Warner Bros. Wins Copyright Battle over Superman

O'Melveny & Myers scored a big win for Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc. in January 2013 in the company's ugly copyright battle with the heirs to the creators of Superman. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that the heirs of now-deceased Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel signed away their rights to the Man of Steel in a 2001 agreement with Warner Brothers. Larson v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., 11-55863.

The Siegel family, represented by controversial Hollywood attorney Marc Toberoff, had argued that the 2001 deal wasn't binding. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument, noting that Siegel's lawyer at the time called the agreement a “monumental accord.”

The ruling deals the Siegels a major blow in their decades-long bid to increase their share of the Superman profits.
Siegel and fellow cartoonist Joseph Shuster created the Superman character in the 1932. Six years later, they sold their rights in the character to Detective Comics (now Warner Brothers subsidiary DC Comics Inc.) for just $130 and a contract to supply the publisher with material. Decades later, Warner Brothers gave Siegel and Shuster lifetime pensions of $20,000 per year, even though it said it had “no legal obligation” to do so.

After both Siegel and Shuster died in 1999, their family members tried to reclaim their copyrights based on the '203 termination rights provision of the Copyright Act of 1976 that allows artists to regain control of their works after 35 years. The Siegels reached a deal with Warner Brothers in 2001 in which they gave up their termination rights in exchange for $3 million in cash upfront and several million more in contingent compensation. With Toberoff's help, they later tried to undo that deal, arguing that there was no meeting of the minds and therefore no binding contract.

United States District Judge Stephen Larson in Riverside, CA, accepted that argument in a 2008 summary judgment order. The ruling complicated Warner Brothers' ongoing efforts to revive the Superman movie franchise (the next film, Man of Steel, is due out later this year).

The Siegels' bid to undo the 2001 contract faltered badly before the Ninth Circuit, which found that an October 2001 letter by the Siegels' then-attorney “constituted an acceptance of the terms negotiated between the parties, and thus was sufficient to create a contract.”

Daniel Petrocelli of O'Melveny argued for Warner Brothers before the Ninth Circuit. The appeals court's unpublished decision comes on the heels of a ruling O'Melveny won for Warner Brothers' in its ongoing feud with the Shuster estate. In October 2012, U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II in Santa Ana, CA, ruled in that the Shuster family didn't have termination rights in its portion of the Superman copyrights. DC Comics vs. Pacific Pictures Corp., 10-3633 (C.D.Calif. 2012). Toberoff has appealed that ruling to the Ninth Circuit.

O'Melveny & Myers scored a big win for Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc. in January 2013 in the company's ugly copyright battle with the heirs to the creators of Superman. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that the heirs of now-deceased Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel signed away their rights to the Man of Steel in a 2001 agreement with Warner Brothers. Larson v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., 11-55863.

The Siegel family, represented by controversial Hollywood attorney Marc Toberoff, had argued that the 2001 deal wasn't binding. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument, noting that Siegel's lawyer at the time called the agreement a “monumental accord.”

The ruling deals the Siegels a major blow in their decades-long bid to increase their share of the Superman profits. Siegel and fellow cartoonist Joseph Shuster created the Superman character in the 1932. Six years later, they sold their rights in the character to Detective Comics (now Warner Brothers subsidiary DC Comics Inc.) for just $130 and a contract to supply the publisher with material. Decades later, Warner Brothers gave Siegel and Shuster lifetime pensions of $20,000 per year, even though it said it had “no legal obligation” to do so.

After both Siegel and Shuster died in 1999, their family members tried to reclaim their copyrights based on the '203 termination rights provision of the Copyright Act of 1976 that allows artists to regain control of their works after 35 years. The Siegels reached a deal with Warner Brothers in 2001 in which they gave up their termination rights in exchange for $3 million in cash upfront and several million more in contingent compensation. With Toberoff's help, they later tried to undo that deal, arguing that there was no meeting of the minds and therefore no binding contract.

United States District Judge Stephen Larson in Riverside, CA, accepted that argument in a 2008 summary judgment order. The ruling complicated Warner Brothers' ongoing efforts to revive the Superman movie franchise (the next film, Man of Steel, is due out later this year).

The Siegels' bid to undo the 2001 contract faltered badly before the Ninth Circuit, which found that an October 2001 letter by the Siegels' then-attorney “constituted an acceptance of the terms negotiated between the parties, and thus was sufficient to create a contract.”

Daniel Petrocelli of O'Melveny argued for Warner Brothers before the Ninth Circuit. The appeals court's unpublished decision comes on the heels of a ruling O'Melveny won for Warner Brothers' in its ongoing feud with the Shuster estate. In October 2012, U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II in Santa Ana, CA, ruled in that the Shuster family didn't have termination rights in its portion of the Superman copyrights. DC Comics vs. Pacific Pictures Corp., 10-3633 (C.D.Calif. 2012). Toberoff has appealed that ruling to the Ninth Circuit.