Heirs Of Superman Creators Appeal To Try To Get The Half Of The Baby The Judge Didn't Give Them
from the how-super-is-that dept
We've been following the various legal battles over copyright termination rights with great interest, as it's a pretty big meteor heading towards various content companies -- especially record labels (why do you think Bronfman wants to sell Warner Music?) and movie studios. If you're unfamiliar with the deal, it's a bit complex and down in the weeds, but a (greatly) simplified version is that current copyright law lets the original creators of works have a termination right in those works, meaning that after a certain period of time, they can "reclaim" those works, and basically take back the copyright if they originally had assigned it to someone else (such as a big company). This right cannot be negotiated away. There is a big exception, however, which is that it doesn't apply to "works for hire" (and a few other exceptions which we won't get into). Of course, the exceptions were decided somewhat randomly, basically by whose lobbyists were the loudest at the time.For years, the record labels regretted not having label musicians included as "works-for-hire," eventually leading to the famous case of a staffer sneaking language into an unrelated bill in the middle of the night, which extended such rules to musicians. That plan almost worked until musicians found out about it, freaked out, and had the law very quickly rolled back. I tend to think that termination rights are silly and really don't make that much sense to me. However, they're a symptom of the real problem: which is that copyright law is too damn long. Thus given the existing length of copyright, then I can see that termination rights are better than no such rights, because at least it gets the copyright back to the artist (or the artist's heirs), and if someone has to have such unnecessary monopoly protections, it might as well be the artist.
The issue is that an awful lot of these terminations are about to come due, and the entertainment industry is, to put it mildly, freaking out. The big case to follow has been the one trying to terminate the rights to Superman by the heirs of Superman's creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. In 2009, the court sided with the estate of Jerry Siegel, deciding that Superman wasn't a work for hire, and thus the termination rights existed. However, the court did a bit of Solomonic baby-splicing, in that it made it clear that the terminations could only cover certain parts of Superman. However, that's apparently presenting something of a problem for the heirs (and the lawyer, Marc Toberoff, who many consider to be the main driving force behind these terminations, and who had set up a business to exploit such "reclaimed" rights). So, they're appealing, to try to get even more rights. As THREsq explains:
Throughout years of legal maneuvers (including Warners' still-pending lawsuit against the heirs' lawyer Marc Toberoff for allegedly interfering with contracts), it has never been determined whether the Shusters and Siegels can take back other key elements of the Superman mythology, such as Lex Luthor and Kryptonite.Of course, the better question is why Superman isn't in the public domain by now.
That makes it difficult for Toberoff and his clients to peddle Superman rights to another studio (and pressure Warners into a settlement). So he's now appealing the limited grant of rights to the 9th Circuit, hoping that the appeals court will finally determine who owns what.
"It's cutting to the chase," Toberoff us, adding "it is widely recognized that Judge Larson's rulings on summary judgment largely favored the Siegels in upholding the validity of their termination as to Action Comics No.1, containing the core Superman format and characters."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, marc toberoff, superman, termination
Companies: warner bros.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Original script.
When the last Superman movie came out, people were rather surprised to see an "emo" man portraying the Man of Steel.
They hated the movie, and rightfully so.
But what they didn't realize was the script was changed at the last minute. Here's a snipped.
Lois Lane: "You never did explain why you left. Care to now?"
Superman: "You're right, dear. You see, I'm awesome. I can fly. I can withstand bullets. I'm practically indestructible. But no matter how much crime I stopped, lawyers using intellectual property laws in their favor constantly wiped me out. As a man who stands for Truth, Honor, and the American Way, it was time I left if this bullshit is what I was really fighting for. It became too depressing."
I'm not sure why the script was changed, but I liked the original and believable version better.
By the way: dibs on the spandex that's so out of date, Superman looks more like Pansyman.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The better question:
Won't you PLEASE think of the lawyers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Parody is Fair Use right?
Sing along, boys and girls
Who's the reason
trademark law's
extended constantly?
M-I-C, K-E-Y, M-O-U-S-E!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The better question:
"HA!" I replied, with a capital H, a capital A and a capital exclamation mark.
(Yes, I know you are joking, Jay, but I've had this little joke reply in my head all evening and I've been dying to find an excuse to use it!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is great...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baby-splicing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Heirs???
If you have ever read the oldest Superman comics you begin to see how little the original character resembles his many later incarnations. As created, in the 1930's, he was simply a very, very strong man. He could be hurt, he had his limitations and he could NOT fly! I too believe Superman's creators were treated in a shabby manner. But exactly why their descendants, removed by 80 years from the event in question, should automatically receive a great deal of money is not clear to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Baby-splicing?
Two women claiming a baby is theirs. King Solomon orders the baby to be cut in half so each woman can half half the baby. First woman says "Fine!" second woman says "No! Give her the baby, but don't cut it in half! That'll kill it!" and thus it was worked out that the second woman was the baby's mother because of how much she cared about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The better question:
I think of the lawyers frequently. Unfortunately, what I think of them would not be acceptable to post here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Termination rights
i) They happened MUCH sooner - say 5 years.
ii) They were available to the original artist only - not to his/her heirs. (seeing they can't be transferred by negotiation it makes no sense to ransfer them by inheritance.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
i suspect, unless their is major changes to copyright law, IP's will never slip into the public domain ever again. the creator's or their families will want to milk their work for as long as they can, and find loopholes to prevent PD.
