FOIA Heroes At The FBI Protect Superman's Privacy; Refuse To Hand Over Secret Identity To Requester

from the ol'-FBI-FOIA-FU dept

Following an FOIA lawsuit against the FBI, Emma Best is raking in agency documents dealing with the Church of Scientology. The FBI doesn't care much for FOIA requesters and the informal policy on handling released documents is to redact as much as possible and hope the redactions aren't challenged.

Sadly, there's not much subtlety or attention to detail deployed when redacting documents prior to release. It appears that the FBI's FOIA response personnel are trained to redact anything that looks like a person's name, whether or not it actually needs to be redacted. This almost-automatic redaction technique has led to the most ridiculous of results: the FBI has engaged in the proactive protection of Superman's secret identity.

Included in a batch of Scientology docs is a letter [PDF] to the Los Angeles District Attorney's office. This was apparently sent to steer the DA's office away from investigating complaints about the Church's overzealous pursuit of former members and critics. The letter attempts to paint a former member as some sort of crazy person pushing ridiculous conspiracy theories via an affidavit being circulated to press and law enforcement.

The letter claims "Wally" (a pseudonym given by the Church) is attempting to "cash in on the popularity" of Scientology with a narrative containing so much "comic book flair" the letter's author decided to include a short vignette of the affidavit being reviewed by a mild-mannered reporter at the offices of his employer, The Daily Planet.

This faux screenplay underwent FBI FOIA surgery, redacting the full names of every fictional character (although Jimmy Olsen's surname does slip through once). The end result looks for all the world as though the FBI truly felt Superman's secret identity needed to be withheld for privacy reasons.

Here's the opening of the short scene, featuring its very famous -- and very fake -- setting.

As MuckRock's J. Pat Brown points out, we can be sure it is Clark Kent/Superman (rather than reporter Lois Lane) underneath the redactions because of this unredacted "Mr."

Emma Best, in a statement to Gizmodo, points out this farcical set of redactions is, at best, a demonstration of the FBI's apparently willful incompetence when it comes to FOIA response.

There are no explanations for this aside from gross incompetence, negligence, and/or bad faith. Even if this were an innocent mistake, the slightest amount of due diligence and research would have shown that the Daily Planet is fictional. Admiral Hardy’s FOIA staff at FBI couldn’t be bothered.

When you're only begrudgingly engaging in your statutory responsibilities, these things happen and all names -- even the fictional ones -- are lazily withheld under privacy exemptions that can't possibly apply.

Filed Under: foia, privacy, superman

A Fan's Case For Putting Batman & Superman In The Public Domain

from the great-idea,-sadly-not-gonna-happen dept

Let me start by saying it's obvious that this isn't going to happen. Nevertheless, let's consider the idea: should DC put its flagship superheroes in the public domain? Alex Schmidt over at Cracked (the comedy site that has caught our attention with its understanding of these kinds of topics before) makes the compelling case that they should in a new video that's worth watching:

The crux of the argument is that these iconic characters currently appear to be in a bit of a death spiral. Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman met with a mixed-at-best response from fans and critics, and while both made good money in the big picture, they also showed some worrying signs — like failing to catch up to Marvel's superhero movies (which was the whole point) and breaking records of audience drop-off between the much-hyped opening night and the following week (when word begins to get around that the movie sucks). Schmidt is not the first to attribute this to the creators' disdain for the characters: Zack Snyder has openly expressed his lack of real interest in Batman and Superman, and made it clear that he doesn't really understand their appeal. Writer David Goyer has made similar comments. And the same people are already hard at work on the follow-up Justice League films, which seem unlikely to break the pattern of mediocrity.

So, the proposal goes, DC needs to do something drastic to revive the franchise, and the most drastic and positive thing they could do would be to put the characters into the public domain (where they were supposed to be as of a few years ago, were it not for the infamous Mickey Mouse copyright extension). Opening up the characters to other creators would result in a huge variety of new work involving them, and still wouldn't stop DC from working their own massive film franchise, especially by making use of all the later storylines and details about the characters that would still be under copyright.

Of course, there are a few problems with Schmidt's argument. He points to other big public domain characters like Robin Hood, Dracula and Sherlock Holmes, and cites Holmes especially as an example of a character who has been revived to massive popularity through adaptations by other creators. But that example is flawed, because Holmes only recently entered the public domain (mostly), and both the Robert Downey Jr. movies and the insanely popular BBC series actually did license Holmes from the Doyle estate. DC has even felt some of this pain itself — the video points to the League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen comics as a prime example of new creators using public domain characters, but those comics actually did face various release issues due to the questionable copyright status of Victorian-era characters including Holmes. Robin Hood and Dracula are both excellent examples though, and they chart a course for the direction Holmes is likely to go now that the estate's control has been eroded.

