Warner Bros. Claims "Significant Victory" In Superman Lawsuit

[CBR News]

In a new press release, Warner Bros. Entertainment is claiming a "significant victory" over attorney Marc Toberoff in the battle for the rights to Superman between the DC Comics owner and the heirs to creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.


Full article here.

[BeastieRunner]

Can't say I'm surprised.

[The Beast Of Yucca Flats]

Um... hurrah?

[WhiteEyedWonder]

Can't say I'm surprised.

I doubt anyone is.

They are one of the biggest media companies in the world after all...

[Schnitzy Pretzelpants]

In a new press release, Warner Bros. Entertainment is claiming a "significant victory" over attorney Marc Toberoff in the battle for the rights to Superman between the DC Comics owner and the heirs to creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.

Well, all I can say is that if they actually win this thing - and I don't care whether Toberoff is a scummy lawyer too or not or has something to gain himself - if Warner Bros ends up winning this case, I intend to stop buying DC Comics.

They can win the legal battle, but they will have lost the moral one.

I shouldn't wait for them to win really, but hey - every Philosophy has it's Hypocrisy.

Personally?

Personally, I think that Superman should now be in the public domain, and that Warner's last settlement with Siegel and Shuster was probably compensation enough when they last revised their previous, 1970's settlement - but here's the thing:

These copyright laws were extended and altered by the likes of Disney and Warner and others (I think IBM may have lead the charge though, if memory serves) so as to prevent 'The Mouse' and 'Superman' and other IP's from falling into the public domain.

For me, this means that in the case of Superman, I don't care whether Toberoff is a greedy-so-and-so, or if if the Siegel-Shuster heirs aren't the ones who invented the character.

Far as I am concerned what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either let Superman fall into the public domain - which will still mean DC and Warner can use him as a money machine, just not exclusively - or share the wealth with the heirs.

I'm not a fan of copyright going beyond the kids (maybe grand-kids) of creators, but if a corporation is profiting off the copyright, and has fought/sought to have the laws changed to retain the sole rights, then I say they should keep sharing the wealth.

[tbiggs]

Say what you will about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, they can give a curt, snarky line when they want to: "The ethical and professional concerns raised by Toberoff’s actions will likely occur to many readers, but they are not before this court." Meaning: Yeah, Toberoff is a bottom feeder, but no one really disputes that for the purposes of this decision.

[Krasch]

Well, all I can say is that if they actually win this thing - and I don't care whether Toberoff is a scummy lawyer too or not or has something to gain himself - if Warner Bros ends up winning this case, I intend to stop buying DC Comics.

They can win the legal battle, but they will have lost the moral one.

I shouldn't wait for them to win really, but hey - every Philosophy has it's Hypocrisy.

Personally?

Personally, I think that Superman should now be in the public domain, and that Warner's last settlement with Siegel and Shuster was probably compensation enough when they last revised their previous, 1970's settlement - but here's the thing:

These copyright laws were extended and altered by the likes of Disney and Warner and others (I think IBM may have lead the charge though, if memory serves) so as to prevent 'The Mouse' and 'Superman' and other IP's from falling into the public domain.

For me, this means that in the case of Superman, I don't care whether Toberoff is a greedy-so-and-so, or if if the Siegel-Shuster heirs aren't the ones who invented the character.

Far as I am concerned what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either let Superman fall into the public domain - which will still mean DC and Warner can use him as a money machine, just not exclusively - or share the wealth with the heirs.

I'm not a fan of copyright going beyond the kids (maybe grand-kids) of creators, but if a corporation is profiting off the copyright, and has fought/sought to have the laws changed to retain the sole rights, then I say they should keep sharing the wealth.

The problem with "sharing the wealth" as you put it, is that WB already DID. They negotiated a compensation settlement with Siegel and Shuster and paid it. Under contract law, that's all they're required to do. If the other party wanted more money, they could have negotiated for more money.

If Superman DID fall into the public domain, then you can be sure the heirs sure don't have enough scratch to actually make good use of the character, plus everybody and his brother would be free to bypass them and make cash for themselves off the character.

