Jerry Siegel loses SuperMan copyright appeal

[Comicopolis]

Over the years certain people at DC royally screwed both Siegel and Shuster in a number of ways - just look at what happened over the creation of Superboy. Didn't Joe Shuster spend most of his time after DC in near poverty & Jerry Siegel end up with some menial job at Marvel?

 

But since they are both no longer with us it's time to put this dispute to bed and let DC continue putting out ridiculous rebooted versions of the Man of Steel.

[VintageComics]

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.

 

Yup. Nailed it.

[Aman619]

Over the years certain people at DC royally screwed both Siegel and Shuster in a number of ways - just look at what happened over the creation of Superboy. Didn't Joe Shuster spend most of his time after DC in near poverty & Jerry Siegel end up with some menial job at Marvel?

 

But since they are both no longer with us it's time to put this dispute to bed and let DC continue putting out ridiculous rebooted versions of the Man of Steel.

 

 

thats a bit unfair. S&S didnt get ownership of Superman, nor hundreds of millions, but they make an awful good living for a long time off of it. That they ended up poor was kinda their doing too.

 

think of someone you know who makes 300K in their 20s and thirties. Now flash forward to them in their fifties and they're broke. You really going to blame someone else for their situation when you a never had their good fortune or success and managed to secure your financial future without the windfall they experienced?

 

Yes I agree the system shafted them. But they got a good long taste of the High Life and neednt have ended up desolate.

[esquirecomics]

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?

 

The lawsuit loss by no means neutralizes the fact that the Siegel family will still financially profit. The change in copyright law, and the subsequent 2001 settlement that will presumably ultimately become a force of law, will ensure that to be the case.

 

What happened in the last ten years was an attempt to almost completely pull the character from DC and have it taken over by the Siegel family (50% ownership) and Toberoff (50%), although aspects of the character that were not created by S&S (kryptonite, Krypto, Legion, etc) were not part of the dispute.

[esquirecomics]

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.

 

On what basis are you making any of these claims? With all due respect, not only are your historical facts incorrect but you have misunderstood the analysis and meaning of the 9th Circuit decision.

[esquirecomics]

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.

 

Yup. Nailed it.

 

(thumbs u

 

There was a concerted effort by DC to develop the character in a way that separated the content from the factual areas that were potentially going to be controlled by Siegel/Toberoff.

 

If you're an original Star Trek fan, it is like Kirk in the episode "The Enemy Within".

[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.

 

On what basis are you making any of these claims? With all due respect, not only are your historical facts incorrect but you have misunderstood the analysis and meaning of the 9th Circuit decision.

 

what facts are incorrect? Its undisputed Siegel and Shuster created Superman before they sold it to DC, so at least the first superman story could not have been a work for hire. So the Siegel family had to have reversion rights to the character when the copyright DC bought expired.

 

Its conclusory to say 'your facts are incorrect' without actually stating what facts are incorrect. Its like you havent said anything at all of merit.

 

So the question is, did the Siegel family negotiate away these rights in the year 2000 in these settlement discussions? (in the unsigned settlement agreement.) The ninth circuit ruling sounds like they are saying Siegel's family settled away these reversion rights in an unsigned settlement negotiation around the year 2000.

 

This is so lame for the 9th circuit to side with DC on that one, these family members probably had a bad lawyer and got a second opinion. That is why they never signed the settlement. I mean shouldn't the court actually require a clear sign off on contracts to make them valid, especially when you are giving up multimillion dollar ownership of a character like Superman?

[mrmyst]

[esquirecomics]

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.

 

On what basis are you making any of these claims? With all due respect, not only are your historical facts incorrect but you have misunderstood the analysis and meaning of the 9th Circuit decision.

 

what facts are incorrect? Its undisputed Siegel and Shuster created Superman before they sold it to DC, so at least the first superman story could not have been a work for hire. So the Siegel family had to have reversion rights to the character when the copyright DC bought expired.

 

Its conclusory to say 'your facts are incorrect' without actually stating what facts are incorrect. Its like you havent said anything at all of merit.

 

So the question is, did the Siegel family negotiate away these rights in the year 2000 in these settlement discussions? (in the unsigned settlement agreement.) The ninth circuit ruling sounds like they are saying Siegel's family settled away these reversion rights in an unsigned settlement negotiation around the year 2000.

 

This is so lame for the 9th circuit to side with DC on that one, these family members probably had a bad lawyer and got a second opinion. That is why they never signed the settlement. I mean shouldn't the court actually require a clear sign off on contracts to make them valid, especially when you are giving up multimillion dollar ownership of a character like Superman?

 

First of all, you are the one who made the claims challenging the merits of the decision. You called the ruling a "bad decision legally" and "bogus". With all due respect, you should have to support your premise, not that I have to demonstrate why you are wrong.

