In a strategic move in the copyright battle between Warner Bros and the heirs to Superman’s creators, the studio has filed an appeal to reverse earlier rulings in the case and put everything out in open court in a trial. “This long-running dispute should be brought to an end,” Warner Bros wrote in a dense 117-page appeal (read it here) filed Friday with the 9th Circuit Court. In typical Hollywood legalities, the move actually resolves nothing — expect to see a response from the heirs and then another back from Warner Bros, and all off it to end up one way or another in the Appellate Court sometime in the late summer or early fall.

Related:Letter From Lois Lane To Time Warner Boss

Through the courts, the estate of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel recaptured half of the original Superman rights in 2008, with the estate of co-creator Joe Shuster to do the same in 2013. Warner Bros, which owns longtime Superman publisher DC Comics, disagrees with those decisions. “This case is about the ownership of copyright in the earliest comics that introduced elements of the iconic Superman character and story,” the appeal from Warners lawyer Daniel Petrocelli states. “The case presents an unusually broad array of doctrinal, factual, and procedural issues. But much of the case reduces to a familiar proposition: a deal is a deal.”

Warners contends that Laura Siegel Larson, the heir to the Siegel estate, “reneged” on a copyright deal with DC that “guaranteed the family many millions of dollars in cash, royalties, and other compensation.” In its call to have the issue decided by trial, the studio says “the family asserted there was no deal without a long form and the district court agreed, casting aside established California contract law principles — principles essential to the entertainment industry, where many business deals are never formalized.” The latest legal move by Warner Bros follows a win last year in the matter, when Judge Otis Wright tossed out a First Amendment suit by Marc Toberoff, a rights lawyer for the heirs.

None of this will have any immediate effect on the upcoming Zack Snyder-directed Superman reboot Man Of Steel, scheduled to be released June 14, 2013, or any potential sequels from that property.

Link:

http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/warner-bros-wants-rights-fight-with-superman-heirs-decided-in-court/

For those of you who are following, WB is going to fight back with an appeal. While I certainly don't like corporate greed, I think the families allowed themselves to be manipulated by an equally greedy businessman/lawyer.

Remember that DC took a gamble when they bought Superman rights and rewarded the creators with high paying jobs. It was only when they tried to get more money that issues began. Without DC, Superman would have ended up like the earlier incarnations that the families failed to sell.

EDIT: Mar: 30-2012

Just read the appeal, here is a summary of what I gathered

• DC, initially focused more effort into negotiating with the families in good faith rather than disputing the copyright claims (I guess now they are doing the opposite?).
• DC had offered to pay 3 million, 500K a year plus 6% of profits
• They had confirmation of an agreement but no contract. They pulled out before one could be drafted (because of Marc Toberoff)

Action Comics 1:

• The family owns this, as it was claimed that it was based on the works of the authors before being hired.
• Dc contests there were additions and changes made to the issue once the creators were hired. (so they should own partial rights)

Comic Strips:

• These include the first mention of Superman's origin (specifically krypton was stated in the appeal)
• it looks like there are 12 comic strips that were awarded to the families, that DC contests were made after they where hired.
• Most importantly, it appears that the judge awarded the families these strips even though they were not in the termination notice.
• The judge cited these were covered in a catch-all clause, but the lawyers new rebuttal is that the clause applies to missing details in terminated worksnotworks that are not mentioned
• I got the feeling DC implied they did not have sufficient time to counter these claims (could be my interpretation can't remember), they point out its hard to defend something if it is not listed.

Action Comics no. 4:

• It also appears that Action Comics no. 4 had elements awarded to the family because the Authors had written a few paragraphs on this in 1934.
• DC contests that this written format should constitute a separate copyrighted piece of work. They also point out that those could be interpreted as notes for future use as opposed to an actual story/

Superman 1:

• It looks like the families also got Superman 1 pages 3-6 which were supposed to be taken from the creators original unpublished work (based on hear-say).
• But DC claims this is debunked by the authors themselves as they, themselves stated that they had to rewrite the material (can't remember if its in a book, article, or some clip)

Superman's Coloring

Dc claims their staff did all the coloring and chose the colors after the creators where hired

This may sound dumb, but what limitations would only having half of the rights to Superman bring to DC?

I don't think that DC or WB is being greedy...like the article says "a deal is a deal"....plus I feel like the heirs are the ones being greedy....they played no roll what so ever in the creation of Superman and both Seigel and Shuster gave DC the rights to the character and were paid what I assume was a reasonable rate for the day...now their heirs are coming along and saying that they deserve more mone...it even says that WB "guaranteed the family many millions of dollars in cash, royalties, and other compensation" but they pretty much declined it....what else do they want for something that they didn't create? they're risking destroying something that millions of people enjoy because they're greedy

They sold the rights to DC for $100 years ago. That should have been the end of it. They should have no more say, or their families. It was good of DC to put their names on every issue or show of Superman's involvement.