It's been WB and their subsidiaries who have been spending large sums of money to keep the character in the public eye and making the character worth any sum of money for decades. It's therefore hardly unfair that they then profit off that investment. Had there been no compensation set up in the 70's the heirs would have had a lot stronger claim for being unfairly dealt with. Not so when they already got a settlement decades after the character's creation and it was already ridiculously famous.

[Lemurion]

For me, this isn't a case of an evil corporation attempting to defraud the rightful heirs of their rights: Warner has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to come to terms with the Siegels. From where I sit, this looks like a case of a particularly scummy lawyer seeking to ensure that the two sides do not reach a negotiated settlement so that he can walk away with a controlling interest in an iconic figure.

[Lexrules]

We already have lost as fans. Look at the state of Superman over the last 3 years. The reboot is only making things worse by dividing the fan base more then it already was. This all stems from the Lawsuit in many ways.

[Joecooler2u]

I wonder if they will ever find a way to make Superman more modern without messing up the core of his character. Marvel did it with Captain America but he had that history of being a WWII guy so they could toughen him up and make him "darker". Any attempt at darkening Superman feels like going away from what the character has meant all these years. I guess we'll really see what happens when the next Superman movie comes out and if it is better, the same or worse than Superman Returns. I think they need the romance of Clark-Lois-Superman to bring in the ladies at the box office.

As for the rights. I'm all for creator rights (and their estates), but yeah WB & DC has done amazing making and keeping him a cash cow all these years. A lot was different in the days of Siegel & Schuster as far as creator rights, work for hire etc than it is these days. Heck even as recent as the 80's there still wasn't as much chance of success on TV in theaters and the internet was non-existant as far as being a cash cow. Any creator before the time when they signed over rights not knowing what else that entailed in the future should be able to get a higher piece of the pie. It's just being fair. I don't think they should get anymore than what they deserve. But definately not less either.

[Mr. Holmes]

I wonder if they will ever find a way to make Superman more modern without messing up the core of his character. Marvel did it with Captain America but he had that history of being a WWII guy so they could toughen him up and make him "darker". Any attempt at darkening Superman feels like going away from what the character has meant all these years. I guess we'll really see what happens when the next Superman movie comes out and if it is better, the same or worse than Superman Returns. I think they need the romance of Clark-Lois-Superman to bring in the ladies at the box office.

It's not really that difficult. Morrison gets it right in Final Crisis and now Action Comics. For some reason, a lot of writers like Johns thinks Superman is intrinsically this archaic Mr. Rogers superhero, who goes around telling kids to drink their orange juice, but that was never the point of Superman. He doesn't need to be tossing people around like in the Golden Age, but he should still be a tough, principled leader of men, and with a heart of gold. He doesn't need to be "dark" but he doesn't need to be the polar opposite either.

[Reginleif]

I would be so happy if Superman was lost to Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, because Supergirl wouldn't be lost and she can rightfully replace him. Now we need to get rid of Batman...

[Lexrules]

It's not really that difficult. Morrison gets it right in Final Crisis and now Action Comics. For some reason, a lot of writers like Johns thinks Superman is intrinsically this archaic Mr. Rogers superhero, who goes around telling kids to drink their orange juice, but that was never the point of Superman. He doesn't need to be tossing people around like in the Golden Age, but he should still be a tough, principled leader of men, and with a heart of gold. He doesn't need to be "dark" but he doesn't need to be the polar opposite either.

He could be that and still tell the kids to drink their OJ. Doesn't matter if never started out like that, it is what he bacame and is a part of his lore and history.

[Mr. Holmes]

He could be that and still tell the kids to drink their OJ. Doesn't matter if never started out like that, it is what he bacame and is a part of his lore and history.

Tossing people aggressively was also part of his history, as was becoming electric at one point.

[Lexrules]

Tossing people aggressively was also part of his history, as was becoming electric at one point.

Yea, But those things Sucked. What do you have against Superman being a role model as well as a learning tool for children?