I mean Tolkien's work should be public domain by now, but his son will never allow it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The better question:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Because the I Got You Babe, dude and Disney got the law changed to make copyright longer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Heirs???
Precisely! I recall a post on techdirt about how Fitzgerald's grand-children made more in royalties off of The Great Gatsby than he did, even adjusted for inflation.
Copyright is about creating incentives for creative works, right? What incentive is there for Fitzgerald's grandkids to write books? Would owning the copyright on Superman encourage Siegel or Shuster to make any comics?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"The Mouse shall not enter the public domain...the Mouse shall not enter the public domain..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DC control the canon
DC control the canon, therefore they control the character. The only way to follow the story of the character is to follow the individual DC publications, which DC (presumably) still have individual copyright on.
The only danger here is that someone will out-innovate DC, producing better comics and a more popular version of the character. Nobody can do that. Nobody can innovate with the Superman character because of copyright.
Copyright is pretty much provably stifling innovation, here.
Did I miss anything?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The better question:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Superman heirs are up in the night.
Lana Lang, Pete Ross, Krypto, Chloe Sullivan are all post Siegel and Shuster. All the storyline impacting team ups, like Batman/Superman (World's Finest), The legion of Superheroes, the frakkin' Justice League! And finally, ALL the villains. ALL of them, not just Lex Luther, save a very tiny few that are hardly worth mentioning are not and never have been the property of the Siegel or Shuster estate. Superman himself might not have changed that much but almost every storyline specific event, character, and association that defines the look and feel of the character known as Superman did not originate with Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
Finally, if Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were alive today, I would have a lot more sympathy. The original creators would at least be justified in furthering the Superman property in a direction they may have originally intended, but their heirs? Creativity and love for one's own accomplishments isn't passed down to heirs like nuemonic memory. The heirs didn't spend countless hours, or years sculpting a character through all the good and bad times, (The late 80's were very dark for Superman). And the heirs definately didn't win the The Will Eisner Comic Industry Award!
Screw the heirs.
Thank you,
Ron Morris
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Heirs???
Note that someone late in their life or facing a terminal illness has no incentive to create from a copyright law that will only reward them in life, particularly if it seems to them likely that their work will not be published until after they are dead. (Which is not to say that they do not have other incentives, or that the incentive from copyright law is necessary or even that it is directly felt by most content creators.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Heirs???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So why can't I get it back (without paying for it) by claiming it's my dad's IP and therefore should revert to me since he died?
If it's good for intangible published crap it should be good for tangible stuff. Right? Right?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Superman heirs are up in the night.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why again don't we like termination rights?
Take a comic book (or, for that matter, any serialized work). Each issue is copyrighted. Say we are using a 56-year copyright term. After the first 28 years, the right to the renewal term belongs to the author's family. So they can now resell that right, say to a new publisher, who can create a new serial starting with (and derivative of) the issue in which she or he owns the rights.
But that need not kill off the first publisher: as long as they do not create any further works derivative of the first issue, they may continue to create works derivative of later coming issues in which they continue to own the rights (provided those issues are not themselves derivative of the first issue). So the renewal term (and concommitant termination right) permits there to be two "alternate universes" of derivative works. Has this been tested (for instance, by the assignee of the renewal term suing the original publisher for creating derivative works based on derivative works based on derivative works that eventually harken back to the original)?
Incidentally, renewals ended in 2005, which means termination claims for pre-1978 works should all be in or expired by 2010. Later-coming works have a 25- or 35-year one-shot termination. Those are the ones that Hollywood et al. are concerned about: not Superman, but maybe Manhunter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Baby-splicing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Heirs???
As for Siegels Superman not resembling the versions that came later I disagree. I've read the early comics, and pretty much everything is there.
Going back to the early 30's Siegel had worked out a back story that showed Clark Kent as kid struggling to find his place in the world - rejected by his peers ala modern day Smallville. This had an alternative origin where Superman came from Earth's distant future.
Siegel certainly invented Lex Luthor.
by 1940 he'd written K-Metal, a story that created Kryptonite by another name - K-metal took away Superman's powers and gave strength to normal humans.
While Superman started out leaping his powers grew under Siegels pen to include flight, and heat vision.
The only significant thing that DC can claim to own is the current version of 'S' Shield
[ link to this | view in thread ]
copyright on a character?
I guess it comes from how copyright covers derivative works, and I'm still not sure why that is.
At least I understand copyright as applied to the original expression, but why should it cover a brand new creation which just takes ideas from that expression and builds on them?
I think I'm venting and these are rhetorical for this audience, but if you've got something to add, please do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If Superman Were To Fall Into The Public Domain ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: DC control the canon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
heirs of superman
Superman today, like Superman of yesteryear, came from the doomed planet Krypton. His parents were Jor-L(El) and Lara. He was raised on Earth by a childless farm couple named Kent and they named him Clark. Both old and new versions of Superman wear a costume comprised of blue tights, external red briefs, red boots and a red cape. He has a yellow belt and an "S" shield on his chest. He has a dual identity. He's a mild-mannered reporter or a great metropolitan newspaper.
It doesn't matter that over the years he was powered up, or powered down, or could or couldn't fly, or did or didn't have x-ray vision. The fundamental truths of Superman still remain to this day. A child today could recognize Superman of 1938 and vice versa.
Lana Lang, Pete Ross and Krypto were all created for the Superboy comics, not Superman comics. As for Chloe Sullivan, she's utterly valueless beyond Smallville, and even in that venue overused.
[ link to this | view in thread ]