As I’ve noted before, the judge in the ongoing Superman and Superboy lawsuits has been using his decisions to push the parties toward a settlement. The decision awarding addition material to the Siegels was no exception–Judge Larson may have pushed DC by giving the Siegels Krypton, but he also pulled back from a broader ruling that would have given the Siegels the copyright in Luthor and other key material.
Whatever the implications for copyright and comics history, Judge Larson’s opinions serve as paradigmatic example of judging as case management, as each new major ruling reminds the parties that the court is likely to issue a verdict that will satisfy neither side.
Accordingly, Judge Larson’s latest order should not come as a surprise. Here’s the text of that August 20, 2009 order, including the name of the court-appointed mediator and the schedule for the next month:
In light of the Court’s rulings to date in these companion cases, which have narrowed the areas of dispute between the parties, the Court believes that it would be prudent at this juncture for the parties to once again engage in meaningful settlement talks.
Previously, the parties utilized the good services of their jointly chosen mediator, Judge Daniel Weinstein (Ret.). The Court has also been informed that former California Supreme Court Justice Edward A. Panelli has graciously agreed to provide his services as a mediator for the parties if they so choose. The parties may contact Justice Panelli at (415) ***-****.
Regardless of which mediator’s services the parties wish to utilize, the Court hereby ORDERS the parties to devote the next thirty (30) days to engaging in good faith efforts to settle their dispute in the Superman and Superboy litigation. At the conclusion of this period, on September 18, 2009, the parties are to file a joint report, outlining the efforts that they have taken in furtherance of settlement (without, of course, revealing any of the substance of those efforts).
If the parties have not settled these cases at that point, the Court ORDERS a Status Conference to take place on September 21, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. to set further dates for the remaining phase two accounting trial in the Superman litigation.
Additionally, at the Status Conference the parties are to inform the Court whether they have been able to stipulate amongst themselves who should serve as a special master/court-appointed expert (should the Court decide to formally make such an appointment) for said accounting trial. In the absence of such a stipulation at the Status Conference, the Court will thereafter submit the names of proposed candidates and provide counsel an opportunity to submit any conflict-related objections, as well as any preferences expressed by the parties, with said objection/submission of preferences being submitted in camera and under seal with the Court. The Court will thereafter decide whether to appoint such a special master/court-appointed expert and, if so, who that special master/court-appointed expert will be and what duties and responsibilities that person shall be charged with performing.
August 24th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I wonder if we’ll soon see the emergence of slogans like, “Don’t believe it’s Superman unless it says ‘DC Comics’ on the cover!” I don’t know why I’m expecting that, but somehow I am.
August 24th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Man, the Siegel’s are trying to ruin an American Icon out of their greed. If it wasn’t for DC Comics taking a chance on this character, Superman would have been a NOTHING……Jerry Siegel was awesome but his heirs are Greedy Mongers!
August 24th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
The Siegels will have to negotiate otherwise they stand to lose millions from Merchandising revenue (action figures, comics, sleeping bags, you name it). They are just lunatic fringe in comes to this crap these past few years. If the court does give them complete copyrights and they can’t negotiate with DC, then what exactly did they accomplish? Who will they sell to? Disney?
August 24th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
“If it wasn’t for DC Comics taking a chance on this character, Superman would have been a NOTHING……”
Perhaps. And if it wasn’t for S&S bringing Superman to the company, what would Detective Comics, Inc. be today?
August 24th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
You do realize that the DC in DC comics doesn’t stand for Detective Comics anymore. It did many moons ago, but since then it only means DC. And it has never been called Detective Comics Incorporated. Just thought I would let you know that Nat.
August 24th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Well, Fletcher, you’re wrong. The company which published Action #1 (as well as Detective 27, among other books) was actually called Detective Comics, Inc. — that was the company that bought Superman, which has been through various corporate combinations but with a survival that seems to have been heavily dependent on Superman and the various characters his success inspired.
August 25th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Hey, Jeff:
Can you clarify something for me? When Siegel and Shuster originally sold Superman to DC in the 30s, were they selling off all rights to the character, or just licensing him off for a specific number of years? When S&S tried to get back control of the character in the 40s, did they have any legal right to do so? That would color my opinion on the whole matter. If they signed off on all rights and no legal right to try to get control of character back, then the Siegel estate shouldn’t have the right to do what they’re doing now.
But as far as the judge goes, good for him. Go all Solomon on them; if they can’t come to an agreement, cut the baby in half, give each party a piece and let them try to figure it out by themselves.
August 25th, 2009 at 11:38 am
@Wesley Good questions. I’m immersed in work responsibilities right now, but expect a post that will address these issues–and more–in a few weeks.
In the meantime, anyone interested in the early history of Siegel and Shuster should check out the August 2008 issue of Alter Ego, which provides fascinating historical material from the family of DC founder Major Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson. There’s material in this issue that helps explain Jerry Siegel’s assertion that he understood his assignment of all rights to apply only to first serial rights–a letter reproduced on p.37 indicates that with the Major, “all rights other than first serial rights” were “to be returned” to the creator “at any time, upon request.”
Related to that, you get a sense that Siegel made a tragic decision in waiting to sell the character. The Major wanted to publish Superman before 1938, but, as Siegel indicates in his unpublished memoirs, the Major’s touch-and-go financial situation led Siegel and Shuster to hold off of a deal that likely would have left them with all rights to Superman except those to the first publication. Siegel and Shuster ultimately sold the character when payment of the page rates seemed more certain, but in return they got a contract that they would resent for decades to come.
