Over at The Beat, Jeff Trexler has a great look at the current standing of both the Jack Kirby and Jerry Siegel lawsuits surrounding ownership of their respective creations:
In the Siegel appeal, Toberoff uses similar arguments regarding work-for-hire that he used in the Kirby case. According to Toberoff, Jerry Siegel’s work was not actually work for hire. Instead, Siegel was an independent contractor selling his own property to DC. Indeed, the similarity in legal arguments is so pronounced at times that it feels as if you are reading Toberoff’s account of Jack Kirby’s work with Jerry Siegel cut and pasted into it, calling to mind DC’s infamous decision to put a different face on Kirby’s Superman.
The net effect of this reasoning is that the Ninth Circuit should see Jerry Siegel in a position analogous to that of Neil Gaiman in the Medieval Spawn case. Because Siegel was an independent creator offering original new elements to pre-existing copyrighted material, Siegel at the very least co-owned all of the original material contained in these derivative works, such as Lex Luthor, Toyman and Superman’s enhanced powers. Accordingly, Toberoff argues, the court should expand Siegel Larson’s copyright interest to include everything within the five-year termination window.
Maybe this will prove to be a winning strategy–I’ve seen courts do stranger things–but it’s a risky gambit.
I found Warner/DC’s decision to pursue an open court hearing for the Siegel/Superman case last week to be surprising and, perhaps somewhat naively, suggesting a new confidence that they could win the case without it getting too ugly. It’ll be interesting to see how both cases shake out… and what happens if either publisher ultimately loses ground in the ownership of such important characters.
April 3rd, 2012 at 11:02 am
i am sure both sides of the case really care what you think Graeme…. in face i would venture to say that outside of your self [ and a few sychophants.....] only you care about your opinions
April 3rd, 2012 at 11:04 am
maybe you should stick to reporting the item and leave your commentary pout of it… since it is clear in every post all you do is ask question with bad premises
April 3rd, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Graeme, thanks for the good words.
It does indeed seem that Warner/DC is trying to project confidence, and my guess is that has a lot to do w/ the switch to new counsel. Warner/DC’s output since Petrocelli came on board has been anything but tentative. There’s no way of knowing what’s being said in the back office, of course, but the rhetoric sends the message that they feel they have seized the moral high ground from Toberoff & also have a stronger legal stance.
April 5th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Headline: April 12, 2225 – Siegel great-great grandchildren countersue DC LLC for Superman rights after 15th appeal, decision pending Intergalatic Federation of Planets Tribunal