirs Reclaim Rights
"I don't understand why the Warner Bros lot wasn't draped in black starting Thursday. Because the studio should be mourning the imminent loss of a ****load of Superman dollars. I've finally got my hands on the entire 72-page ruling Wednesday of U.S. District Court Judge Stephen G. Larson who concluded: "After 70 years, Jerome Siegels heirs regain what he granted so long ago the copyright in the Superman material that was published in Action Comics, Vol. 1. What remains is an apportionment of profits, guided in some measure by the rulings contained in this Order, and a trial on whether to include the profits generated by DC Comics corporate siblings exploitation of the Superman.
Think about it: Siegel sold the rights to the action hero he created with Joseph Shuster to Detective Comics for $130, and his heirs got back ownership of the character in 1999. Why do these greedy Big Media companies refuse to spread even a little bit of the wealth when they often pay dearly for their selfish behavior in court? I think it's because lawyers persist in assuring every Hollywood CEO that they can exhaust the patience and resources of the creators or rightsholders. It's a completely disgusting way of doing business. Yet it's interesting that, lately, Warner's has lost some very pricey lawsuits."
This hasn't officially been announced yet, but Finke usually provides reliable information and scoops.
Anyway, according to Nikki Finke from DeadlineHollywoodDaily.com:
Ruling Against Warner's On Superman Copyright: Creator's Heirs Reclaim Rights
"I don't understand why the Warner Bros lot wasn't draped in black starting Thursday. Because the studio should be mourning the imminent loss of a ****load of Superman dollars. I've finally got my hands on the entire 72-page ruling Wednesday of U.S. District Court Judge Stephen G. Larson who concluded: "After 70 years, Jerome Siegels heirs regain what he granted so long ago the copyright in the Superman material that was published in Action Comics, Vol. 1. What remains is an apportionment of profits, guided in some measure by the rulings contained in this Order, and a trial on whether to include the profits generated by DC Comics corporate siblings exploitation of the Superman.
Think about it: Siegel sold the rights to the action hero he created with Joseph Shuster to Detective Comics for $130, and his heirs got back ownership of the character in 1999. Why do these greedy Big Media companies refuse to spread even a little bit of the wealth when they often pay dearly for their selfish behavior in court? I think it's because lawyers persist in assuring every Hollywood CEO that they can exhaust the patience and resources of the creators or rightsholders. It's a completely disgusting way of doing business. Yet it's interesting that, lately, Warner's has lost some very pricey lawsuits."
This hasn't officially been announced yet, but Finke usually provides reliable information and scoops.
SingeReturnS
Civilian
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
This pertains to SUPERMAN films, too, though.
FlawlessVictory
Superhero
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 8,619
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Ruling Gives Heirs a Share of Superman Copyright
By MICHAEL CIEPLY
Published: March 29, 2008
LOS ANGELES Time Warner is no longer the sole proprietor of Superman.
A federal judge here on Wednesday ruled that the heirs of Jerome Siegel who 70 years ago sold the rights to the action hero he created with Joseph Shuster to Detective Comics for $130 were entitled to claim a share of the United States copyright to the character. The ruling left intact Time Warners international rights to the character, which it has long owned through its DC Comics unit.
And it reserved for trial questions over how much the company may owe the Siegel heirs for use of the character since 1999, when their ownership is deemed to have been restored. Also to be resolved is whether the heirs are entitled to payments directly from Time Warners film unit, Warner Brothers, which took in $200 million at the domestic box office with Superman Returns in 2006, or only from the DC units Superman profits.
Still, the ruling threatened to complicate Warners plans to make more films featuring Superman, including another sequel and a planned movie based on the DC Comics Justice League of America, in which he joins Batman, Wonder Woman and other superheroes to battle evildoers.
If the ruling survives a Time Warner legal challenge, it may also open the door to a similar reversion of rights to the estate of Mr. Shuster in 2013. That would give heirs of the two creators control over use of their lucrative character until at least 2033 and perhaps longer, if Congress once again extends copyright terms according to Marc Toberoff, a lawyer who represents the Siegels and the Shuster estate.
