Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Superman Rights Are Not Part of Marital Property
The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, decided that any interests in Superman copyrights or termination rights held by Laura Siegel Larson, daughter of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel, were her separate property, rather than community property of her marriage. In re Marriage of Siegel, BD321289.
During her marriage to Dennis Larson, Laura inherited her late father's interests in Superman and became a statutory party entitled to exercise a copyright-termination right under Sec. 304(c) of the Copyright Act. Dennis helped Laura, her mother and half-brother in processing the copyright-termination notices, effective in 1999. One year later, Laura moved to legally dissolve her marriage to Dennis. The L.A. Superior Court ruled that any Superman rights were Laura's separate property.
Affirming, the court of appeal explained in its unpublished opinion: 'Husband contends that, by reason of his community participation in exercise of the termination right, the trial court should have awarded the community a share of wife's copyright interest, which the termination presumably made more valuable. ' The copyright in question is inherently valuable, as was the termination right. That right belonged to wife, her mother, and half-sibling, so that the community effort toward exercising the right advanced all of wife's family's interests, not just her own. The effort [by Dennis], moreover, was only a fractional aspect of the services performed to exercise the right.' (The court of appeal noted earlier in its decision, 'Numerous other lawyers, copyright and entertainment, participated in and supervised the termination process.')
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?