Daily Report Online
  • News
  • Special Reports
  • Court Opinions
  • Court Calendars
  • Bench Guide
  • Public Notices
  • Contact
  • Books
  • Events
  • Classifieds

Home > Warner Bros. wins Superman battle

Font Size: increase font decrease font

News

Warner Bros. wins Superman battle

The Litigation Daily

January 14, 2013

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •      
 

O'Melveny & Myers scored a big win for Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc. on Thursday in the company's ugly copyright battle with the heirs to the creators of Superman.

In a 6-page ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel signed away their rights to the Man of Steel in a 2001 agreement with Warner Brothers. The Siegel family, represented by Hollywood attorney Marc Toberoff, had argued that the 2001 deal wasn't binding. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument, noting that Siegel's then-lawyer called the agreement a "monumental accord." The ruling deals the Siegels a major blow in their decades-long bid to increase their share of the Superman profits.

Siegel and cartoonist Joseph Shuster created the Superman character in 1932, when they were high school students in Cleveland, Ohio. Six years later, they sold their rights in the character to Detective Comics (now Warner Brothers subsidiary DC Comics Inc.) for just $130 and a contract to supply the publisher with material. Decades later, Warner Brothers gave Siegel and Shuster lifetime pensions of $20,000 per year, even though it said it had "no legal obligation" to do so. After both Siegel and Shuster died in 1999, their family members tried to reclaim their copyrights based on a provision in the Copyright Act of 1976 that allows artists to regain control of their works after 35 years—so-called "termination rights."

The Siegels reached a deal with Warner Brothers in 2001 in which they gave up their termination rights in exchange for $3 million in cash upfront and several million more in contingent compensation. With Toberoff's help, they later tried to undo that deal, arguing that there was no meeting of the minds, and therefore no binding contract. But the Ninth Circuit found that an October 2001 letter by the Siegels' then-attorney "constituted an acceptance of the terms negotiated between the parties, and thus was sufficient to create a contract."



Subscribe to The Litigation Daily

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Find similar content

Firms mentioned

    
  • O'Melveny & Myers

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • Siegels
  • Ninth Circuit
  • DC Comics Inc.
  • Warner Brothers Inc.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals

Key categories

    
  • Copyright

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Real Estate Lawyers Target Closing Vendors
    •      
  2. Wage-and-Hour Suits Up For Fifth Straight Year
    •      
  3. Lawyer and Client to Pay Attorney Fees of Waffle House CEO
    •      
  4. How Law School Grads Can Improve Hiring Chances
    •      
  5. Too Much Paper, Lawyers Say
    •         
      • Subscription Required
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

3-D Printing: The Next Big Thing in IP Law?

Best Legal Departments 2013

News Corp. Hires Ex-Skadden Communications Chief Bush

Law Firm Leaders' Confidence Slipping, Says Survey

Contrite Companies Can Win Forgiveness in Bribery Cases
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Plaintiffs Want to See Toyota's 'Crown Jewels'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

CEIC: the Destination for Digital Investigation

Using Computer Forensics to Investigate IP Theft

Prolific ADA Plaintiff Faces Nemesis in Harassment Suit

Ullyot Exit Closes Chapter for Facebook
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Rothstein Bankruptcy Trustee Files New Reorganization Plan
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fla. Bar Wants Disbarment for Former Judge
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Bar Candidate Quits N.Y. Job To Satisfy N.J. Practice Bylaw

Pro Bono Work Proposed as Condition for Bar Admission
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Judge in Stop-and-Frisk Case Relishes Her Independence

Ground Is Shifting in 14-Year Litigation

High Court Names Evers as the FJD's Court Administrator
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Third Circuit Rules Against Citgo in Case Over Oil Spill

Law Schools Are Looking Beyond LSATs, Says Mich. Dean

Is Freezing Your Eggs the Solution?

Litigator of the Week: Who Needs a Jury Consultant?
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Sanction Reversed; Filing of Sexually Explicit Chat OKd
  •      
    • Subscription Required

DeKalb Judge Dismisses, Then Recuses

Jury Finds For Attorney In Legal-Mal Case
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Corporate Bribery Case Part Of National Trend
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Continues To Grant Lawyers Fraud Immunity
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media