If anyone should sue about creatorship (is that a word?), it's Batman's co-creator Bill Finger. But he didn't sue. And he died not being a greedy b*tch like the Siegel and Shuster heirs. Now he is viewed as a great man. Kudos to Mr. Finger. Them Superman creator heirs must be viewed in history as greedy bastards and that jackass Toberoff should have a reputation worse than how Christians view Judas.

The worst part is, why this guys are going to be owners of a part of a character they didnt created, take care of him or made anything for him?

It makes more sense that people that did that own a part of the character, not those guys.

Also they say they want what hiw father created, why the hell dont suesome one for the rigths of Funnyman, i mean he was created by the same people, i know why, Funnyman dont makes money and this isnt about your father, is about making millions without working for them.

@Supreme Marvel: Copyright is serious business, I"m sure that for every Superman Lawsuit there are many more cases that are justified.

I'm annoyed because I know that the families wont be able to sell away the rights, but its because of their constant lawsuit, its limiting Superman's potential to go onto other media because they would have problems coming up with the budget for say a new animated TV series.

I agree with alot of posters here that it should've been the end and I'm just not thrilled with what the families are doing right now.

Just read the appeal, here is a summary of what I gathered

• DC, initially focused more effort into negotiating with the families in good faith rather than disputing the copyright claims (I guess now they are doing the opposite?).
• DC had offered to pay 3 million, 500K a year plus 6% of profits
• They had confirmation of an agreement but no contract. They pulled out before one could be drafted (because of Marc Toberoff)

Action Comics 1:

• The family owns this, as it was claimed that it was based on the works of the authors before being hired.
• Dc contests there were additions and changes made to the issue once the creators were hired. (so they should own partial rights)

Comic Strips:

• These include the first mention of Superman's origin (specifically krypton was stated in the appeal)
• it looks like there are 12 comic strips that were awarded to the families, that DC contests were made after they where hired.
• Most importantly, it appears that the judge awarded the families these strips even though they were not in the termination notice.
• The judge cited these were covered in a catch-all clause, but the lawyers new rebuttal is that the clause applies to missing details in terminated worksnotworks that are not mentioned
• I got the feeling DC implied they did not have sufficient time to counter these claims (could be my interpretation can't remember), they point out its hard to defend something if it is not listed.

Action Comics no. 4:

• It also appears that Action Comics no. 4 had elements awarded to the family because the Authors had written a few paragraphs on this in 1934.
• DC contests that this written format should constitute a separate copyrighted piece of work. They also point out that those could be interpreted as notes for future use as opposed to an actual story/

Superman 1:

• It looks like the families also got Superman 1 pages 3-6 which were supposed to be taken from the creators original unpublished work (based on hear-say).
• But DC claims this is debunked by the authors themselves as they, themselves stated that they had to rewrite the material (can't remember if its in a book, article, or some clip)

Superman's Coloring

Dc claims their staff did all the coloring and chose the colors after the creators where hired

Screw the heirs, they had nothing to do with the creation of Superman and they don't give a damn about the character they just want to cash in on the work of their elders.

hmm...I hate legal issues like this...

Yes Siegel and Shuster got a raw deal but the thing this law suit refuses to acknowledge is that no one else was buying so they literally got the best deal they were going to get. And you know they didn't even make the Superman most people think of when they talk about him. The flying, X-ray vision, Heat vision and all the other mainstays of Superman all came after they'd left the company. Hell even the S shield is completely different now.

@joshmightbe: Well I'm guessing DC is more prepared this time, it looks like they got a better fight in the previous rounds than they expected. It appears DC has sited other cases for all of their claims, though I'm not sure what their first set of claims referenced, but they have a new lawyer and new judge. I get the feeling the last judge might have been biased, he stepped down citing he was not payed enough to support his family of 7 children on $169k US. That sends warning signals!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-judge-resignation-idUSTRE58G4D020090917

@drgnx: The same lawyer tried this crap over at Marvel but I haven't heard much about it since Marvel got access to Disney lawyers, those guys don't screw around

@drgnx said:

Action Comics no. 4

• It also appears that Action Comics no. 4 had elements awarded to the family because the Authors had written a few paragraphs on this in 1934.
• DC contests that this written format should constitute a separate copyrighted piece of work. They also point out that those could be interpreted as notes for future use as opposed to an actual story/

Something I don't get:

The authors had stories written before they sold the copyright. If they were getting paid to write new stories but instead recycled work that they had previously done (but had not published), and do so without explicitly bringing this to their employer's attention, is it fair they can then claim that they had done this work before getting hired and therefor own the copyright? Couldn't this open the doorway to being scammed?