 

That said, it does not legally make a difference that Siegel and Shuster created the concept years before. They sold the pages and rights to the character as a work-for-hire to DC. Plain and simple. There is no dispute about this fact, whether you disagree or not. The Westchester Supreme Court ruled this way in 1947. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled this way in 1971 (give or take a year). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this way in 1974 (give or take a year). And so has the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the current litigation.

 

So, with all due respect, I do not really need to say anything of merit to comment on your claim that it was a "bad decision legally" or "bogus" without you explaining why your position is correct and all these judges who have ruled the same way over the course of 66 years are wrong. Simply because you do not like the policy result and believe it is "lame" is insufficient to support an argument.

 

The Siegel family did not negotiate away the rights in 2000. They had no rights until Congress in its infinite wisdom modified the Copyright Act to allow heirs to terminate the work-for-hire ownership and have the rights revert back to the creator. They attempted to exercise their termination rights in or around 1997. But they negotiated with DC (well, really Warner Brothers, everyone seems to forget DC was purchased way back in 1968) in good faith while represented by legal counsel to address the termination. Your assertion that they had a "bad lawyer" because they apparently agreed to a settlement is completely defamatory unless you know something the rest of us do not.

 

And, no, one does not need to actually sign a contract to have a meeting of the minds and create a legally binding obligation. The agreement did not get signed apparently because the Siegel's current lawyer intervened and unfortunately persuaded them otherwise, to their clear detriment.

 

It should also be noted that the only rights that would have reverted were those facets of Superman that Siegel created, and those were limited. Most of the attributes of Superman, as well as the surrounding characters, that we now know were created and owned by DC. For example, Kryptonite, Krypto, Lana Lang, etc.

 

Nor is the family poor by any means. I would imagine they are multi-millionaires by now.

 

In my opinion, people need to stop pitying them.

[red rocks-migration]

the copyright law is clear, it was changed in the 80's or 90's to protect creators from selling cheaply.

 

a copyright gives two terms of protection to its creator, the first term is for 30 something years and a second term of 30 something years. The second term can not be sold by the creator until the 30 some years pass. (I think these terms have been extended)

 

if a work is for hire, the company is the creator and owns both terms of copyright ownership.

 

But, if a work is not a work for hire, then the creators own the copyright can not sell the second term until the 30 some years passes.

 

the creators can only sell the first term of the copyright to a company. They legally are not allowed to sell the second term.

 

SO, because it is clear Siegel created superman before they sold it to DC, siegel could not have sold the second term.

 

That means the Siegel family should never have settled because they owned the Superman first story. It seems clear to me they had a bad lawyer who gave them bad advice in the settlement negotiations and the Siegel family got a second opinion.

 

Why else do you think the studio has spent a decade making no superman movies? They dodged a bullet and got very lucky!

 

 

[Sqeggs]

 

Why else do you think the studio has spent a decade making no superman movies? They dodged a bullet and got very lucky!

 

 

Well, there was Superman Returns, which came out in 2006. I'm inclined to think it was the poor reception that movie received, rather than worries about copyright issues that kept WB from making more Superman movies.

[esquirecomics]

the copyright law is clear, it was changed in the 80's or 90's to protect creators from selling cheaply.

 

a copyright gives two terms of protection to its creator, the first term is for 30 something years and a second term of 30 something years. The second term can not be sold by the creator until the 30 some years pass. (I think these terms have been extended)

 

if a work is for hire, the company is the creator and owns both terms of copyright ownership.

 

But, if a work is not a work for hire, then the creators own the copyright can not sell the second term until the 30 some years passes.

 

the creators can only sell the first term of the copyright to a company. They legally are not allowed to sell the second term.

 

SO, because it is clear Siegel created superman before they sold it to DC, siegel could not have sold the second term.

 

That means the Siegel family should never have settled because they owned the Superman first story. It seems clear to me they had a bad lawyer who gave them bad advice in the settlement negotiations and the Siegel family got a second opinion.

 

Why else do you think the studio has spent a decade making no superman movies? They dodged a bullet and got very lucky!

 

So basically you are not going to substantively respond to my comments nor come up with legal analysis to support your conclusory assertions.

 

Chalk it up to their having a "bad lawyer". Ignore the numerous court decision on the topic.

 

Fine, that's your personal opinion. We'll leave it at that.

[ComicConnoisseur]

 

Why else do you think the studio has spent a decade making no superman movies? They dodged a bullet and got very lucky!

 

 

Well, there was Superman Returns, which came out in 2006. I'm inclined to think it was the poor reception that movie received, rather than worries about copyright issues that kept WB from making more Superman movies.

