Copyright lawsuits by Superman's creators
In 2001, the Siegel heirs took back their rights using the termination provision of the Copyright Act of 1976 and accepted a new purchase offer from Warner.
The Central District court of California ruled in 2008 that the Siegel heirs can cancel the Warner purchase, but this was overturned in 2012 on appeal to the 9th circuit.
Due to financial difficulties, Wheeler-Nicholson formed a corporation with Harry Donenfeld and Jack Liebowitz called Detective Comics, Inc.
In January 1938, Wheeler-Nicholson sold his stake in National Allied Publications and Detective Comics to Donenfeld and Liebowitz as part of a bankruptcy settlement.
[2] In 1933, writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster conceived the fictional comic strip character Superman.
In 1935, Siegel and Shuster began working for New York comic magazine publisher National Allied Publications, producing detective and adventure stories.
In March, they signed a contract in which they released the copyright for Superman to Detective Comics, Inc.[7] The contract for the sale, signed in March 1938, read: Dated March 1 I, the undersigned, am an artist or author and have performed work for strip entitled SUPERMAN In consideration of $130.00 agreed to be paid me by you, I hereby sell and transfer such work and strip, all good will attached thereto and exclusive right to the use of the characters and story, continuity and title of strip contained therein, to you and your assigns to have and hold forever and to be your exclusive property and I agree not to employ said characters by their names contained therein or under any other names at any time hereafter to any other person firm or corporation, or permit the use thereof by said other parties without obtaining your written consent therefor.
[11]On December 19, 1939, Siegel and Shuster signed a contract which increased their pay rate to $20 per page and promised them 5% of net proceeds from any commercial exploitation of Superman beyond magazines, books, and newspapers.
[12] In November 1938, Siegel proposed to Detective Comics that he do stories of Superman's childhood adventures, with the character calling himself "Superboy".
In effect, therefore, the instrument of March 1st, 1938 represented the exercise by Detective Comics of the option granted to it by the December 4th, 1937 agreement.
...the plaintiffs' desire to see Superman in print and the realization of that desire by Detective Comics' acceptance of the strip for publication and actually publishing it were the most vital elements of the consideration supporting the instrument date March 1st, 1938.Siegel and Shuster also argued that the March 1938 contract lacked mutuality, saying that at the time Superman was an idea not fully developed and thus there was no clear concept on what was being sold.
...defendant NATIONAL COMICS PUBLICATIONS, INC. and INDEPENDENT NEWS CO. INC. shall account to plaintiffs before said Official Referee for all profits realized by said NATIONAL COMICS PUBLICATIONS, INC., DETECTIVE COMICS, INC., SUPERMAN, INC. and INDEPENDENT NEWS CO., INC. through the production of radio features and moving pictures entitled SUPERMAN and by the sale of commercial licenses of all kinds, and that the profits derived therefrom be divided according to law, and that the plaintiffs have their just share thereof...Judge Young concluded, in April 1948, that National owned Superman but Siegel owned Superboy.
[13] On May 21, 1948, Young entered a final judgment which vacated his April judgment, and ruled that the copyrights to Superman and Superboy belonged to National Comics Publications, Inc.: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiffs, their agents, servants and employees, be and they hereby are enjoined and restrained from creating, publishing, selling or distributing or permitting or causing to be created, published, sold or distributed any material of the nature heretofore created, produced or published under the title SUPERMAN, or any material created, produced or published in imitation thereof, or from using, permitting or causing to be used in connection with any comic strip or other material created by them the title SUPERMAN or any title imitative of the title SUPERMAN or which shall contain as part thereof the word 'SUPER'; and it is further DECLARED AND ADJUDGED that defendant NATIONAL COMICS PUBLICATIONS, INC. is the sole and exclusive owner and has the sole and exclusive right to the use of the title SUPERBOY...Under the Copyright Act of 1909, a copyright lasted 28 years.
[21] The court found that in the 1947 final consent judgment, Siegel and Shuster had transferred "all their rights" to the Superman character to National, including the renewal term.
[13] This decision was based on the legal precedent set by Fred Fisher Music Co. v. M. Witmark & Sons,[13] in which the US Supreme Court ruled that an author could in writing convey his renewal rights in advance of their vesting.
[22] The court also ruled that Superman was a work made for hire, despite the fact that Siegel and Shuster had been developing the character long before they began employment at National.
He found sympathizers such as Neal Adams and Jerry Robinson, who waged a public relations campaign for better treatment of comic creators in general.
Warner also agreed to insert the line "By Special Arrangement with the Jerry Siegel Family" in all future Superman productions.
[33] In 2001, Jean Peavy's son and Joe Shuster's nephew, Mark Warren Peary, contacted attorney and movie producer Marc Toberoff.
[3] In negotiations the following year, Toberoff and his colleague Ari Emanuel offered the Siegel heirs $15 million for their half of rights to Superman.
After seventy years, Jerome Siegel’s heirs regain what he granted so long ago — the copyright in the Superman material that was published in Action Comics, Vol.
In a January 2013 memorandum, the presiding judges wrote: California law permits parties to bind themselves to a contract, even when they anticipate that "some material aspects of the deal [will] be papered later."
In an April 18, 2013 judgment, Judge Wright denied all of the Siegel heirs' claims and ruled that the October 19, 2001 letter irrevocably gave DC Comics the rights to Superman and Superboy.
This was the first time that Larson raised this argument, and the appeals court refused to consider it because doing so would prejudice DC by forcing them to rework their defense from scratch.
On remand, Larson argued for the first time that her mother, Joanne Siegel, had rescinded the 2001 contractual settlement agreement in letters written in 2002 and that DC acquiesced in the recission.
[50] The judge also ruled that the transfer of rights to Pacific Pictures was illegal because it had been made before the effective date of termination of October 26, 2013.
[52] Thus, barring new legislation, Superman as he is depicted in Action Comics #1 will become public domain in 2034, along with other story elements such as Lois Lane.
[53] Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster vs. National Comics Publications Inc. et al. (New York Supreme Court 1947) Plaintiff's complaint - November 21, 1947 opinion - April 12, 1948 Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law - April 12, 1948 Interlocutory judgment - May 21, 1948 Final judgment Jerome Siegel and Joe Shuster v. National Periodical Publications, Inc., Case No.
69 Civ 1429 (USDC SDNY 1969) Plaintiffs' complaint - Final decision of the court (October 1973) Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster v. National Periodical Publications, Inc., et al., 508 F.2d 909 (2d Cir.
CV 2:10-cv-03633 ODW (RZx) (USDC CDCA 2010) Plaintiffs' complaint (May 2010) - October 2012 grant of summary judgment DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp. et al., Case No.