Now, as I said at the outset, this obviously isn't going to happen — it flies directly in the face of the copyright orthodoxy that rules Hollywood and so much of our culture. We can instead settle in for several more years of middling cash-grab films that irritate existing fans of the characters and fail to create new ones. But it's great to see a site like Cracked — a pillar of the fandom communities that fawn over these beloved superheroes and lend a serious critical eye to every execution of them — recognize that loosening the reins would be a much, much better idea.

Filed Under: batman, competition, copyright, creativity, public domain, superman
Companies: dc

DC Comics Refuses To Let Superman Logo Adorn The Headstone Of A Young Child Who Was Starved To Death [Updated]

from the copyright-as-kryptonite dept

Please see update at the bottom

Superheroes: they're awesome. While they are often conflicted, they stand for truth and justice, protecting the fictional masses from unseen evils without so much as a paycheck. You know, like Edward Snowden, but with masks and bikini briefs and whatnot. Children, in particular, love superheroes, because they're still young enough to not yet have had their view of humanity deflated through the experience of living. Still, even for those reading the most tragic of stories, there is an important lesson to be learned: superheroes are awesome, but the people who own them aren't.

You can't meet Jeffrey Baldwin of Ottawa, because at five years old he was the victim of his own grandparents, who starved him to death. But if you could meet Jeffrey, he'd probably tell you all about Superman. See, Jeffrey loved the Man of Steel so much that members of his community that had never even met him were moved to provide for a memorial statue in his name, with the Kryptonian "S" on the boy's chest. Todd Boyce, who had been taken with Jeffrey's death and the testimony in his trial, tried to do the right thing and contacted DC Comics to get their blessing.

The request to the comic books publisher had been made by Todd Boyce, an Ottawa father who did not know the Baldwin family. Boyce was so moved by the testimony at the coroner’s inquest into Jeffrey’s death last year that he started an online fundraising campaign for the monument.

You already know what comes next, don't you? DC Comics wrote a polite but still utterly infuriating reply that essentially said, "Nope!" This reply cited a "variety of legal reasons" that likely boils down to copyright and trademark rights. And, from DC's standpoint, I'm sure they also considered the sudden flood of requests they'd get from people who would also like to have Superman's logo on their headstones, family crests, and all the rest. But, seriously, we really couldn't have figured out a way to get a little Superman on Jeffrey's memorial statue? Superman was created over eighty years ago, but we're still at a place where we can't let a child have his hero moment, even in death?

For Boyce, it was a huge blow, as he felt the Superman aspect was a crucial part of the bronze monument, which will include a bench. The coroner’s inquest heard from Jeffrey’s father that his son loved to dress up as Superman.

“I’m sort of empathetic to (DC’s) point of view on this, but I feel very strongly that the image of Jeffrey is so powerful,” said Boyce. “It’s the image of a vulnerable boy dressed up as the most invulnerable character in the universe. So I just feel like there’s something lost if we change it.” Boyce said he understood DC’s stance, in that he felt they didn’t want the Superman character associated with child abuse.

That's very understanding of Boyce, but what!?!? If DC's legal reasons for this refusal have anything to do with not wanting the logo to be associated with child abuse, then we have some lawyers on our hands that are serious candidates for lobotomies. This is a child victim we're talking about, the kind of person the fictional Superman would damn well have stood up for. It's too bad Superman's real-life owners don't share those same convictions.

Update: And... as is often the case following public shamings, DC has now relented and will allow the use of the logo.

Filed Under: child abuse, copyright, dc comics, headstone, jeffrey baldwin, logo, superheroes, superman, tombstone, trademark
Companies: dc comics

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.

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."

Of course, the better question is why Superman isn't in the public domain by now.

Filed Under: copyright, marc toberoff, superman, termination
Companies: warner bros.

Superman Lawyer Claims Warner Bros. Lawsuit Is A SLAPP

from the slapp-back dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about the odd decision of Warner Bros. studio to personally sue Marc Toberoff, the lawyer who successfully represented the heirs of the creators of Superman to win back some of their copyright, by using copyright's termination rules. Toberoff is making a career of this, and has been helping numerous other content creators start the process of reclaiming rights using the termination process -- which makes him somewhat... disliked in the entertainment industry. Still, to sue him personally seemed quite extreme. As we noted at the time, the lawsuit seemed to be based on the idea that Toberoff is a jerk and a savvy business person. As we noted at the time, that doesn't appear to be illegal.

Not surprisingly, Toberoff agrees, and he's filed to dismiss the lawsuit under California's anti-SLAPP law (one of the most comprehensive anti-SLAPP state laws), claiming that the entire lawsuit is just an attempt to shut him up. Matthew Belloni, at the link above, isn't convinced this is a real SLAPP situation, but notes that it could make the case a lot more interesting, as Warner Bros., will likely have to prove its case much faster than planned. And, if Toberoff wins, he could also win legal fees and open up a stronger case for Toberoff to file a countersuit for "malicious prosecution." If this goes according to Toberoff's plan, Warner Bros. might regret this particular lawsuit even more than they regret losing some of the rights to Superman...

