[CharlieRock]

Many sources across the internet are now reporting on the impending suit against Marc Toberoff, infamous lawyer to the Siegel and Shuster families in their quest to gain control over the Superman copyright.

In May, a suit was filed against Toberoff and his clients, accusing him of souring relationships with the heirs in order to gain Superman copyright control.

Variety reports:

Toberoff's attorney, Richard Kendall, filed motions on Friday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles seeking to dismiss the suit. Among other things, he cited protections from California's "anti-SLAPP" laws, designed to curb lawsuits filed with the intention of intimidating the opposition by delay and legal expense. (SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation").

DC Comics and Warner Bros. stand to lose a great degree of control over Superman in 2013, putting in doubt their ability to exploit the character onscreen and in a host of other projects.

A provision of the Copyright Act allows creators and their heirs and estates to recapture their creations under certain circumstances, regardless of whether the rights were signed away in prior agreements.

With two U.S. District Court decisions in 2008 and 2009, Toberoff successfully recaptured key portions of the "Superman" storyline for the Siegel heirs. Toberoff also represents Shuster's nephew, Mark Warren Peary, executor of the Shuster estate, which is seeking to recapture the other half of the rights in 2013.

"The transparent purpose of DC's lawsuit against Mr. Toberoff is to re-litigate the issues that DC has already lost, disrupt the relationship between Mr. Toberoff and his clients, and delay the final reckoning between DC and Mr. Toberoff's clients," Toberoff's attorneys wrote in their motions.

DC Comics, represented by Daniel Petrocelli, in May accused Toberoff of having an ulterior motive that went beyond legal representation and claimed that he had wrested a 47.5% stake in the heirs' claimed rights, while the Siegel heirs get 27.5% and the Shuster estate gets 25%.

The suit accuses Toberoff of preventing the Siegel and Shuster heirs "from freely entering into agreements with DC Comics -- even if it was in their respective economic interest to do so."
But in his filings, Toberoff said that, for at least the past five years, he has only been on retainer with the Siegel heirs and Shuster's executor.

According to Toberoff, the Siegel heirs in October 2002 did enter into an agreement with IP Worldwide, a joint venture he formed with Endeavor partner Ari Emanuel for the purpose of acquiring and packaging intellectual property rights. But that agreement expired in 2005.

And in 2001, Toberoff's "loan-out" company, Pacific Pictures Corp., entered into an agreement with Peary and Shuster's sister, Jean Peavy, to retrieve, enforce and exploit Shuster's creations. But those agreements were cancelled in 2004.

This is disheartening and frustrating to hear. The so-called "Heirs of Superman" are trying their best it seems to kill off one of my favorite characters.

[boox909]

WOW!!!!!!!   

This could definitely be a big one!

[JVJ]

Three questions:
WHY is it disheartening to hear that the Siegel and Schuster heirs MIGHT be getting a slice of the pie that DC aced them out of 70 years ago?

WHAT makes you think that DC is not going to simply negotiate a deal to continue to publish the comics and make the movies, just like they have always done, but simply with a portion of the money going to the families of the guys who invented the character?

WHERE does the notion of "killing off" the character come from? Sounds like a drastic over-reaction to me.

I predict that this will change absolutely nothing beyond the division of the monies.

My 2

[JonTheScanner]

Regardless of how you (one) feel about the merits of Siegel and Shuster vs. DC owning Superman or Simon and Kirby vs. Marvel owning Captain American, I think this new law is a bad one.  It does two things. It "steals" from the public domain, by unilaterally extending the copyright.  And it restricts a creator from having full ownership of his property since apparently (s)he cannot sell all rights to the creation, but must retain the right to reclaim the character.  (And sets the precedent that other rights could later be reassigned by law rather than contract.)

It seems to me it's going to require that publishers right very strict work-for-hire contracts which would seem to preclude anyone from presenting to them a creation made before the contract was signed unless the corporation didn't want to fully own the creation. 

I have no idea how someone could negotiate a move from Marvel to DC saying, I have a great new idea.  But then I suppose the lawyers with think up some new trick to accomplish this.

[CharlieRock]

The next Superman movie is already delayed until 2012. If they delay it one more time it will be after the 2013 deadline in which they will lose creative control of the character and have to renegotiate. This will further push the release date back. I'm still not sure if WB thinks Superman's cinematic returns are worth the hassle. (The Return of ... was a disappointment in that regard)

And if this sticks then I suppose everyone's heirs can reclaim their grandparents characters and close down public domain comics for good.

[JVJ]

I agree with you, Jon.
I think the law is bad, too. BUT, I don't believe the results will be as "DIRE" as CharlieRock anticipates. The family gets NO money if no movie is made and no comics are published. It's in the best interests of everyone to meet somewhere in the middle and I believe that is what will happen. Joe Shuster's nephew (or whomever) is NOT going to get a movie made, nor is he going to be able to produce a comic book with the circulation that DC can provide. Extremes are extremely unlikely, IMHO.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[Kevin Yong]

Regardless of how you (one) feel about the merits of Siegel and Shuster vs. DC owning Superman or Simon and Kirby vs. Marvel owning Captain American, I think this new law is a bad one.  It does two things. It "steals" from the public domain, by unilaterally extending the copyright.  And it restricts a creator from having full ownership of his property since apparently (s)he cannot sell all rights to the creation, but must retain the right to reclaim the character.  (And sets the precedent that other rights could later be reassigned by law rather than contract.)

