Warner Bros. Claims "Significant Victory" In Superman Lawsuit

[MFitzH2O]

It's just time for the character to enter public domain.

[utukkuxul]

Doesn't a character have to be 100 years old(at least, until Mickey Mouse hits 100 years) to become PD?

[Mat001]

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').

Right and the rights issues began with the fact that DC published the Superboy series after rejecting it, while Siegel was out of the country. That's why he and Joe Shuster did that in 1947.

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'.

Right and as such, they could glean twice that from having their portion of the copyright. Look at what Robert Kirkman makes off of "Walking Dead". You couldn't tell me that having that much to begin with, rather than fighting over it for years, would've been profitable for both sides. Superman has made enough for DC that they could split it up in a more than fair amount.

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

No, but it makes that point that just because one person dies, that doesn't mean that the rest of the family cannot benefit. Which is what the argument about the copyright conflict is about.

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

Have the bargaining chips necessary to negotiate a fair deal that would split the profits 50/50. Not just on sales from the books, but all merchandising and licensing.

'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.

He could nix ideas that he felt would diminish the character and have a stake in making sure that the character doesn't lag.

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

There was probably some bitterness, but he was well aware that the old guard were long gone. How far ahead was he thinking is difficult to say, since we didn't know him during those last years of his life.

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.

True, but that's a movie. Comic rights though are a different matter. To date, I haven't heard anything about him not liking how the character turned out.

[adkal]

Right and the rights issues began with the fact that DC published the Superboy series after rejecting it, while Siegel was out of the country. That's why he and Joe Shuster did that in 1947.

Did what? Re-sell the rights to DC for US$100,000? (which is just over 1 million in today's money)

Right and as such, they could glean twice that from having their portion of the copyright.

That's not the way things were set up back then, though.

Look at what Robert Kirkman makes off of "Walking Dead". You couldn't tell me that having that much to begin with, rather than fighting over it for years, would've been profitable for both sides. Superman has made enough for DC that they could split it up in a more than fair amount.

Comparing the way things are now with the way things were 60 years ago is hardly a good basis - the legal structure as it currently is wasn't established then.

No, but it makes that point that just because one person dies, that doesn't mean that the rest of the family cannot benefit. Which is what the argument about the copyright conflict is about.

Only to a certain extent - as you already conceded the VP only extends to wives and children under a certain age. What we have here are adults and nephews.

Have the bargaining chips necessary to negotiate a fair deal that would split the profits 50/50. Not just on sales from the books, but all merchandising and licensing.

Wow...50/50...when he hasn't done anything more with the character for several decades? Even patent rights don't work that way, but you think comic book rights should?

That's almost like the owners of a building having to pay 50% of the rent to the guy who sold them the building even though he has nothing to do with that building any more...

He could nix ideas that he felt would diminish the character and have a stake in making sure that the character doesn't lag.

Isn't there a risk of the character stagnating then? Granted, it was under his penmanship that we had Superman travelling through time and having fantastic adventures, but we don't know what he would have approved or disapproved of. (I would love to see Superman story-notes, etc, he may have written after his tenure...)

There was probably some bitterness, but he was well aware that the old guard were long gone. How far ahead was he thinking is difficult to say, since we didn't know him during those last years of his life.

Alas :(

True, but that's a movie. Comic rights though are a different matter. To date, I haven't heard anything about him not liking how the character turned out.

You were referring to 'creator rights', you didn't single out 'comic rights' :)

[adkal]

It's just time for the character to enter public domain.

And then what? Marketing the character would still be the problem since DC hold the trademarks.

[Mat001]

Comparing the way things are now with the way things were 60 years ago is hardly a good basis - the legal structure as it currently is wasn't established then..

No, it wasn't. That's why Siegel fought to get the rights back. DC was the one who was profiting the most and Siegel felt that regardless of the original contract, that he and Joe should have also profited to the same degree. That's why there was that suit in the 70's. I refer to the case of Kirkman about the benefits of what having an ownership stake entails.

Wow...50/50...when he hasn't done anything more with the character for several decades? Even patent rights don't work that way, but you think comic book rights should?

That's almost like the owners of a building having to pay 50% of the rent to the guy who sold them the building even though he has nothing to do with that building any more...

If the law says it is okay to do so, then yes, it is right.

Isn't there a risk of the character stagnating then? Granted, it was under his penmanship that we had Superman travelling through time and having fantastic adventures, but we don't know what he would have approved or disapproved of. (I would love to see Superman story-notes, etc, he may have written after his tenure...)

There is that possibility right now with just DC having ownership stake. I mean, look at the last twelve years alone. Three origins and yet another reboot. At the very least Siegel or his estate could have kept stuff like "Grounded" and "Transformed" from happening. At the very least, they could have been in a position so that Superman wouldn't be second fiddle to Batman and the butt of jokes within the comic area.

[adkal]

No, it wasn't. That's why Siegel fought to get the rights back. DC was the one who was profiting the most and Siegel felt that regardless of the original contract, that he and Joe should have also profited to the same degree. That's why there was that suit in the 70's. I refer to the case of Kirkman about the benefits of what having an ownership stake entails.

Again, you're comparing two different eras.

If the law says it is okay to do so, then yes, it is right.

So when the law doesn't say it is okay to do so, then it's wrong? Is 'the law' only 'right' when it suits?

There is that possibility right now with just DC having ownership stake. I mean, look at the last twelve years alone. Three origins and yet another reboot. At the very least Siegel or his estate could have kept stuff like "Grounded" and "Transformed" from happening. At the very least, they could have been in a position so that Superman wouldn't be second fiddle to Batman and the butt of jokes within the comic area.

