WB vs ESTATE- Superman on Trial

[Metallo]

Jul 12, 2012 16:04:51 GMT -5 Valentine Smith said:

Jul 12, 2012 15:47:42 GMT -5 Metallo said:

It really depends on the details of the cases. With Superman he certainly wasn't a work for hire creation. Even if Siegel did agree to terms with National/DC/whatever we have no idea if those deals were fair at the time or if the companies they were dealing with were being totally upfront. We have corporate deception NOW and I can only imagine it would be easier to get away with 50 plus years ago.

"fairness" doesn't figure into the legality of it. In the most recent judgment AGAINST the Kirby estate, the judge basically agreed that Kirby was treated unfairly, and that Marvel has a moral obligation to pay his heirs. She then ruled against the estate noting that while morally there was an obligation, legally there was none.

I mean "fair" as in legally fair. Legally upfront. Not morally fair. If there were legal shenanigans then that changes things. If the terms of any contracts were illegally deceptive or there wasn't full disclosure on certain matters then they could be challenged.

[Valentine Smith]

When there is no explicit contract, like with Kirby and Siegel/Shuster, the check is the contract. They cashed the check, therefore they "accepted the terms," even if those terms were the fine print on the back of the check, a handshake deal in an office, or a telephone conversation. It's awful, but it's true.

[Metallo]

The thing is the laws that deal with elements of ownership, copyright, etc can change and affect things retroactively. Thats why a lot of cases like this are popping up now. What was more binding then isn't always as binding now.

And contracts can have loopholes. Handshake deals in an office or a conversation on a telephone really isn't enough now. heck it wasn't always honored THEN. If anything not having a hard contract or properly drawn up paperwork makes it easier for certain parties to bring up cases like this.

With the Siegel estate its the later deals/settlements/agreements that complicate matters for them.

And the big problem is what you said before. Huge corporate entities like Time Warner have enough money to throw at a case like this almost forever. Even if the creators had a case Time Warner could make it drag on until the creators finances are exhausted or it didn't matter and they eventually lose the rights because of copyright expiration and they fall into the public domain.

[crazy_asian_man]

Read an article about how tangled the Spiderman movie rights were for years with everyone apparently owning a slice-- then- bam! Sony/Columbia just cuts through the red tape.... to this day I wonder how/what Sony/Columbia did to get through it? Just pay everyone off?

If so...

Wonder what the deal is with DC/WB?
Couldn't they have just made a deal with the Shusters that they couldn't refuse and not have to worry about changing a thing? Or is it ego with DC/WB?

[Valentine Smith]

The problem with cutting a deal with the Siegels is that it sets a precedent wherein other creators with similarly vague contracts could then logically (and legally) expect to get cash out of them. It's a slippery slope, so I understand the hesitation.

Keep in mind, however, that Marvel/Disney and WB/DC have MORE than enough money to honorably (and generously) settle pretty much EVERY one of these issues that will ever arise if they wanted to, and it wouldn't have the tiniest effect on their bottom line.

So, yes. It's an ego thing, but in all likelihood, that's Toberoff's ego you're talking about, not WB's. For them, it's all about the bean counters.

[Jor-L5150]

ok- THIS is where val and i are on the same page-

WB/DC wants this to go away. they might be dysfunctional about their superheroes, but they DO know they are endless cash cows.
WB/DC ALLLLLLLLLMMMooooOOOOoooooOOOOOoooST(!) settled this witha degree of finality a few years ago and then toberoff managed to use a 99% vs 1% argument with the estate to NOT settle and take on the "BIGG CORP INC" and stop the settlement.

so toberoff IS the catalyst NOW.
add to that that he has made a couple of victories, and the dubious fact that SOME of the contention was over "stolen" files ( that were either literally stolen by someone working for WB, stolen by unrelated criminals, or not stolen at all but dumped by toberoff to get rid of them) and we have very muddy water.

recently, WB asserts that toberoff interfered illegally with a settlement with the heirs, while toberoff asserts that WB is using information they shouldnt/couldnt legally have acquired.

if there is even a HINT that a WB exec engaged in any criminal act (ie stealing files) then the toberoff end of this could win BIG. if on the other hand toberoff is lying (he is a SHIT) then he could be disbarred and his legal credibility evaporates and the estate will BEG WB to resume pre-toberoff negotiations.


this right here is as much of a drama as the donner vs salkinds ever was. probably more so given the possible ramifications.

[crazy_asian_man]

val, jor- interesting points. Thanx guys.

About the evilness of Toberoff...

My own viewpoint on ALL lawyers took on a new tone when my cousin (who attended law school before taking another path) shared on the first day of 'ethics' at law school how their instructor shared the scenario of how---(and I'm paraphrasing from memory, so apologies if I left a detail out to those who are lawyers here) if a lawyer KNEW their client was the murderer and turned them in, how they should just quit law school because if they chose to do that, the punishment would be disbarrment for an act like that.... so... morality doesn't seem to be the first code for someone who want to be/stay a lawyer--- if that's the case, then starting up from that building block to being a lawyer, I question any moral fiber a lawyer may have in the first place if it starts from that building block....so....


((*Add to that, maybe not too suprising that most of the politicians in Washington are former lawyers, and twist the rules to fit their needs...))

[Matt in the Hat]

Side note to that, on a personal note . Worked with someone who became a defense lawyer. Answer to hypothetical question: defend on the specific case in question, but if there was another killing that happened unrelated to the murder, you can tell police about that. I believe there are some honest lawyers in general, but there are the slimeballs out there too.