It would be very powerful, said Mr. Toberoff, speaking by telephone on Friday. After 2013, Time Warner couldnt exploit any new Superman-derived works without a license from the Siegels and Shusters.
Time Warner lawyers declined to discuss the decision, a spokesman said. A similar ruling in 2006 allowed the Siegels to recapture their rights in the Superboy character, without determining whether Superboy was, in fact, the basis for Warner Brotherss Smallville television series. The decision was later challenged in a case that has yet to be resolved, said Mr. Toberoff, who represented the family in that action.
This weeks decision by Stephen G. Larson, a judge in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California, provided long-sought vindication to the wife and daughter of Mr. Siegel, who had bemoaned until his death in 1996 having parted so cheaply with rights to the lucrative hero.
We were just stubborn, Joanne Siegel, Mr. Siegels widow, said in a joint interview with her daughter, Laura Siegel Larson. It was a dream of Jerrys, and we just took up the task.
The ruling specifically upheld the Seigels copyright in the Superman material published in Detective Comics Action Comics Vol. 1. The extent to which later iterations of the character are derived from that original was not determined by the judge.
In an unusually detailed narrative, the judges 72-page order described how Mr. Siegel and Mr. Shuster, as teenagers at Glenville High School in Cleveland, became friends and collaborators on their school newspaper in 1932. They worked together on a short story, The Reign of the Superman, in which their famous character first appeared not as hero, but villain.
By 1937, the pair were offering publishers comic strips in which the classic Superman elements cape, logo and Clark Kent alter-ego were already set. When Detective Comics bought 13 pages of work for its new Action Comics series the next year, the company sent Mr. Siegel a check for $130, and received in return a release from both creators granting the company rights to Superman to have and hold forever, the order noted.
In the late 1940s, a referee in a New York court upheld Detective Comics copyright, prompting Mr. Siegel and Mr. Shuster to drop their claim in exchange for $94,000. More than 30 years later, DC Comics (the successor to Detective Comics) gave the creators each a $20,000-per-year annuity that was later increased to $30,000. In 1997, however, Mrs. Siegel and her daughter served copyright termination notices under provisions of a 1976 law that permits heirs, under certain circumstances, to recover rights to creations.
Mr. Toberoff, their lawyer, has been something of a gadfly to Warner in the past. In the late 1990s, for example, he represented Gilbert Ralston, a television writer, in a legal battle over his rights in the CBS television series The Wild Wild West, which was the basis for a 1999 Warner Brothers film that starred Will Smith. The case, said Mr. Toberoff, was settled.
Compensation to the Siegels would be limited to any work created after their 1999 termination date. Income from the 1978 Superman film, or the three sequels that followed in the 1980s, are not at issue. But a Superman Returns sequel being planned with the filmmaker Bryan Singer (who has also directed The Usual Suspects and X-Men) might require payments to the Siegels, should they prevail in a demand that the studios income, not just that of the comics unit, be subject to a court-ordered accounting.
Mrs. Siegel and Ms. Larson said it was too soon to make future plans for the Superman character. But they were inclined to relish this moment.
I have lived in the shadow of this my whole life, Ms. Larson said. I am so happy now, I just cant explain it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/business/media/29comics.html?_r=1&ref=media&oref=slogin
By MICHAEL CIEPLY
Published: March 29, 2008
LOS ANGELES Time Warner is no longer the sole proprietor of Superman.
A federal judge here on Wednesday ruled that the heirs of Jerome Siegel who 70 years ago sold the rights to the action hero he created with Joseph Shuster to Detective Comics for $130 were entitled to claim a share of the United States copyright to the character. The ruling left intact Time Warners international rights to the character, which it has long owned through its DC Comics unit.
And it reserved for trial questions over how much the company may owe the Siegel heirs for use of the character since 1999, when their ownership is deemed to have been restored. Also to be resolved is whether the heirs are entitled to payments directly from Time Warners film unit, Warner Brothers, which took in $200 million at the domestic box office with Superman Returns in 2006, or only from the DC units Superman profits.
