Warner Bros. $25K per year agreement with Shuster's sist superseded heirs clai

[Nico Esq]

U.S. District Judge Otis Wright has ruled that a 1992 agreement between DC comics and Jean Peavy, sister of Superman co-creator Joe Shuster, has superseded the Shuster heirs’ claim to exercise a copyright termination right.

 

Changes made by Congress in 1999 gave some heirs to copyrights the opportunity to terminate deals, under certain conditions. Peavy was hoping the reclaim rights to Superman on this basis.

 

The 1992 deal that scuppered their claim saw DC agree to cover Joe Shuster’s debts and pay Peavy $25,000 a year for the rest of her life. At the time, DC’s then execuitve VP was Paul Levitz, and he did warn the heirs that the deal would “fully resolve any past, present or future claims against DC.”

 

Warner Bros. are currently contesting the 2008 ruling that saw 50% of the Superman rights handed to the heirs of Jerry Siegel, and that hearing is set for November 5th.

 

This Kryptonian Bleak House might finally be about to reach its final chapter.

 

UPDATE: The Hollywood Reporter have now published their story on the case, including the full ruling for your perusal.

 

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/10/17/warner-bros-win-in-shuster-family-superman-case/

[esquirecomics]

Los Angeles Times Article

 

These string of cases, with all due respect to the public perception people have in this community of Siegel/Shuster, reflects how much these cases have been about nothing other than greed. Of course, it has not been Siegel or Shuster who have pursued these matters, both men having died in the 1990s. I do believe history will not take a kind view on the role of their attorney in their cases.

 

Having reviewed many of the original documents, the true picture of how the families have been treated, especially in the last 30 years, is very different from what people believed and now it is emerging.

[Nico Esq]

Mark, how about some details?

[Mxwll Smrt]

It's not that it just "superceded" the claim - it's that there was a clearly expressed and unambiguous meeting of the minds.

[Designer Toast]

Mark, how about some details?

 

[esquirecomics]

In a nutshell:

 

* Siegel & Shuster sold a product that had been repeatedly rejected for years;

 

* Siegel & Shuster were paid in excess of what their peers were receiving for that product and in a method/manner that was acceptable/common for the day;

 

* Siegel & Shuster received extraordinary amounts of money in the early 40s based on the success of the character that they had clearly sold;

 

* Siegel had a very contentious relationship with the powers that be at DC during that time. It led to a complete breakdown of the relationship. I am placing no fault on anyone by saying so and, indeed, no doubt blame was to be shared on varying degrees. It also didn't help that he lost a child which seemingly had an understandable negative effect on him, and a marriage collapsed. When you read his letters to DC and the responses back the picture is far more of Siegel being a "jerk" than DC. This was a case of young Cleveland little town "Jews" (I'm Jewish so I'm not saying anything wrong!) against NYC big town businessmen Jews from a rough industry. It was pretty clear who would win but Siegel kept pushing. That said, DC acted inappropriately with Siegel about Superboy (it had been proposed to DC around 1939 and rejected, and then DC published a version in 1945 while Siegel was in the Army, although Shuster was involved with it), which led to the first lawsuit in 1947;

 

* The filing of the 1947 lawsuit in NYS court resulted in a victory for DC regarding Superman and a settlement over Superboy. Siegel, it is said, dragged Shuster into the lawsuit when he preferred not to be involved;

 

* After the lawsuit Siegel and Shuster were essentially persona non grata, which is completely understandable. Their names were off the product and they made no money from the character. Nor should they have, they had no legal rights. That is how the system worked then and was accepted;

 

* Congress changed the copyright law in the 60s and Siegel and Shuster sued again in 1969 in federal court. They lost twice. Handily. Obviously once again not engraining themselves with the powers that be at DC;

 

* Public sentiment changes in the 1970s when a pr effort is launched to help Siegel and Shuster who have fallen on hard times. Yes, DC, now owned by Warner Bros, had made and was continuing to make significant amounts of money on a character that it had purchased outright, settled a lawsuit over and won yet another lawsuit over, but it still agreed to pay, particularly since the leadership had changed, a respectable pension to Siegel/Shuster and their heirs;

 

* I recommend everyone read the actual lawsuit decision in the Shuster case which recounts, at least with respect to Shuster's heirs (he died in 1992), all the money DC/Warner Bros had paid them over the years, including gift bonuses. Many of the letters written by Shuster's heirs are quoted from and frankly to me they reflect nothing but greed and what we call graymail in the legal national security world. It is not outright blackmail but it is implicit, especially their promises not to terminate the copyright (but please give us a nice bonus this year they would say), which they later did;

 

* Congress, in its infinite wisdom, changes the Copyright law yet again in the 1990s, and both Siegel (who died in 1996) and Shuster's heirs moved to terminate the copyright and reclaim the character, or at least aspects of it. The Siegel family won portions of the lawsuit due to the change in law so they now own certain aspects of the storyline. There is a very interesting side lawsuit underway challenging the actions of their attorney, who conveniently owns 50% of the character, as to whether he interfered with what would have been acceptable settlements with the family members. Some of you might have heard about Stan Lee suing Disney to obtain billions and think "go get em Stan", but in fact it is not Stan Lee suing but his former company who has his name. This is what the Superman litigation has become - people who have little to nothing to do with the character or its creation who want money and believe they are entitled to it;

 

* All the litigation we have seen involving Superman in most of our lifetimes has nothing to do with "fairness" or "what is right for the creators", it is merely a reaction to a change in copyright law, most of which has been prompted by a few major companies, i.e., Disney, to preserve their characters.

[Mark 1]

Thanks, that was really interesting reading

[esquirecomics]

If anyone would like a copy of the recent Shuster court decision, feel free to e-mail me at Mark@MarkZaid.com.

[kimik]

* All the litigation we have seen involving Superman in most of our lifetimes has nothing to do with "fairness" or "what is right for the creators", it is merely a reaction to a change in copyright law, most of which has been prompted by a few major companies, i.e., Disney, to preserve their characters.

 

This is why I do not mind that the heirs are going after it. If the companies are using the changes to their benefit, it is only fair that the creators/their heirs that have some bit of legal leg to stand on do as well.

 

[Ares]

Email sent

[esquirecomics]

* All the litigation we have seen involving Superman in most of our lifetimes has nothing to do with "fairness" or "what is right for the creators", it is merely a reaction to a change in copyright law, most of which has been prompted by a few major companies, i.e., Disney, to preserve their characters.

 

This is why I do not mind that the heirs are going after it. If the companies are using the changes to their benefit, it is only fair that the creators/their heirs that have some bit of legal leg to stand on do as well.

 

Understandable. I don't like either but they make the bed they sleep in.

[ashrael]

Thanks esquire for the court case refresher

[Senormac]

Moral of the story..... Never sell creativity. Always retain a percentage if possible

 

and thanks for condensing into easy to understand points about this whole Superman case Esquire..... uh, Mr. Zaid

[esquirecomics]

Moral of the story..... Never sell creativity. Always retain a percentage if possible

 

and thanks for condensing into easy to understand points about this whole Superman case Esquire..... uh, Mr. Zaid

 

Mark

[Aman619]

Great summary mark!