1992 Agreement Bars Recapture of Superman Copyrights

In another front in the Superman copyright battle ' involving the Jerry Siegel estate ' Warner Brothers suffered a big defeat in 2009 when Central District Judge Stephen Larson concluded that Siegel's heirs could seek to reclaim copyrights to certain Superman characteristics that stemmed from the earliest comic books. Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., CV-04-8400. DC Comics retained rights to subsequent elements of Superman that it had participated in developing, such as his X-ray vision or the ability to fly.

DC Comics had reached a deal with Siegel's heirs in October 2001 in which the estate was to give up its termination rights. Now DC Comics, led by Daniel Petrocelli of O'Melveny & Myers, is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to enforce that deal, which they call binding. For their part, the Siegel heirs also appealed Larson's ruling; they argue in their cross-appeal that the judge assigned them fewer elements of Superman than they deserved. Arguments were set to be heard by a Ninth Circuit panel on Nov. 5.

Judge Wright's recent summary judgment ruling may be appealed by Schuster's heirs. While Wright disposed of the termination rights claim and a second involving interference with DC Comics' copyrights, two other claims against Marc Toberoff, counsel for the Schuster and Siegel families, have yet to be decided. Petrocelli's team has taken aim at Toberoff's side business of pairing IP rights with talent and marketing them to movie studios. Warner Brothers and DC Comics allege that Toberoff induced the Shuster and Siegel estates to break contracts worth millions in cash and future royalties with DC Comics, motivated by his own business interests. Warner Brothers and DC Comics also assert, in a sanctions motion filed in October 2012, that during several years of discovery Toberoff actively concealed evidence that he pushed the family to reopen the copyright dispute.

Meanwhile, in an Oct.13 open letter in “to Superman fans everywhere,” Siegel's daughter charged that Warner Brothers and its lawyers had engaged in smear tactics in an attempt to discredit Toberoff. “Warner has spent about $35 million on corporate lawyers to fight my family,” she writes, and “the very attorneys who are lining their pockets with millions in fees accuse my attorney of profiteering when, in fact, Marc has not received one cent since he filed the first Superman case for us in 2004, and has advanced enormous sums out of his own pocket.”

In a decision that helps pave the way for Warner Brothers Entertainment and its DC Comics subsidiary to maintain their grip on the Superman franchise, District Judge Otis Wright II of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California rejected a bid by the estate of Superman co-creator Joe Shuster to reclaim partial control over the iconic superhero. In an 18-page summary judgment ruling, District Judge Wright concluded that, in a broad settlement with DC Comics in 1992, the family had given away its rights to terminate Shuster's copyrights. DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp., 10-3633.

The Superman litigation has been long and nasty, and it isn't over yet. Since Shuster and his partner Jerry Siegel created Superman in 1938. If Wright had ruled against Warner Brothers on the Shuster estate's termination rights claim, the copyrights at issue would have been subject to termination by the family in 2013, at a time when the studio is planning to distribute its next big-budget Superman film, Man of Steel (currently slated to open June 14). With Judge Wright's ruling, Warner Brothers' franchise is safe for the moment.

In his decision, Judge Wright ruled for DC Comics on two of its six claims in the case, finding that the company's 1992 agreement with Shuster's sister, then the executor of Shuster's estate, barred the family's 2010 bid to reclaim the Superman copyrights. Wright found that “the broad and all-encompassing language of the 1992 Agreement unmistakably operates to supersede all prior grants.”

In another front in the Superman copyright battle ' involving the Jerry Siegel estate ' Warner Brothers suffered a big defeat in 2009 when Central District Judge Stephen Larson concluded that Siegel's heirs could seek to reclaim copyrights to certain Superman characteristics that stemmed from the earliest comic books. Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., CV-04-8400. DC Comics retained rights to subsequent elements of Superman that it had participated in developing, such as his X-ray vision or the ability to fly.

DC Comics had reached a deal with Siegel's heirs in October 2001 in which the estate was to give up its termination rights. Now DC Comics, led by Daniel Petrocelli of O'Melveny & Myers, is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to enforce that deal, which they call binding. For their part, the Siegel heirs also appealed Larson's ruling; they argue in their cross-appeal that the judge assigned them fewer elements of Superman than they deserved. Arguments were set to be heard by a Ninth Circuit panel on Nov. 5.

Judge Wright's recent summary judgment ruling may be appealed by Schuster's heirs. While Wright disposed of the termination rights claim and a second involving interference with DC Comics' copyrights, two other claims against Marc Toberoff, counsel for the Schuster and Siegel families, have yet to be decided. Petrocelli's team has taken aim at Toberoff's side business of pairing IP rights with talent and marketing them to movie studios. Warner Brothers and DC Comics allege that Toberoff induced the Shuster and Siegel estates to break contracts worth millions in cash and future royalties with DC Comics, motivated by his own business interests. Warner Brothers and DC Comics also assert, in a sanctions motion filed in October 2012, that during several years of discovery Toberoff actively concealed evidence that he pushed the family to reopen the copyright dispute.

Meanwhile, in an Oct.13 open letter in “to Superman fans everywhere,” Siegel's daughter charged that Warner Brothers and its lawyers had engaged in smear tactics in an attempt to discredit Toberoff. “Warner has spent about $35 million on corporate lawyers to fight my family,” she writes, and “the very attorneys who are lining their pockets with millions in fees accuse my attorney of profiteering when, in fact, Marc has not received one cent since he filed the first Superman case for us in 2004, and has advanced enormous sums out of his own pocket.”