Still, the ruling threatened to complicate Warners plans to make more films featuring Superman, including another sequel and a planned movie based on the DC Comics Justice League of America, in which he joins Batman, Wonder Woman and other superheroes to battle evildoers.
If the ruling survives a Time Warner legal challenge, it may also open the door to a similar reversion of rights to the estate of Mr. Shuster in 2013. That would give heirs of the two creators control over use of their lucrative character until at least 2033 and perhaps longer, if Congress once again extends copyright terms according to Marc Toberoff, a lawyer who represents the Siegels and the Shuster estate.
It would be very powerful, said Mr. Toberoff, speaking by telephone on Friday. After 2013, Time Warner couldnt exploit any new Superman-derived works without a license from the Siegels and Shusters.
Time Warner lawyers declined to discuss the decision, a spokesman said. A similar ruling in 2006 allowed the Siegels to recapture their rights in the Superboy character, without determining whether Superboy was, in fact, the basis for Warner Brotherss Smallville television series. The decision was later challenged in a case that has yet to be resolved, said Mr. Toberoff, who represented the family in that action.
This weeks decision by Stephen G. Larson, a judge in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California, provided long-sought vindication to the wife and daughter of Mr. Siegel, who had bemoaned until his death in 1996 having parted so cheaply with rights to the lucrative hero.
We were just stubborn, Joanne Siegel, Mr. Siegels widow, said in a joint interview with her daughter, Laura Siegel Larson. It was a dream of Jerrys, and we just took up the task.
The ruling specifically upheld the Seigels copyright in the Superman material published in Detective Comics Action Comics Vol. 1. The extent to which later iterations of the character are derived from that original was not determined by the judge.
In an unusually detailed narrative, the judges 72-page order described how Mr. Siegel and Mr. Shuster, as teenagers at Glenville High School in Cleveland, became friends and collaborators on their school newspaper in 1932. They worked together on a short story, The Reign of the Superman, in which their famous character first appeared not as hero, but villain.
By 1937, the pair were offering publishers comic strips in which the classic Superman elements cape, logo and Clark Kent alter-ego were already set. When Detective Comics bought 13 pages of work for its new Action Comics series the next year, the company sent Mr. Siegel a check for $130, and received in return a release from both creators granting the company rights to Superman to have and hold forever, the order noted.
In the late 1940s, a referee in a New York court upheld Detective Comics copyright, prompting Mr. Siegel and Mr. Shuster to drop their claim in exchange for $94,000. More than 30 years later, DC Comics (the successor to Detective Comics) gave the creators each a $20,000-per-year annuity that was later increased to $30,000. In 1997, however, Mrs. Siegel and her daughter served copyright termination notices under provisions of a 1976 law that permits heirs, under certain circumstances, to recover rights to creations.
Mr. Toberoff, their lawyer, has been something of a gadfly to Warner in the past. In the late 1990s, for example, he represented Gilbert Ralston, a television writer, in a legal battle over his rights in the CBS television series The Wild Wild West, which was the basis for a 1999 Warner Brothers film that starred Will Smith. The case, said Mr. Toberoff, was settled.
Compensation to the Siegels would be limited to any work created after their 1999 termination date. Income from the 1978 Superman film, or the three sequels that followed in the 1980s, are not at issue. But a Superman Returns sequel being planned with the filmmaker Bryan Singer (who has also directed The Usual Suspects and X-Men) might require payments to the Siegels, should they prevail in a demand that the studios income, not just that of the comics unit, be subject to a court-ordered accounting.
Mrs. Siegel and Ms. Larson said it was too soon to make future plans for the Superman character. But they were inclined to relish this moment.
I have lived in the shadow of this my whole life, Ms. Larson said. I am so happy now, I just cant explain it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/business/media/29comics.html?_r=1&ref=media&oref=slogin
Captain Villa
Sidekick
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2000
- Messages
- 2,896
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Listen people, this endangers NOTHING.
