Warner Communications, the owners of the Superman franchise, is quickly learning that copyright claims are its own version of kryptonite.  A new lawsuit filed last week attempts to overturn a 2008 ruling that awarded the superhero’s creator’s heirs rights to royalties from use of the Man of Steel.  It elucidates the complexity of US Copyright Law as well as makes serious accusations of wrongdoing at the hands of the heir’s attorney.  All in all, this is an interesting case that is likely to take a while to sort out.

In 2008 the heirs of Siegel and Shuster, the co-creators of Superman, were awarded a claim to the copyright of the iconic character.  This decision overturned a 30+ year long agreement between DC Comics and the families that paid them a small annual fee in exchange for their share of the property.  A new lawsuit filed by Warner Brothers asserts that the lawyer who represented the heirs is responsible for “induc[ing] the heirs” into filing for their rights and that he used the suits to “secure control of the largest financial stake,” 47.5% of the copyright, of the Superman franchise.

This is a complicated case, partly due to the nature of U.S. Copyright Law and partly to the fact that it is two separate families as well as DC Comics that have legal rights to the Superman property.  Because Superman was mostly created while Siegel and Shuster were employees of DC Comics, the character is considered the property of the company due to the contracts the men signed.  Warner Communications, the larger umbrella corporation which owns the major stake in the Superman franchise, had been paying the men, their families, and later their heirs, regular payments in exchange for all the rights.  However, the men had developed the initial, admittedly limited character, prior to entering into an agreement with DC and in 2008 the courts decided that the families shared a copyright stake in the name, image and certain offshoots of the property that were created before the first comic featuring the Man of Steel was printed.

This new suit accuses Marc Toberoff, the attorney who convinced the heirs to file the suits that led to the 2008 ruling, of misdeeds in his handling of this valuable estate.  Warner Brothers asserts that he used his authority as an attorney to acquire a 47.5% controlling interest in the Superman property, leaving the creator’s families with a meager quarter share apiece.  If these allegations are true, it is a major misstep on the part of Toberoff.    Worse for the accused attorney, if they are considered chamberty and maintenance it could even lead to disbarment.  The complaint includes quotes from an anonymous letter the plaintiffs claim was written by Toberoff; in it he allegedly wrote that he planned to acquire as “much ownership of the Superman copyright personally as he can.”

Toberoff asserts that all of these claims are patently untrue.  His press release states that

Warner and Mr. Petrocelli are aware that the frivolous allegations in their complaint do not add up and will never pass muster in the federal courts. However, that’s not the point of their lawsuit. Warner and Petrocelli’s objective is to “muddy the waters” by attacking Mr. Toberoff, potentially conflict him out of the case, and thereby strong-arm the Siegels and Shusters into selling at a cut-rate price the copyrights they have legitimately recaptured. Such unethical tactics are nothing short of deplorable.

Without the benefit of a jury trial and being privy to all the evidence both sides have to offer it is impossible for a mere blogger to make a judgment either way.  It does seem like the plaintiffs are suffering from sour grapes after having the heirs claim a stake in a property that was rightfully theirs.  However, these accusations against Toberoff are interesting, and disturbing if found to be true.  Only time will tell how this case will unfold.

Posted by Becky on May 28, 2010 at 10:26am.