- cross-posted to:
- movies@lemm.ee
- cross-posted to:
- movies@lemm.ee
The estate of Joseph Shuster, the co-creator of “Superman,” is suing to stop the man of steel from taking flight in several major international territories just months before the newest, highly anticipated “Superman” movie is released.
The federal suit, filed Friday in New York’s Southern District, alleges that DC Comics’ international rights for “Superman” expired in 2017 and 2021 in key countries including the U.K., Australia and Canada. DC Comics is a unit of Warner Bros. Discovery.
The suit claims that despite the expiration of the international rights, DC and Warner continued to use the original work as well as related television series, videogames and merchandise.
“These foreign copyright laws were specifically designed to protect creators like my Uncle Joe. That is what we’re fighting for here,” said Mark Warren Peary, executor of the Shuster estate.
Warner and DC weren’t immediately available for comment.
The coming “Superman” movie, starring David Corenswet making his debut as the red-caped superhero, is scheduled to open in theaters July 11. It is the first stand-alone “Superman” movie since 2013, and revitalizing the character is a priority for Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav.
The suit is the latest salvo in a battle over the “Superman” copyright that dates back to 1938, when Shuster and co-creator Jerry Siegel sold their original “Superman” character and story to DC for $130.
The story became a hit and the two creators were paid by the page for future stories, but received no royalties. In 1947 the pair unsuccessfully took DC to court in an effort to win back the copyright.
Since then, “Superman” has been the subject of periodic litigation among the creators, their estates and DC. In 1992, DC agreed to continue paying to Shuster’s sister the $25,000 stipend that he received, instead of the $5,000 it was contractually obligated to pay, based on a deal Warner struck a few decades before that. The estate of “Superman” co-creator Jerry Siegel has been operating under a settlement agreement with DC since 2013.
Friday’s filing cites the so-called “Dickens provision” in U.K. copyright law that states a copyright that has been granted to a third party automatically reverts back to the author’s estate 25 years after their death. Shuster died in 1992.
Canadian law requires that in the case of a joint work, the copyright reverts 25 years after both authors have passed. Siegel died in 1996.
The Shuster estate is seeking an order stopping Warner and DC from licensing and using the “Superman” property in any of the territories where the rights revert after 25 years without getting a copyright license from the estate, as well as damages to be determined at trial.
Marc Toberoff, the attorney representing the Shuster estate, said DC and Warner Bros.’ profiting off “Superman” in those territories “blatantly violates” the copyright laws.
If successful, the suit could have broader implications for the industry when it comes to securing or maintaining copyrights, particularly in overseas markets where movie studios have enormous audiences for their superhero and action franchises.
Toberoff said in an interview that the suit isn’t meant to deprive fans of their next “Superman” movie, but rather “seek just compensation for Joe Shuster’s fundamental contributions as the co-creator of the character.”
Not to bootlick the big corporation but I always feel doubt when these estates of long dead people start causing trouble in the name of some sort of justice. The timing of it definitely makes it look more like a ransom demand too.
This makes me think of the Michael Jackson estate causing shit over music in Sonic 3. All they achieved was getting the music in question pulled from any current release of the game and making sure it reaches nobody.
I’m pretty sure the Wonder Woman estate was also full of shit back in the '90s and '00s. And what they achieved was making sure that a large part of Wonder Woman’s mythology was excluded from the DCAU, something that basically defined DC for a generation or two.
I’d love to join the side of the Shuster family but considering that this is about copyrights expiring 25 years after an author’s death, they’ve had since 2021 to do this. But they chose now, right as the Superman brand is at its lowest and on the verge of a possible revitalization. Which just makes them look like greedy assholes to me.
I think copyright law is bullshit. It now lasts FAR too long, and only serves to provide corporate monopoly over IP well after it has become culturally ubiquitous. Seigel and Shuster got shafted and never was properly compensated for creating one of the most iconic and recognizable characters and stories in the world today. But I’m not in favor or either DC or the estates of either creator claiming right over the character. He should have been in the public domain for a long time now. Warner Brothers can make new Superman movies. But so should anyone else be able to.
Yeah, funnily enough, didn’t that first Superman story that was sold to DC mentioned in this article enter public domain recently anyway? I don’t follow that kind of news closely but I’m pretty sure I read something about it.
Personally, comic book characters are in a funny area for me as far as the concept of ‘ownership’ goes. For me personally, I’m willing to bet that Shuster and Siegel wrote about 0% of the Superman stories that I ever read growing up or saw adapted to cartoons or movies. Creating a character that becomes part of a shared universe and gets written by 100 different people over almost 100 years isn’t quite the same as being famous for writing a book that stays the same for 100 years. At this point I would hesitate to credit a character like Superman with any one or two people, personally.
Of course, Shuster and Siegel were pioneers that had no idea what was coming though. And from what I can see, DC should’ve definitely treated them better for being cornerstones. They should’ve been getting CEO level pay.
But honestly, it’s kinda why I don’t sympathise with people like Alan Moore that much. I think by the 1980s it was understood that if you write for a company like DC or Marvel, your original work is probably going to become part of the universe and get written by someone else, just like you’ll probably write other people’s original characters too. Besides that, the Watchmen wouldn’t exist without the Charlton comics characters they’re based on. That’s just how it works.
Not excuse DC or Marvel for shitty practises though. I’m aware that neither companies are angels and could definitely treat and pay their workers much better. Maybe then these old estates would be more willing to cooperate without the shenanigans.