If WB can afford to pay JK Rowling huge sums of money and continue the Harry Potter franchise, the Superman fans have nothing to worry about.
Chill out people.
If WB can afford to pay JK Rowling huge sums of money and continue the Harry Potter franchise, the Superman fans have nothing to worry about.
Chill out people.
matthooper
Sidekick
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 2,183
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
The Potter films make a ton of money. Superman Returns barely broke even. WB will not pour millions into a sequel plus pay royalties for a gamble on a profit. They have to know a profit is definate. At this point, they are not sure. Sequels rareley make more than the original. More royalties paid out is just less money they will make. Why would they bother?
They've waited this long because they know it's a big risk. This just adds to the risk.
Showtime
Your Friend In Time
- Joined
- May 10, 2005
- Messages
- 41,475
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 58
Talk about coming out of the woodwork...
The War Machine
Civilian
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 693
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
This may not endanger the movies, since theyre multi-million dollar projects that can afford to pay these guys off..
But the comics...the animated series... Smallville.. ??
I don't like it.
But the comics...the animated series... Smallville.. ??
I don't like it.
TheComicbookKid
Swing n Miss
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 12,800
- Reaction score
- 261
- Points
- 73
Or they could do the son of Superman movie and not have to pay them jack for the character. JASON WHITE FOREVER!!!!! Be careful what you wish for.
FlawlessVictory
Superhero
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 8,619
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Or they can just call the next movie Singerman. 
The War Machine
Civilian
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 693
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
Does this mean S+S can sell the Superman film rights to another studio?
FlawlessVictory
Superhero
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 8,619
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
If the ruling survives a Time Warner legal challenge, it may also open the door to a similar reversion of rights to the estate of Mr. Shuster in 2013. That would give heirs of the two creators control over use of their lucrative character until at least 2033 — and perhaps longer, if Congress once again extends copyright terms — according to Marc Toberoff, a lawyer who represents the Siegels and the Shuster estate.
“It would be very powerful,” said Mr. Toberoff, speaking by telephone on Friday. “After 2013, Time Warner couldn’t exploit any new Superman-derived works without a license from the Siegels and Shusters.”
According to the above, it sounds like after 2013 they may be able to do that. Maybe we (or at least I) will finally get the kickass Superman movie we've been waiting for.
“It would be very powerful,” said Mr. Toberoff, speaking by telephone on Friday. “After 2013, Time Warner couldn’t exploit any new Superman-derived works without a license from the Siegels and Shusters.”
According to the above, it sounds like after 2013 they may be able to do that. Maybe we (or at least I) will finally get the kickass Superman movie we've been waiting for.
stargazer
wanderer
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2008
- Messages
- 3,162
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Hahahaha! OMG, you read my mind! Awesome!
Bring Jason, The Son of Superman the movie on!!!
Bulletproof
Civilian
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
Compensation to the Siegels would be limited to any work created after their 1999 termination date. Income from the 1978 “Superman” film, or the three sequels that followed in the 1980s, are not at issue. But a “Superman Returns” sequel being planned with the filmmaker Bryan Singer (who has also directed “The Usual Suspects” and “X-Men”
might require payments to the Siegels, should they prevail in a demand that the studio’s income, not just that of the comics unit, be subject to a court-ordered accounting.
Does this mean that proceeds from SR IS INCLUDED in the lawsuit thereby reducing WB monetary share of the property?
might require payments to the Siegels, should they prevail in a demand that the studio’s income, not just that of the comics unit, be subject to a court-ordered accounting.Does this mean that proceeds from SR IS INCLUDED in the lawsuit thereby reducing WB monetary share of the property?
- Status
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Staff online
-
DKDetectiveElementary, Dear Robin (he/him) -
Lily Adler🎄 Peppermint Mocha 🍫
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Fantasy Netflix's Live-Action Avatar: The Last Airbender General Discussion Thread (3 Viewers)- Latest: Pennywise
-
Musical James Cameron's and Billie Eilish's concert film Hit Me Hard and Soft (4 Viewers)
- Latest: :eek: