Warner Bros. Claims "Significant Victory" In Superman Lawsuit

[Schnitzy Pretzelpants]

I think you might be missing the difference between completed works & ongoing work. I just love how gun ho everyone seem to be that DC is some evil monster for depriving the creators of the character & then in the next breathe try to justify wrenching the character out of DC's hands, so we can put it into the hands of every half arsed wannabe comic book creator. Sorry, but no, that doesn't work. An if it did, you could kiss good bye to companies like DC & Marvel, becuase that would invalidate any reason for them to put in any effort in producing a serial. After all whats the point of spending money to make a popular character, only to lose the rights to write about that character & having there entire character watered down by knock offs.

Yes, but it doesn’t take it away from DC comics. It merely means they won’t have exclusive use of the character.

My point is, that Warner was part of a group that sought to extend the copyright extension, so either let Superman lapse into the public domain or retain copyright and pony up to the heir of the creators. Morally, in my mind, it’s one or the other – not both.

Legally, they can do whatever they want.

[adkal]

Yes, but it doesn�t take it away from DC comics. It merely means they won�t have exclusive use of the character.

It would be difficult for others to market their use of the character, though...

My point is, that Warner was part of a group that sought to extend the copyright extension, so either let Superman lapse into the public domain or retain copyright and pony up to the heir of the creators. Morally, in my mind, it�s one or the other � not both.

Pony up what, though? How much is 'enough'?

Back in 1976/7 DC started paying S&S a pension of US$20,000 per year, plus benefits. By 1992 they were paying them US$85,000 a year and, apparently, it hit more than US$100,000 by 1996.

DC paid off Shuster's debts in 1992 and made payments to his brother and sister.

In 2001 DC offered the Siegels US$ 2,000,000 plus a signing bonus of US$1,000,000 and at least US$500,000 per year, plus the pension (which was more than US$135,000 at the time) and benefits.

In 2005 DC offered the Shusters US$2,000,000 upfront plus (at least) US$1,000,000 per year through to 2033

[Lorendiac]

My point is, that Warner was part of a group that sought to extend the copyright extension, so either let Superman lapse into the public domain or retain copyright and pony up to the heir of the creators. Morally, in my mind, it’s one or the other – not both.

Pony up what, though? How much is 'enough'?

Back in 1976/7 DC started paying S&S a pension of US$20,000 per year, plus benefits. By 1992 they were paying them US$85,000 a year and, apparently, it hit more than US$100,000 by 1996.

DC paid off Shuster's debts in 1992 and made payments to his brother and sister.

In 2001 DC offered the Siegels US$ 2,000,000 plus a signing bonus of US$1,000,000 and at least US$500,000 per year, plus the pension (which was more than US$135,000 at the time) and benefits.

In 2005 DC offered the Shusters US$2,000,000 upfront plus (at least) US$1,000,000 per year through to 2033

As to your question of "how much is enough?" -- over the last few years, I've gotten the impression that what the heirs want is the same thing the author of a bestselling novel gets (if he still owns the copyright) -- a set percentage of royalties on all sales; in other words, "a piece of the action."

I think they don't want to risk being tricked into settling for what might qualify in hindsight as "small change" -- such as one huge lump sum, paid by DC, on condition that the heirs go away and never bother DC again after cashing a very large check -- nor do they want a guarantee of a smaller fixed sum each year, also paid on condition that the heirs go away and never bother DC again as long as those checks keep coming.

I think what they want is a percentage -- so that, for instance, if Superman-related products make five hundred million dollars in one calendar year, and then a new movie comes out and Superman-related products (including ticket sales, DVD sales, etc.) make a billion dollars the following year, the heirs would get twice as much in the second year as they had gotten in the first! Instead of being stuck with a rigid number that had been nailed down in a contract before the new movie came along!

[adkal]

As to your question of "how much is enough?" -- over the last few years, I've gotten the impression that what the heirs want is the same thing the author of a bestselling novel gets (if he still owns the copyright) -- a set percentage of royalties on all sales; in other words, "a piece of the action."

Considering the fact that they were/are/could be looking to sell a massive chunk of that copyright to someone else...

Besides...they're not even the authors...

I think they don't want to risk being tricked into settling for what might qualify in hindsight as "small change" -- such as one huge lump sum, paid by DC, on condition that the heirs go away and never bother DC again after cashing a very large check -- nor do they want a guarantee of a smaller fixed sum each year, also paid on condition that the heirs go away and never bother DC again as long as those checks keep coming.

I think what they want is a percentage -- so that, for instance, if Superman-related products make five hundred million dollars in one calendar year, and then a new movie comes out and Superman-related products (including ticket sales, DVD sales, etc.) make a billion dollars the following year, the heirs would get twice as much in the second year as they had gotten in the first! Instead of being stuck with a rigid number that had been nailed down in a contract before the new movie came along!

