Superman Rights Are Not Part of Marital Property

The court of appeal further concluded: 'This case did not involve a business. Nor did it involve investments in real estate or securities, alternative forms of profit-making activity to which apportionment of profits applies. ' In fact, there is no evidence that the copyright generated any enhanced profits between the termination and the parties' separation. There was no cause for awarding the community a profit-based interest in the separate 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Affirming, the court of appeal explained in its unpublished opinion: 'Husband contends that, by reason of his community participation in exercise of the termination right, the trial court should have awarded the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.')

The court of appeal further concluded: 'This case did not involve a business. Nor did it involve investments in real estate or securities, alternative forms of profit-making activity to which apportionment of profits applies. ' In fact, there is no evidence that the copyright generated any enhanced profits between the termination and the parties' separation. There was no cause for awarding the community a profit-based interest in the separate property.'