Jerry Siegel loses SuperMan copyright appeal

[Badger]

Jerry Siegel Loses Appeal

 

 

[Twistty1]

Seems like a sad ending for the Seigels imo, but sounds like they are trying to spin it as a positive. Are they trying to say that it's a good thing that they can now give the Seigels a measly payout so they can now cash in big? Yay! hurrah!

[shrunkenhead]

Sadly, this is the outcome I anticipated.

[Twistty1]

Seems pathetic for DC to carry on the legalities for this long instead of pay out the family of the poor guy they bullied into selling out cheaply. I think the amount of the payout was 20mill.

 

This article should explain that DC could not pay the 20 mill due to Toberoff wanting to assume the rights himself and that's why they could not pay out. Still, 20 mill, for superman rights over the last 80 years? No wonder DC wanted to pay out so quickly and get it over with.

[TheMightyJohn]

Doesn't the thread title need to read "Jerry Siegel's surviving greedy family, loses SuperMan copyright appeal"

[Twistty1]

Doesn't the thread title need to read "Jerry Siegel's surviving greedy family, loses SuperMan copyright appeal"

 

[Aman619]

They still have to settle up how much the Siegels sha of the profits have been. I'm happy with his outcome. After years of rooting for the Siegels to get fair compensation, the possible laity that DC were to lose half or more of Superman was scary. It would have bee the end of Superman as we have npknown it. With little hope for a better futu for the character in others hands... Specifically Toberoff.

[esquirecomics]

This result is entirely fair and appropriate. The storyline of the poor Siegel family getting shafted by DC (i.e., Warner Bros) is dated. Even that story is vastly different than what many were publicly led to believe.

 

But as far as this Court result, the Siegel (and Shuster) family were being very, very nicely compensated since the late 1970s. And that continued after both the principals died in 1992 and 1996.

 

A settlement, as the Ninth Circuit stated very clearly in a short decision (which also tells how clear it was to them) was reached in 2001. The parties, with the approval of their attorneys, had a meeting of the minds. The Siegel family reneged following the ill-suited advice of another attorney who injected himself into the proceedings and then proceeded to try to grab 50% of the ownership himself. The family just wasted ten years (and there is still the possibility of further appeals) fighting instead of playing a positive role in the further development of the character. And, in my opinion, the character did suffer as a result.

 

This was a demonstration of greed at its worst. Nothing more, nothing less.

[ComicConnoisseur]

This result is entirely fair and appropriate. The storyline of the poor Siegel family getting shafted by DC (i.e., Warner Bros) is dated. Even that story is vastly different than what many were publicly led to believe.

 

But as far as this Court result, the Siegel (and Shuster) family were being very, very nicely compensated since the late 1970s. And that continued after both the principals died in 1992 and 1996.

 

A settlement, as the Ninth Circuit stated very clearly in a short decision (which also tells how clear it was to them) was reached in 2001. The parties, with the approval of their attorneys, had a meeting of the minds. The Siegel family reneged following the ill-suited advice of another attorney who injected himself into the proceedings and then proceeded to try to grab 50% of the ownership himself. The family just wasted ten years (and there is still the possibility of further appeals) fighting instead of playing a positive role in the further development of the character. And, in my opinion, the character did suffer as a result.

 

This was a demonstration of greed at its worst. Nothing more, nothing less.

People also tend to forget that $100,000s back in the 1970s to 1990s was worth a lot more than it is today.

[esquirecomics]

This result is entirely fair and appropriate. The storyline of the poor Siegel family getting shafted by DC (i.e., Warner Bros) is dated. Even that story is vastly different than what many were publicly led to believe.

 

But as far as this Court result, the Siegel (and Shuster) family were being very, very nicely compensated since the late 1970s. And that continued after both the principals died in 1992 and 1996.

 

A settlement, as the Ninth Circuit stated very clearly in a short decision (which also tells how clear it was to them) was reached in 2001. The parties, with the approval of their attorneys, had a meeting of the minds. The Siegel family reneged following the ill-suited advice of another attorney who injected himself into the proceedings and then proceeded to try to grab 50% of the ownership himself. The family just wasted ten years (and there is still the possibility of further appeals) fighting instead of playing a positive role in the further development of the character. And, in my opinion, the character did suffer as a result.

 

This was a demonstration of greed at its worst. Nothing more, nothing less.

People also tend to forget that $100,000s back in the 1970s to 1990s was worth a lot more than it is today.

 

Back in the early 1940s, before the relationship between Siegel and DC soured, according to press reports, Siegel was making around $50,000 a year.

 

Poor, poor Jerry who had sold Superman for $130 in 1938.

 

$50,000.00 in 1942 had the same buying power as $727,974.19 in 2012.

 

Poor, poor Jerry.