If I understand the Superman case correctly, the "right" for certain creators to reclaim an old copyright isn't something that current creators will have to deal with. This right is only an option that applies to certain people whose older work falls within a narrow window of time set by one of Congress's many recent revisions to copyright. Basically, the basis for allowing creators of these older works to reclaim their copyrights is based on the fact that Congress has (like Darth Vader) "altered the bargain" when it came to the creators' old work.

Back in the Golden Age of comics, the creators would sell their work to the publisher for X number of dollars, in exchange for the publisher controlling the copyrights for X number of years, after which it would fall into public domain. Later, Congress extended the copyright lengths, granting the companies longer and longer control of the copyrights. Since the companies were now essentially getting extended use of a property that they hadn't paid for as part of their original contract with the creators, Congress decided to balance things out by allowing those original creators to "reclaim" their share of the newly extended copyrights if they filed within a certain timeframe.

It's a complicated mess, but at least it only applies to old work whose copyrights have been artificially extended. It's not going to apply to modern-day writers whose new work is being created and sold under modern copyright rules... Unless, of course, Congress decides to step in and rewrite things again, as they seem compelled to do anytime Mickey Mouse gets close to entering the public domain.

[CharlieRock]

I agree with you, Jon.
I think the law is bad, too. BUT, I don't believe the results will be as "DIRE" as CharlieRock anticipates. The family gets NO money if no movie is made and no comics are published. It's in the best interests of everyone to meet somewhere in the middle and I believe that is what will happen. Joe Shuster's nephew (or whomever) is NOT going to get a movie made, nor is he going to be able to produce a comic book with the circulation that DC can provide. Extremes are extremely unlikely, IMHO.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

While this is certainly true it is exclusive to DC. Suppose the Schusters and Seigels sell to Marvel (or Dark Horse). That would rip Supes out of the universe he now exists in , thus killing him in effect. And the heirs would still get money even though thye distressed a lot of fans who wouldn't want to see a JLA-less Superman.

[JVJ]

I can't imagine a world in which Marvel publishes Superman, simply because every comic would be a de-facto ad for DC - for DECADES until a new generation of fans developed who didn't make that (sub)conscious connection. Marvel might get some short-term press out of it initially, but sales would quickly tank as hard-core DC fans boycotted the "new" version and the Marvel Zombies quickly ignored it. Think about it, CR, rocking the boat to that extent kills the golden goose, to radically mix metaphors. Do you think Sony is going to finance a Marvel Superman film that will in effect be an advertisement for four Warner Bros. films? Not in the real world.

No, I believe DC and the heirs will find a way to co-exist and all profit from whatever new reality is arbitrated.

And thanks much to Kevin Yong for explaining the limitations of the law. It makes much more sense now that I understand it.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[Kevin Yong]

I can't imagine a world in which Marvel publishes Superman, simply because every comic would be a de-facto ad for DC - for DECADES until a new generation of fans developed who didn't make that (sub)conscious connection. Marvel might get some short-term press out of it initially, but sales would quickly tank as hard-core DC fans boycotted the "new" version and the Marvel Zombies quickly ignored it. Think about it, CR, rocking the boat to that extent kills the golden goose, to radically mix metaphors. Do you think Sony is going to finance a Marvel Superman film that will in effect be an advertisement for four Warner Bros. films? Not in the real world.

No, I believe DC and the heirs will find a way to co-exist and all profit from whatever new reality is arbitrated.

And thanks much to Kevin Yong for explaining the limitations of the law. It makes much more sense now that I understand it.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

Thanks! I've been trying to follow news of the lawsuit ever since I first heard about it. There's a slightly dated online FAQ about the case that is a good starting point for info on the lawsuit, which is where I found a lot of my information.

I agree that DC and the heirs will probably reach a deal, and that it's very unlikely that Superman will be taken to another company. One big incentive for this is the fact that while the heirs may now have control of the Superman copyrights, I believe that DC is still the sole owner of the Superman trademarks. It would definitely be in the best interests of DC and the heirs to find a way to resolve their differences and keep the multi-million dollar franchise alive. Trying to publish a new Superman book at another company without the right to use the trademarked name, title, logos, etc. would be a lot like the story of King Solomon threatening to cut a baby in half to resolve a custody dispute!

-- Kevin

[NobbyNobbs]

Even if the heirs have control of some copyrights, it would be a nightmare for another company to make new stories based on them, so many concepts that are part of the Superman "mythos" comes from stories that are still copyright DC Comics, and stories about Superman, where he can leap tall buildings, etc.- like in the first stories would be of limited interest to most people.

[DennyWilson]

Works that have fallen into the public domain CAN NOT fall out of it. Even if a creator or Heir re-established rights to character or concept or trademark. So there's no threat of any works here going
out of the public domain. 

The only characters/concepts/trademarks that a creator can take back from a publisher are ones that can be proven to have been brought as an existing concept that was transfered/signed away - Superman pre-existed Before it