But it's not a 'fixed amount' - it's an 'at least'. I don't know the contract specifics but it's unlikely, given how long it had been going on, that the WB-crew were going to shoot themselves in the foot with an 'unfair' deal.

[Lemurion]

Considering the fact that they were/are/could be looking to sell a massive chunk of that copyright to someone else...

Besides...they're not even the authors...



But it's not a 'fixed amount' - it's an 'at least'. I don't know the contract specifics but it's unlikely, given how long it had been going on, that the WB-crew were going to shoot themselves in the foot with an 'unfair' deal.

Neal Adams, who was instrumental in bringing DC and Marvel to the table for creators rights in the past has this to say about the last offer DC/Warners made to the Siegels

I am told long after Jerry Siegel died, that Jerry and Joanne's daughter Laura, accepted an offer of 3 million dollars in advance, plus 5 million dollars a year ongoing, and 6% royalty on product.

To my untutored eyes, that's a pretty reasonable deal.

What he has to say regarding the dealings involving the second lawyer, I think he means Toberoff, sounds like a worse deal for everyone involved except that lawyer.

[adkal]

To my untutored eyes, that's a pretty reasonable deal.

Considering the fact they had nothing to even do with the character...

I'd have to see how the royalties structure is set out because, on a base level, that looks to be a heckuva lot. For example, if the royalties are based on net income across the board across all products and licenced products and, let's say, that net amount was USD 600 million...and they were to get 6% of that...they'd be receiving (pre-tax) upwards of USD 40 million (including the 5 mil per year)...

What he has to say regarding the dealings involving the second lawyer, I think he means Toberoff, sounds like a worse deal for everyone involved except that lawyer.

Exactly - this is what I was referring to when I said 'Considering the fact that they were/are/could be looking to sell a massive chunk of that copyright to someone else...'

[kelly_warrior_princess]

Considering the fact they had nothing to even do with the character...

Yep. If DC wants to give me that kind of money for not doing anything, i'd take it and run. That kind of money i could purchase 3 million dollar investment properties a year & still have a million and a half to play with.

Exactly - this is what I was referring to when I said 'Considering the fact that they were/are/could be looking to sell a massive chunk of that copyright to someone else...'

Just sounds like people being greedy to me.

[davidgrantlloyd]

so you advocate... vigilantism?

Anarchy, to be precise :)

[Mat001]

Yep. If DC wants to give me that kind of money for not doing anything, i'd take it and run. That kind of money i could purchase 3 million dollar investment properties a year & still have a million and a half to play with.

It's not for not doing anything. Rather based on the laws, the heirs can benefit as much as the original creators could. For instance, the spouses of war veterans can receive the benefits of their significant other as long as their still married at the time of death. Even if they never served themselves. You wouldn't deny them that. Think about it. If you were in their position, wouldn't you want what's entitled to you by law?

Just sounds like people being greedy to me.

That's not greed on the part of the Siegels. They were willing to settle, but Toberoff entered the picture and convinced them that it was chump change. This is only so that he could get his hands on it and make a profit for himself. They're being conned by him.

[Kurosawa]

It's not for not doing anything. Rather based on the laws, the heirs can benefit as much as the original creators could. For instance, the spouses of war veterans can receive the benefits of their significant other as long as their still married at the time of death. Even if they never served themselves. You wouldn't deny them that. Think about it. If you were in their position, wouldn't you want what's entitled to you by law?



That's not greed on the part of the Siegels. They were willing to settle, but Toberoff entered the picture and convinced them that it was chump change. This is only so that he could get his hands on it and make a profit for himself. They're being conned by him.

Yeah, pretty much. Or at this stage it is just the kids, and Michael Siegel warned Laura Siegel Larson that Toberoff was just out for himself in one of the documents that WB won the right to use at the trials.

I had no idea of the terms of their deal, they sound pretty good to me but I don't know how these deals usually go. What they deserve is the same deal the Kane family has, whatever it is.

[adkal]

It's not for not doing anything.

In essence, though, it is.

Rather based on the laws, the heirs can benefit as much as the original creators could. For instance, the spouses of war veterans can receive the benefits of their significant other as long as their still married at the time of death. Even if they never served themselves. You wouldn't deny them that. Think about it. If you were in their position, wouldn't you want what's entitled to you by law?

But the point is that they already were benefiting. Then pension being received was a six figure one. They were offered several million upfront with more than 33 miilion being paid over the next few decades and they wouldn't have to do a thing.

And the spouses aren't around any more...(or does the veterans' pension extend to adult offspring?