 

Do I think Jerry was "mistreated" by DC (pre-Warner Bros)? Objectively, yes, the relationship could have been much better. But did he cause a great deal of the friction? Absolutely. It exudes from his correspondence in the relative time frame leading up to his 1947 lawsuit.

[Aman619]

Ive been on both sides of this situation over the years... so Ive got supporting arguments both ways as to the fairness of the S&S and DC relationship.

 

To your point above, Id say that Jerry had a lot of real anger at how little he was getting for the character he sold off when he was young and had no means or handle on how to retain more ownership of. It must have galled him no end to be treated like "thanx buddy, get your check at the cashier. We'll call if we need anything else from you." ANy one of us would feel the same anger.

 

DC et al certainly were never looking out for S&S from the beginning, rather , just breaking off bonus chunks of the proceeds at their disgression. They were being generous, in their minds, while sharing the profits outside of any legal obligation. But, voluntarily generous as it may have been, it was still pennies on the dollar.

 

Overall, though, in hindsight, Id say that S&S did okay on their creation. There was no way that Superman would have become SUPERMAN without a well heeled corporation to foot the costs of publication etc. And the money guys demand and get the lions share of the proceeds for their investment gambles.

 

S&S had already been turned down by all the other viable publishers; they had little choice but to take the offer they got. Best option would have merely to add a clause that theyd get a larger % of any profits above some absurdly high number..

 

I think DC would have signed it if they'd asked.

 

 

a similar thing happened with the first Blair Witch film. The filmmakers took a smaller upfront payment for the film at Sundance from a small new indie distributor rather than a bigger number from a studio owned classics division. But in return, they demanded a large % of any profits over 20 or 30 million in grosses (that was a huge number for a small budget indie horror film.

 

well, sure enough, they were in court a year later with the filmmakers demanding 30 million bucks as their share of the profits. And they won.

 

Im not sure they ever collected it all but thats Hollywood.

 

and I dont think that "longshot" clause is used any more.

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

This was a demonstration of greed at its worst. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

The greed aspect is attached to all parties involved, it's inevitable. And aman is right that in hindsight, nearly everyone would feel jilted having given away such a golden ticket no matter what the terms.

 

Looks like the proper decision was made though so that's good, hopefully will put an end to the saga.

[AtlasFan]

I wonder if Neal Adams will get a piece of that...

[esquirecomics]

One also has to, in my opinion, separate this story into two chapters.

 

The first is the relationship of S&S with DC and whether the treatment was fair or not. People will feel differently on this topic but one of the things I emphasize is that the vast majority of people did not, particularly when this debate was going on in the 1970s, and even still do not know today a lot of the story.

 

This first chapter includes the 1947 litigation, the 1969 litigation and the settlement that was negotiated and accepted by all parties in the 1970s. So far as I know, S&S, though perhaps still privately gripping that even more money should have come their way as additional Superman products appeared, were relatively accepting of the arrangement until their deaths in 1992 and 1996. If anyone else knows otherwise, please do contribute.

 

A settlement is a settlement. Plain and simple. Its too bad, whether it involves the creation of Superman or a resolution of whether your neighbor can place solar panels on their roof when the HOA doesn't want it, if a party after the settlement remains unhappy. It was a settlement. A legally binding contract where a meeting of the minds occurred.

 

The second chapter does not involve S&S. They are deceased. Now its the family and the family alone. Mostly people involved had absolutely nothing to do with the creation, development or growth of the character.

 

What happens. The law changes. Just like it did in the 1960s that led to the second lawsuit. Why did that second lawsuit fail in the 1970s? Because the first lawsuit SETTLED the ownership.

 

Nevertheless, the law changed and heirs had greater rights to pursue than before. For the Shuster family, the evidence was clear they were very happy with the current arrangement and the multiple bonus payments DC made with absolutely no obligation to do so. Letter after letter assured DC they had no intention of suing or recapturing any aspect of Shuster's rights. Just keep the payments coming and we're happy.

 

For Siegel's family, the negotiations started anew. And yet another settlement was reached. And it was reached with a meeting of the minds between the parties in 2001. All was well. Everyone was comfortable with the result.

 

Enter into both pictures a common denominator. All of a sudden Shuster's family seeks to terminate DC ownership rights and sues. All of a sudden Siegel's family renounces the settlement agreement they had reached and sues.

 

Shuster's family loses the lawsuit. Their prior intent from the letters was clear the court said.

 

Siegel's family loses the lawsuit. Their prior intent with the 2001 settlement was clear the court said.

 

Two chapters. Different issues.

 

The first chapter is, and certainly how fans' views are shaped, driven by emotion and a sense of fairness. David vs. Goliath in many ways.

 

The second chapter is reflective of pure greed, manipulation, undue advantage and the invocation of false emotions involving ghosts of the past from the first chapter.