August 25th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
DC should indeed negotiate. Until now, the judge has only attributed parts to the Siegels. They seem to have the stronger position. Everything would have been simpler if the lawyer in 1948 had done his job. Corporate greed can only go so far.
August 25th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Look, The family is being greedy. Plain and simple.
August 25th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
To all those who continually assert that the Siegels are greedy and have no claim to the Superman legacy. Under copyright law, they sold Superman to DC for X amount of years. After which point (if they ever imagined it would still be published/profitable), the copyright enters into public domain. Corporations, such as DC Comics, aren’t intended to profit on their creation forever. When copyright law changed, offering an extension to the number of years it took before creations enter into the public domain, lawmakers entered a clause allowing creators and their estates to reclaim their copyright. The Siegel estate did just this. They control half of what S+S created before they sold it to DC. The current trial is trying to determine a) what exactly the Siegels own, and b) some monetary figure that DC owes them for using their character for the past few years.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Nat, you ask the question of where DETECTIVE COMICS, Inc. would be without Superman… But do we necessarily know that Batman’s creation wouldn’t have happened without Superman? I’m just thinking that, even if Supes had never landed at what’s now DC, the company might’ve done just fine anyhow.
Supes might be with some other company, or perhaps never have happened as far as the public is concerned. Someone else, or something else, would’ve created the costumed superhero genre. Batman was more like The Shadow than Superman anyhow, aside from the cape, tights, and undies on the outside. Just food for thought.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
People: The family isn’t being greedy. The sale of the copyright was always a limited term: Copyrights expire. DC knew this when they bought it.
In fact the Superman copyright SHOULD have expired back in the 1990s, with Superman entering the public domain. Several major corporations (Disney chief among them) argued and received a copyright extension, which has enabled DC to hold on to Superman for several more years.
Just to sum up:
1. The notion that Superman’s creators were “ripped off” is NOT what this fight is about. It’s about a late 1990s revision to copyright law which provides original copyright holders an opportunity to reclaim their creations. DC is simply fighting this tooth and nail.
2. The notion that Superman’s copyright was sold “permanently” is incorrect. Copyrights expire, and DC knew this when they purchased Action Comics # 1 from Superman’s creators.
August 25th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
The story goes that Bob Kane went into DC and was told Superman was selling very well and Kane should “go home and come up with another one.” Which he did, with Bill Finger’s incalculable help. So, yeah, Superman’s kinda critical to the equation.
August 25th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
“But do we necessarily know that Batman’s creation wouldn’t have happened without Superman?”
Batman was created when, given the success of Superman in Action, editors asked other creators to come up with superheroes. That doesn’t necessarily mean that Batman wouldn’t've been created had Superman been taken to another publisher and been popular there (certainly, plenty of publishers jumped on the bandwagon once the success of Superman was clear), but if there was no Superman and the success he brought, it seems very unlikely that there would be a Batman. And given the apparent unevenness of the finances of some involved, I’m not sure Detective Comics, Inc. would even have survived long enough to get to when Batman was created without the success of Superman.
There were a number of publishers putting out comics before Action 1 came out, but neither MLJ nor Timely were yet doing so. As such, the companies that formed into what we now know as DC Comics were the only ones publishing then that have a continuous lineage to today (unless I’m missing something - if someone can correct me, please do). It seems pretty clear that such a long run was unlikely for any company from that era, and hard to believe it would’ve happened without the major success of Superman and all he inspired.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Trying to reach Jeff Trexler.
Can you please email me at superwrite@aol.com, re. a Superman project/question.
Thanks
Larry
August 30th, 2009 at 7:32 am
First of all, the rights at issue are solely US rights. How do the decisions affect the character outside the US?
Next, exactly what *can* be negotiated at this point? I mean, the Shuster estate gets DC’s 50% interest in 2012. Or is the issue simply pass damages?
And my God, Larson’s decisions will be appealed? Or is this such a black and white issue and/or so tight a decision that everyone knows an appeal would be meritless?
Allegedly, there was an acceptable offer from Paul Levitz on the table that the Siegels liked but Levitz’s bosses rejected.
If it was me, I’d do one of two things. Right now, I think the relationship is anyone could do anything but would have to answer to the other partner financially. So if I was the estate, I’d make Mark Millar’s dream come true and say: “You say you can save the character, etc. You have a great track record, you’re a great promoter — You have twelve issues. Go!” I’m serious. If the estate can publish a better Superman — why the hell not?
The easy out is the classic Hollywood contract, more or less: A blanket license to DC till 2013 (when it’d have to be renegotiated mostly to factor in the Shuster estate): $X per year plus a share of profits and do what you want. Of course, DC and Warner’s will screw around with the profit #s so a huge upfront’s required but still.
The off the wall variant is that in 2013 the estates can open a biding war for their character. They will completely own (in the US) the core of the character. Everything DC has is dross (cf. the current storyline.)
September 6th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
So essentially the Superman character is crippled since DC would still own the international rights unless the judge awards that to the Siegels too. Either way, things don’t look to bright for Superman fans. The Public Enemies film coming out this month more or less could be obsolete in a few years. DC/Time Warner should just stop using Superman in so many lead capacities in the animated films, like they have in the comics.
Of course what changes will happen to the rest of the Krypton family (Power Girl, Supergirl, Mon-El, etc.) They are all connected to Krypton after all. I smell another Crisis type event in the 5 years that will attempt to once again rewrite origins.
September 17th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Just a heads up that Judge Larson has announced he is stepping down from the bench. I wonder if the parties will view this as an opportunity to “clarify” earlier rulings.
http://www.joesergi.net/2/post/2009/09/sup…steps-down.html