That's not greed on the part of the Siegels.

No?

They were willing to settle, but Toberoff entered the picture and convinced them that it was chump change.

Sounds like greed to me. 'I can get you more money', says Toberoff. 'Okay', say the Seigels...

This is only so that he could get his hands on it and make a profit for himself. They're being conned by him.

Yes, they are, but it's the fact that they want more that allowed him to con them in the first place...

[Silver_Leopard]

That's true. I am glad the WB won the lawsuit. YAY!!!

[kelly_warrior_princess]

And the spouses aren't around any more...(or does the veterans' pension extend to adult offspring?

Spot on. This smacks of greed all the way: They already had more then they could reasonably spend in a single life time & they wanted more. I'll be lucky to see a million dollars in my life, if i take everything i earn & put it together & i'd have to work for it, yet these people were not willing to settle for 3 million a year to do nothing at all. I don't call that settling, i call that being greedy.

Heck, give me 3 million just once & i could set my self up for life rather comfortably.

[Mat001]

But the point is that they already were benefiting. Then pension being received was a six figure one. They were offered several million upfront with more than 33 miilion being paid over the next few decades and they wouldn't have to do a thing.

Jerry Siegel didn't seem to think it was enough. That was the point. They were, in his estimate, still getting the short shift which is why he was planning to file the termination claim prior to his death. That's why a few months after his death, the claim was filed. Once the claim was filed, DC was in a position to negotiate an even fairer deal.

And the spouses aren't around any more...(or does the veterans' pension extend to adult offspring?

It only does up to a specific age. But if the widow dies, it doesn't go to them. But in the cases of copyright contracts, it can extend to any heirs that are listed. That's why the suit didn't end with Joanne's death. That's why Jack Kirby's kids were part of the suit filed against Marvel.

Sounds like greed to me. 'I can get you more money', says Toberoff. 'Okay', say the Seigels...

Right because Jerry did want the copyright back as well. What they wanted is the same thing that most creator owned artists get, which is a controlling stake in their portion of the copyright. That's why creator rights were fought for in the 80's and 90's.

[adkal]

Jerry Siegel didn't seem to think it was enough. That was the point. They were, in his estimate, still getting the short shift which is why he was planning to file the termination claim prior to his death. That's why a few months after his death, the claim was filed. Once the claim was filed, DC was in a position to negotiate an even fairer deal.

Which they did - that's the point. Based on the law at the time of signing, the publisher had done nothing wrong and had no (legal) obligations towards S&S. It's not as if S&S were ignorant about things when they signed over 'Superman' as they had already been working with NP prior to that ('Slam Bradley').

In 1976/7 they were given a US$20,000 pension (plus benefits), which is around US$81,000 (plus benefits) in 'today's money'

By 1992 they were paying them US$85,000 a year (plus benefits), which is around US$140,000

By 1996 it was more than US$100,000, which is upwards of US$150,000

DC paid off Shuster's debts in 1992 and made payments to his brother and sister.

In 2001 DC offered the Siegels US$ 2,000,000 plus a signing bonus of US$1,000,000 and at least US$500,000 per year, plus the pension (which was more than US$135,000 at the time) and benefits. (so US$2.6 million plus US$1.3 million (so just under US$ 4 million upfront), plus at least US$ 840,000 per year thereafter.

In 2005 DC offered the Shusters US$2,000,000 upfront plus (at least) US$1,000,000 per year through to 2033 (so US$2.3 million plus at least US$ 1.2 million).

I have to place some emphasis on the 'at least' as my understanding is that the contract incorporated a form of uplift for each year, much like the pension did, and not a 'fixed amount'.

It only does up to a specific age. But if the widow dies, it doesn't go to them. But in the cases of copyright contracts, it can extend to any heirs that are listed. That's why the suit didn't end with Joanne's death. That's why Jack Kirby's kids were part of the suit filed against Marvel.

Then it's a poor analogy to use, isn't it? (The Veterans' pension doesn't reach as far as the copyright issue)

Right because Jerry did want the copyright back as well. What they wanted is the same thing that most creator owned artists get, which is a controlling stake in their portion of the copyright.

Here's the thing, though: what was he going to be able to do with it?

'Control it' how? He hadn't been directly involved in the production and development of the character for decades, he had no ownership of any of the trademarks of the character.

How far ahead was he actually thinking, or was he still (understandably) bitter over what had come before?

That's why creator rights were fought for in the 80's and 90's.

Which they should have been. However, being the owner of certain rights doesn't protect from the production of a product the creator would rather disassociate themselves from - many writers, for example, who had their work optioned for a movie found the end product was nothing like what they envisioned. They had no control to exert.