 

Did the first chapter end as it should? Maybe, maybe not.

 

Did the second chapter end as it should? So far I believe it did.

 

As far as the second chapter, it is a real shame how much was lost in the process, not only by the families in having to deal with years of litigation but also by the fans of Superman who saw the character change, and even suffer some might say, because of the legal necessity of DC to adapt and respond to the potential havoc that could have resulted had the litigation gone a different direction.

[Aman619]

wait, the changes to the copyright laws and the Siegels lawsuit to regain their 50% ended with them winning certain aspects of Superman that appeared in Action #1. Correct? And their victory entitled them to as yet uncalculated profits from those aspects they now own 50% of.

 

I believe the Siegels are still going to receive a check for their share of profits once DC finally figures out how much is due them.

 

Or did the latest Toberoff lawsuit loss toss out that prior victory too?

 

 

Wasnt Toberoff seeking far more (like ALL of Superman which he would co-own) and thats why they/he lost a bid for even greater rights?

 

[red rocks-migration]

This is just such a bad decision legally. The US recognized reversion rights to creators to protect creators from selling cheap by only allowing the creators to sell for say 30 years, after which the copyright returns to the creators. This is a new right the US recognized in the 90s to join world standards for protection of copyright (the rest of the world actually protects artists over corporations). The creators get the copyright back after the reversion period.

 

The corporations only out is to make a 'work for hire' where the copyright is always owned by the corporation from the beginning. But clearly in Action 1, the Siegels created Action 1 before they were employees. DC owns everything after Action 1 as works for hire, but they dont own the copyright to Action 1. There are reversion rights there.

 

This ruling appears pretty bogus. Just because Warner thought they had a meeting of the minds in bullet points in a settlement deal doesnt mean there truly was a meeting of the minds. Was their a fully signed deal? Why didnt this settlement get formally signed if everyone agreed to settle in 2001? Obviously the Siegels didnt sign in 2001 because they got a second opinion from a decent lawyer who told them they still control the Parts of Superman from Action 1.

 

The Siegel family should have got 100s of millions, not whatever this settlement got them. These judges who just create law and makeup agreements when there is no signed deal are just bad judges. They aren't looking at the actual facts and the law and making a sound decision, like obviously the trial court judge did.

[Point Five]

As far as the second chapter, it is a real shame how much was lost in the process, not only by the families in having to deal with years of litigation but also by the fans of Superman who saw the character change, and even suffer some might say, because of the legal necessity of DC to adapt and respond to the potential havoc that could have resulted had the litigation gone a different direction.

Mark, can you expand on this a bit? Maybe this is common knowledge, but I'm not sure what you're alluding to here. Color me intrigued...

 

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

As far as the second chapter, it is a real shame how much was lost in the process, not only by the families in having to deal with years of litigation but also by the fans of Superman who saw the character change, and even suffer some might say, because of the legal necessity of DC to adapt and respond to the potential havoc that could have resulted had the litigation gone a different direction.

Mark, can you expand on this a bit? Maybe this is common knowledge, but I'm not sure what you're alluding to here. Color me intrigued...

 

I am not answering for Mark, but it has been alluded that over the last decade DC didn`t give it`s all to Superman like Batman because of fear of losing ownership.

With Batman DC took the gloves off and has given 100 percent effort to make the character Batman the best it can be,while Superman they had their hands tied and couldn`t give a 100 percent effort.

 

[AtlasFan]

As far as the second chapter, it is a real shame how much was lost in the process, not only by the families in having to deal with years of litigation but also by the fans of Superman who saw the character change, and even suffer some might say, because of the legal necessity of DC to adapt and respond to the potential havoc that could have resulted had the litigation gone a different direction.

Mark, can you expand on this a bit? Maybe this is common knowledge, but I'm not sure what you're alluding to here. Color me intrigued...

 

I am not answering for Mark, but it has been alluded that over the last decade DC didn`t give it`s all to Superman like Batman because of fear of losing ownership.

With Batman DC took the gloves off and has given 100 percent effort to make the character Batman the best it can be,while Superman they had their hands tied and couldn`t give a 100 percent effort.

 

I don’t get this logic.

 

Regardless of pending litigation - as long as DC could make money by selling Superman comics, why would they not go out of their way to maximize their profits and make the Superman titles the best they could be? I can’t believe that they would hold back talent in order to intentionally make the Superman titles mediocre (at best). And if that was the case, why not just turn the Superman titles into reprint books - that would certainly be cheaper to print.

 

[sfcityduck]

I don't believe Zaid is a copyright attorney, and neither am I, but I believe he is speculating that DC made editorial decisions regarding the direction of the character intended to emphasize the aspects that DC would retain control of while de-emphasizing the aspects it would not. I'm not a current comic reader, but this might be seen in costume changes, retcons, Smallville tv, etc.