As above, we don't know what they would have agreed with, pushed, blocked, etc. Heck, they may have been all for 'Transformed', on the premise that he's 'the man of tomorrow' so 'evolving' in such a way outside the confines of Krypton isn't 'contrary'...

[Lorendiac]

It's just time for the character to enter public domain.

Doesn't a character have to be 100 years old(at least, until Mickey Mouse hits 100 years) to become PD?

95 years old, actually -- that's "in the USA," and "if the character's copyright began before 1978."

But that's only because Congress has rewritten the rules, retroactively and more than once, regarding copyrighted materials from before 1978. First they extended the maximum lifespan of a U.S. copyright (on pre-1978 material) from 56 to 75 years; later they extended it from 75 to 95, which is where it is now. (Will it stay there, or will it be extended again? Who knows?)

I think MFitzH2O's point was that if the U.S. Congress had not insisted upon rewriting the rules after the fact, then the Superman copyright that Siegel & Shuster sold to DC in 1938 would have passed into the public domain in 1994. And if that were the case, there wouldn't be these ongoing legal battles about "who owns what portion of the original copyright on Superman at this stage in the game?" -- because it wouldn't matter any more after that copyright had quietly dropped dead of old age and nobody could own it!

[Mat001]

Again, you're comparing two different eras.

I am aware of that. That's my point. The changes made in 1976 would allow for Siegel to terminate the copyright between 1994 and 1999, during a five year window. He could then have either a controlling stake if he wanted to or negotiate a far better deal.

So when the law doesn't say it is okay to do so, then it's wrong? Is 'the law' only 'right' when it suits?

That's usually how it works.

As above, we don't know what they would have agreed with, pushed, blocked, etc. Heck, they may have been all for 'Transformed', on the premise that he's 'the man of tomorrow' so 'evolving' in such a way outside the confines of Krypton isn't 'contrary'...

That is possible. That doesn't change my point though.

[Lorendiac]

If the law says it is okay to do so, then yes, it is right.

So when the law doesn't say it is okay to do so, then it's wrong? Is 'the law' only 'right' when it suits?

That's usually how it works.

Just a quick, general comment on that . . . let's just remember that "the law doesn't say it is okay" is not always the same thing as "the law does say it isn't okay."

There are at least three possible situations you might find if you were contemplating a certain course of action, and if you carefully checked the law to see exactly what it had to say on the subject before you actually did anything that might upset somebody:

1. The law explicitly says it's okay for you to do a certain thing under the current circumstances.

2. The law explicitly says it is not okay for you to do a certain thing under the current circumstances.

3. The law doesn't say much of anything on the subject, one way or the other -- so you decide you're free to do as you see fit!

In that last case, of course, it would be absolutely true to say: "The law doesn't say it is okay!" It would also be absolutely true to say: "The law doesn't say it isn't okay!" No matter what you did, somebody might gripe and moan about it -- but not because you obviously had "broken the law!"

[Lexrules]

And then what? Marketing the character would still be the problem since DC hold the trademarks.

From what I understand anyone would be able to use the character despite the fact DC holds the trademark. Public Domain is open game. I could be wrong though.

[adkal]

From what I understand anyone would be able to use the character despite the fact DC holds the trademark. Public Domain is open game. I could be wrong though.

The could use the character within something (novel, comic, movie) but wouldn't be able to market the face that the character is in the product. So now posters saying 'Superman', no 'S'-shield, no blurb on the back of the novel saying anything about Superman, no image of him in the red and blue on the cover, no using 'The Daily Planet', etc

unless

They acquire a licence from DC to do so.

And, remember, there's a difference between US trademarks and international ones - the latter being the big hurdle.

[Superdog]

The S&S heirs have the legal right to terminate copyright. It is in their every best interest to terminate, and there is literally no reason for them not to. I don't think it's immoral of them at all. They should negotiate with WB from a position of strength. If WB had not fought the copyright termination this whole thing could have been over and done with by now.

I guess I don't understand the "The heirs didn't create anything" refrain. WB didn't create Superman either. I would certainly support every comic character passing into the public domain after their time is up, but under the current system creators are always end up with the short end of the stick unless they fight tooth and nail for their rights.

[adkal]

The S&S heirs have the legal right to terminate copyright. It is in their every best interest to terminate, and there is literally no reason for them not to. I don't think it's immoral of them at all. They should negotiate with WB from a position of strength. If WB had not fought the copyright termination this whole thing could have been over and done with by now.

That ignores the deal that was on the table - a deal that was accepted until Toberoff slithered in.

I guess I don't understand the "The heirs didn't create anything" refrain. WB didn't create Superman either.

And that ignores the investment the company made in the character, both in the books and outside. The heirs, literally, did not do a thing to advance the character, that was all DC/WB.

I would certainly support every comic character passing into the public domain after their time is up, but under the current system creators are always end up with the short end of the stick unless they fight tooth and nail for their rights.

Nah, that's the old system - unless a creator's an idiot or has really poor representation.

[MFitzH2O]

95 years old, actually -- that's "in the USA," and "if the character's copyright began before 1978."

But that's only because Congress has rewritten the rules, retroactively and more than once, regarding copyrighted materials from before 1978. First they extended the maximum lifespan of a U.S. copyright (on pre-1978 material) from 56 to 75 years; later they extended it from 75 to 95, which is where it is now. (Will it stay there, or will it be extended again? Who knows?)

I think MFitzH2O's point was that if the U.S. Congress had not insisted upon rewriting the rules after the fact, then the Superman copyright that Siegel & Shuster sold to DC in 1938 would have passed into the public domain in 1994. And if that were the case, there wouldn't be these ongoing legal battles about "who owns what portion of the original copyright on Superman at this stage in the game?" -- because it wouldn't matter any more after that copyright had quietly dropped dead of old age and nobody could own it!

Bingo.

10chars