The (Almost) Never-Ending Battle of Superman's Copyright

Above, Bob Shayne, Noel Neill, Jack Larson and George Reeves in the "Adventures of Superman."

As this month marks the 75th anniversary of Superman, it is a good time to take a look at the most recent decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last January granting total control of the Superman character to Warner Bros./DC Comics.

According to Wired.com:

Warner Bros. scored a huge victory in the long-running and byzantine legal battle over the copyright to Superman yesterday, thanks to a ruling by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that cements the studio’s control over the lucrative superhero character. The decision drew, in part, on precedent established in a lawsuit against Facebook by the Winklevoss twins and held that a 2001 agreement between the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel and Warner Bros was indeed binding and that a district judge in a 2008 case had “erred” in granting the Siegel heirs partial copyright. 

This decision follows a ruling last October that denied any part of the copyright to the heirs of Superman’s other co-creator, Joe Shuster. Shuster and Siegel famously sold their creation to DC Comics for a mere $130 in 1938, long before the character went on to become a multi-billion dollar franchise for the studio, thanks to the success of numerous Hollywood blockbusters, television shows and other merchandise. 

The recent ruling on the fate of Superman hinged upon a 2001 agreement between the Siegel heirs and Warner Bros, which the Siegels had claimed was not finalized and therefore not enforceable. In their decision on the case, the 9th Circuit repeatedly cited a lawsuit involving Facebook as precedent, wherein the Winklevoss brothers — who sued the social media site for allegedly stealing their idea – had similarly claimed that an earlier mediated agreement was non-binding. The court disagreed, and found that under California law, a “term sheet” agreement could be enforceable “even though everyone understood that certain material aspects of the deal would be papered later.”

After this ruling, DC Comics (owned by Warner) can proceed unhindered with Superman projects and products.  That is, unless Laura Siegel Larson decides to appeal this to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Too bad that a screwy California law was the driving force against Jerry Siegel's heirs.

To read the full Wired.com story, go here.

UPDATE (4/22/13):  The Siegel Estate is still pursuing litgation:

The Siegel heirs have mounted a new attack on the agreement, according to Hollywood Reporter, alleging that even if the 2001 agreement that the court ruled was valid was indeed a contract, that DC did not perform under the contract. “DC anticipatorily breached by… demanding unacceptable new and revised terms as a condition to its performance; accordingly, the Siegels rescinded the agremenet, and DC abandoned the agreement,” the latest filing says. 

The Siegels are also arguing that the Copyright Act does not allow contractually agreeing to transfer terminated copyright rights before they are terminated, a theory that has worked in some cases, but not in others. 

To read more, go here.

And, the judge ruled that DC Comics owns Superboy:

A federal court ruling on the final issues in the longrunning litigation between DC Comics (and parent Warner Bros.) and the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerome Siegel has come down in DC’s favor, according to Deadline. U.S. District Judge Otis Wright III ruled that the rights to Superboy and some Superman advertisements were sold to DC in a 2001 settlement agreement.

To read more, go here.