[atp]

It's only the 99% of lawyers that give the rest a bad name.

[crazy_asian_man]

I believe there are some honest lawyers in general, but there are the slimeballs out there too.

I'm not saying that there's not folks that genuinely try to do well, but a system that automatically rewards the guy (lawyer) who would stick by the rules to save his job and let a murderer go free is kind of f*d up imo.

Not exactly putting truth and justice first, but defending rules over what's right 'just because' seems a bit silly. But, who knows.... I guess it's better than no system at all.

[Jor-L5150]

July 18, 2012: DC Argues Against Shuster Copyright Claim
Trial of Superman There's been an interesting development in the ongoing legal battle over the rights to Superman, with DC Comics making a pre-emptive strike against the Shuster Estate's claim for their 50% share of the original rights to Superman, with evidence of an agreement made between them in 1992.

"In exchange for more than $600,000 and other benefits, Jean Peavy - the sole beneficiary of Shuster's estate - entered into a 1992 agreement with DC that rescinded all of Shuster's prior copyright grants and re-granted to DC any copyright interests that Shuster or his heirs may have held. This agreement eliminated any pre-1978 copyright grant that might otherwise be subject to termination under the Copyright Act."

"In 2001 and 2003, Jean Peavy, her son Mark Peary, and the Estate of Joseph Shuster "assign[ed]" their putative "copyright termination interest in 'SUPERMAN'" and any "termination" rights they possessed to a joint venture with Pacific Pictures Corporation, defendant Marc Toberoff's film production company. When the Shuster Estate served its copyright termination notice weeks later in November 2003, none of Jean, Mark Peary, or the Shuster Estate possessed the majority (or greater than 50%) share of Joe Shuster's putative termination interest required to terminate under the Copyright Act and Copyright Office regulations. Defendants' undisputed failure to disclose the transfer of their purported termination interest to Pacific Pictures was not "harmless error" - both the notice and the sworn declarations filed with it concealed material facts about defendants' illicit agreements in violation of federal law."

"The Shuster heirs' copyright termination notice is premised on § 304(d) of the Copyright Act, which allows termination only by certain individuals whose rights "expired" under § 304(c) of the Act. 17 U.S.C. §§ 304(c)-(d). Because Joe Shuster passed away in 1992 without exercising any purported termination right or leaving a statutory heir to inherit it, his termination right did not "expire" - it simply ceased to exist. As a result, there is no statutory basis for the Shuster heirs to terminate under § 304(d)."

[Jor-L5150]

this could really kick toberoff in the nuts- if he made HIS angle based on a pretense that was legally untenable.... WB might have him- but it's too soon to write the post mordum on this weasel.

[Jor-L5150]

UPDATE:

A judge could make a final ruling very soon in the ongoing legal battle between the heirs of Superman co-creator Joseph Shuster and DC Comics over the rights to the iconic character.

Variety reports that U.S. District Judge Otis Wright cancelled a hearing that was scheduled to take place on Monday, August 13th on the motion by DC Comics for a summary judgment in their on-going dispute, stating that he will make a decision on the issue without oral argument. Here's an excerpt from the article:

Mark Warren Peary, nephew of "Superman" co-creator Joseph Shuster and executor of his estate, filed a notice of termination in 2003, which means the rights to early Man of Steel works would be reclaimed in October 2013. A provision of the Copyright Act allows creators and their heirs to recapture their works; the aim is to afford authors a greater share of the proceeds given that they often have little leverage at the start of their careers.

DC Comics, a unit of Warner Bros., is challenging the Shuster termination notice, arguing that it is invalid for a number of reasons. Among them: a 1992 agreement that Shuster's sister Jean Peavy and brother Frank made with DC Comics in 1992, shortly after Shuster died, that paid off Shuster's debts and provided them with survivor benefits, which DC claims amount to more than $600,000 so far. The agreement also regranted DC all copyright interests in Shuster's works and released it from all future claims.

"Because the 1992 agreement had the legal effect of extinguishing all pre-1978 copyright grants and replacing them with a new all-encompassing 1992 grant, there was nothing left for Peary to terminate in 2003," DC, represented by Dan Petrocelli, said in a court filing on July 16. "A deal is a deal, and like the Shuster family's claims to the Superman copyrights rejected by the courts in the 1940s and 1970s, the new claim must, too, be rejected."

Readership for Action Comics was initially strong out when the title first debuted in September, 2011 but has since dropped significantly over the past few issues. However, Batman Incorporated has remained a strong title and is one of the finer examples of Morrison's work pertaining to superheroes.

"I'm not saying that I'll never write superheroes again," added Morrison. "It's just that my relationship to them has changed especially after finishing the book and I'm not sure if I want to maintain the same kind of relentless level of production."

Thus far, Judge Wright has given no indication when he will make his ruling on the case which has become one of the highest profile and most bitterly fought disputes over copyright termination in history.

[Jor-L5150]

not sure why the article mentions the recent relaunch and grant morrison...

but it looks like we MIGHT finally have this thing put to bed. finally.
i'm tired of the anxiety.

if it were only a matter of DC having the bells-and-whistles familiar superman and the estate keeping a "primitive" version to lease out i'd be totally COOL with that. i think it could be a neat thing and would allow for a TRUE relaunch of superman ( as opposed to DC's periodic revamps that essentially all end up with the same cast and villains and so on.

but since it's toberoff basically trying to steal superman for himself i hope they fry the asshole.

[Valentine Smith]

This will change nothing, even if he rules in favor of the estate.