 

I went back and done some digging, and found that the box office of

Superman Returns = Worldwide: $391,081,192

 

Superman Returns beat

Wolverine= Worldwide: $373,062,864

Captain America= Worldwide: $368,608,363

Watchmen = Worldwide: $185,258,983

at the box office,

but while Wolverine,Captain America and Watchmen were considered successful we keep hearing how Superman Returns bombed!

I wlll also be interested to see if Superman Man of Steel does

Worldwide: $391,081,192 like Superman Returns did?

[Aman619]

if your moviw costs 50 million to make and distribute and you gross 350M, you have a hit. But if your film cost you 250M to create and distribute and ONLY gross 393M? you lose money. or you squirrelled away some small profit, but your film is rightly deemed a failure.

 

and when you spend 250M to make your movie and it grosses LESS than that? you are the father of a turkey.

[Aman619]

my point being, total worldwide gross is meaningless except when compared against your costs, like ANY business venture.

[Sqeggs]

And, in fact, Boxofficemojo gives the production budget as $270 million. When the production budget exceeds the domestic (North American) gross, I think you have a serious problem.

 

I don't know the details of how it works and I would guess it varies from film to film, but my understanding is that studios receive a smaller cut of the non-North American box office.

[Aman619]

in general, the studios make money in many ways that affect profit and profit participants. They are paid the "film rental", which is their cut of the box office (the theatres get a share too, plus, ALL popcorn/concession sales. On average, a studio collects about 50%.

 

They also take distribution fees and other costs off the top, week by week... like a retainer, for all the overhead for marketing and distribution overhead, -- execs, offices and expenses. So as the dollars come in, much they get paid first, diverting it OUT of the "profit participation pool". And they can collect interest for their share of the investment in the film as finance charges. Talent can be included in these payouts, based on their clout, but these deals are harder to get now than they were decades ago as fewer stars etc can guarantee big openings..

 

So, basically, the box office gross can only be used as just a rough guesstimate as to how badly a studio was hurt by a failure, or pocketed in a runaway success.

 

Also, lately, he foreign grosses, which used to be estimated as equal to the final domestic gross have far surpassed that. International markets have piled on hundreds of millions more than domestic totals on the big films, and many of the US bombs, bailing out the studios.

 

This is just an overview of course, but, the studios have many tools in their belt to ensure a win in all but the most horrible box office disasters.

[Sqeggs]

in general, the studios make money in many ways that affect profit and profit participants. They are paid the "film rental", which is their cut of the box office (the theatres get a share too, plus, ALL popcorn/concession sales. On average, a studio collects about 50%.

 

They also take distribution fees and other costs off the top, week by week... like a retainer, for all the overhead for marketing and distribution overhead, -- execs, offices and expenses. So as the dollars come in, much they get paid first, diverting it OUT of the "profit participation pool". And they can collect interest for their share of the investment in the film as finance charges. Talent can be included in these payouts, based on their clout, but these deals are harder to get now than they were decades ago as fewer stars etc can guarantee big openings..

 

So, basically, the box office gross can only be used as just a rough guesstimate as to how badly a studio was hurt by a failure, or pocketed in a runaway success.

 

Also, lately, he foreign grosses, which used to be estimated as equal to the final domestic gross have far surpassed that. International markets have piled on hundreds of millions more than domestic totals on the big films, and many of the US bombs, bailing out the studios.

 

This is just an overview of course, but, the studios have many tools in their belt to ensure a win in all but the most horrible box office disasters.

 

Much lower than 50%, I thought, on non-NA box office.

[ComicConnoisseur]

And, in fact, Boxofficemojo gives the production budget as $270 million. When the production budget exceeds the domestic (North American) gross, I think you have a serious problem.

 

I don't know the details of how it works and I would guess it varies from film to film, but my understanding is that studios receive a smaller cut of the non-North American box office.

The Man of Steel`s budget is at $225,000,000

Superman Man of Steel

 

For WB to spend over $200,000,000 again shows me that Superman Returns did turn a profit.

What some forget is Superman Returns does and continues to get showed over and over again on countless cable networks, and had great blu-ray and dvd sales.

Also I remember that the Superman Returns video game was a huge seller.

I am calling Superman Returns was profitable.It just wasn`t Batman type profitable,so that is why it got the bad rap.

 

[BR-migration]

Great stuff here -- I like Mark's idea of the lawsuit being in "two chapters."

 

Jerry and Joe did make a lot of money initially, but it was gone by the late forties. Hey, you can read all about it in my book! Comes out in June:

 

http://us.macmillan.com/superboys/BradRicca

 

Much of my education on the GA was done on these boards -- the best in the world -- owe a lot to the fine folks here. Hope to see some of you in SD.

 

-Brad