Folks who’ve read the court documents linked in my previous post may have noticed that in addition to replacing Weissmann Wolff, Time Warner also dismissed another firm, Fross Zelnick, as outside co-counsel.
This too was a rather interesting decision, especially given Fross Zelnick’s prior dealing with the law of copyright termination, the very legal principle at the heart of the Siegel lawsuit. As the firm’s website notes, Fross Zelnick was counsel in a case that marked “the first judicial treatment of Section 304(d) of the U.S. Copyright Act, which was enacted as part of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998. Section 304(d) gives authors and their heirs the opportunity to recapture the authors’ copyrights by permitting them to terminate pre-1978 copyright transfers in the authors’ works.”
Why might Time Warner no longer want to be associated with a firm with experience in fighting a copyright termination claim?
Perhaps this summary of the case provides a clue:
After over three years of court challenges at every level, including before the U.S. Supreme Court, Fross Zelnick successfully represented Stephen Slesinger, Inc. in preserving royalty rights, estimated in the press as exceeding $50 million, related to the exploitation of Winnie-the-Pooh and related characters. These court victories thwarted an attempt by Disney and author A.A. Milne’s granddaughter to terminate Slesinger’s right to receive royalties from merchandising rights that were granted by the author in 1930.
In short, Fross Zelnick opposed Disney in the Winnie the Pooh litigation, and as I noted yesterday, Disney’s legal team in that case included none other than DC’s new outside counsel, Daniel Petrocelli.
This makes for a rather interesting game of legal connect-the-dots. Petrocelli has a direct line to Disney, which recently acquired Marvel, a company fighting a termination claim by the family of Jack Kirby. Now the same lawyer is representing Time Warner/Warner Bros./DC in its own fight against a termination claim by the family of Jerry Siegel, and the firm that crossed Disney is out.
It’s a small world after all.
March 1st, 2010 at 12:36 am
Could this connection between Disney and DC suggest that the two companies are trying to squeeze the plaintiff’s lawyer, Mr. Toberoff, who represents BOTH Siegel/Shuster & Kirby? Toberoff’s shop only has three other lawyers and now his firm is facing a bi-coastal legal face off against big name law firms (Marvel/Disney hired two big law firms to represent them in the Kirby case) in a very complex case. I doubt Toberoff has enough resources to fight both cases, which may be EXACTLY what Disney/Marvel and DC Comics/Warner are trying to do — bleed him dry of money, time, etc.,.
December 27th, 2010 at 4:55 am
The Nick Heller-helmed video drops in full tomorrow. DOWNLOAD: Fresh Daily – Thanx.
January 17th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Thank you so much for your outlook on Blog@Newsarama » Blog Archive » Superman, Marvel and Winnie the Pooh , I totally agree with you. It is nice to see a fresh outlook on this and I look forward to more.