Filed Under: copyright, marc toberoff, slapp, superman, termination
Companies: warner bros.

Warner Bros. So Distraught Over Losing Superman Rights, It Personally Sues The Lawyer Who Won

from the getting-a-bit-personal dept

We've covered the ongoing fight over copyright termination rights lately, as it's quickly becoming a big deal. While the whole concept shows part of how messed up copyright law has become, one element included to help artists (rather than just big companies) when copyright terms were extended, were opportunities for the original artists or their estates to "terminate" the assignment of copyright to a company. The details are highly technical and a bit of a mess, and the entertainment industry has worked hard for years to try to bury termination rights (most famously when the RIAA had a Congressional staffer -- who was hired just months later to a high-paying RIAA job -- slip some text into a bill in the middle of the night that took termination rights away from musicians, until musicians freaked out and Congress backtracked). Even so, the big entertainment industry companies have been fighting against every attempt at artists or their estates reclaiming their copyrights for years. The most famous case was the case over Superman's rights -- which concluded last year with the estate of Jerry Siegel winning back certain rights (while letting Warner retain other Superman-related rights).

The lawyer who represented the Siegel estate, Marc Toberoff, has been pushing content creators and their estates to understand (and make use of) termination rights for a long time. And it's no surprise that we're now seeing new efforts under way from musicians and others, including comic book artist Jack Kirby. Kirby, not surprisingly, is also represented by Toberoff, who isn't just representing these artists in helping them get back their copyrights, but he's apparently set up his own production studio to help make use of those copyrights once he helps the artists get them back.

Apparently, Warner Bros. (a frequent target of Toberoff) has had enough and has decided to sue Toberoff personally, claiming that... well... basically that he's a jerk and a savvy business person, which I didn't quite realize was illegal. Specifically, they seem to be claiming that Toberoff "manipulated" the creators of Superman, having them hand over a large percentage of the rights to the character if he was able to successfully manage the termination. Part of Warner's complaint is that Siegel and Shuster had apparently signed agreements promising not to exercise their termination rights, but as I'm sure Warner's lawyers know (they must know this, right?), you cannot contractually give up your termination rights, or all entertainment industry companies would require that in their standard contract.

Frankly, reading through the complaint -- which you can read below -- it looks like Warner is attempting to retry the Superman termination rights case that it already lost: While I still think there are all sorts of problems with termination rights in copyright law, and have no doubt that Toberoff had plenty of reasons beyond helping artists get back their copyrights in agreeing to represent these artists, it is somewhat amusing to see Hollywood flail around so desperately to try to keep absolutely monopolistic control over these rights. Of course, if the copyright law that was in place when Superman was created was still in place, the character of Superman would no longer be covered by copyright at all today, but would, instead, be in the public domain. So, forgive me for feeling little sympathy for anyone involved in this tug of war over who gets to exploit the creation for more money.

Filed Under: copyright, hollywood, marc toberoff, movies, superman, termination rights
Companies: warner bros.

Copyright Insanity: Courts Continue To Try To Slice And Dice The Superman Copyright

from the who-gets-what-now? dept

For years, I've been watching the rather insane battle between the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel and Warner Bros., over who owns what copyrights concerning Superman. The overall details of the case are honestly too bizarre and convoluted to get into all of the details as to how we got here, but suffice it to say, it's yet another example of how twisted copyright has become, in this specific instance, focused on "termination" rights when it comes to copyright. If you want a good detailed explanation of the history here, this is a pretty good summary. As it stands now, both parties own some of the rights to Superman, which makes for some awkward problems. BobinBaltimore alerts us to a short writeup concerning the latest ruling in the ongoing series of court cases, and just a quick summary should detail the insanity that we're dealing with:

The court ruled, for the most part, that the Siegels successfully recaptured most of the works at issue, including those first two weeks of daily Superman strips, as well as key sections of early Action Comics and Superman comics.This means the Siegels, repped by Warners' nemesis Marc Toberoff, now control depictions of Superman's origins from the planet Krypton, his parents Jor-El and Lora, Superman as an infant, the launching of the baby Superman into space and his landing on Earth in a fiery crash.

But Warners/DC still owns other elements, including Superman's ability to fly, the term "kryptonite," the villain Lex Luthor, Jimmy Olsen, and some of Superman's powers.

It's like a Solomon-like "splitting of the baby" to figure out who can actually do what. In the meantime... the idea that Superman can fly is covered by copyright? Yikes.

Filed Under: copyright, dc comics, jerry siegal, superman
Companies: warner bros.