Superboy lawsuit update (edit #3)

Via Jeff Trexler:

This is the big one. The judge has issued a ruling in the case regarding the Siegel family's rights in Superman. It doesn't resolve all the issues--for example, this does not address the Superboy issue, which is a separate case. However, it does award the heirs copyright in the Superman material in Action Comics number 1 (the judge uses the term "Vol. 1", but that's only a reference to the first issue.).

See Trexler's page for a copy of the 71-page ruling.

Technically nothing has been resolved yet in the Siegels vs DC/Time Warner case regarding copyrights to Superboy, but the judge ruled on the Superman case: exercising their rights granted to them (and all copyright holders and their heirs) by Congress in 1976, the Siegels recaptured a share of the copyright to the Superman material in "Action Comics" #1. The Superboy case is another case altogether, whether the character is derivative of Superman (in which case DC gets the copyrights) or whether he is a separate character created by Siegel and Shuster not created as work for hire (in which case the Siegels get the copyrights).

See this New York Times article for a fairly easy to read synopsis:

A federal judge here on Wednesday ruled that the heirs of Jerome Siegel — who 70 years ago sold the rights to the action hero he created with Joseph Shuster to Detective Comics for $130 — were entitled to claim a share of the United States copyright to the character. The ruling left intact Time Warner’s international rights to the character, which it has long owned through its DC Comics unit.

Time Warner lawyers declined to discuss the decision, a spokesman said. A similar ruling in 2006 allowed the Siegels to recapture their rights in the Superboy character, without determining whether Superboy was, in fact, the basis for Warner Brothers’s “Smallville” television series. The decision was later challenged in a case that has yet to be resolved, said Mr. Toberoff, who represented the family in that action.

Trexler points to a blog by William Patry, whose copyright treatise is referenced in the ruling, who now happens to be the Senior Copyright Counsel to Google, Inc.

I will say it is a brilliant opinion must have taken an extraordinary amount of time. It is very readable (and with great pictures!), which is very high praise given the extreme complexity of the facts and the legal issues at stake, If there was a Pulitzer Prize for judicial opinions, Judge Larson would win (with supporting awards for his hard-working clerks.).

Read the Times article and the two blog entries first, then read Blog@Newsarama's coverage. Save that one for last, so you can read the comments from those accusing the Siegels of being greedy.

This is far from the end of the line. Expect a lot of litigation on the Superman issue, and we haven't even gotten to the Superboy issue yet.

Update #1: Jeff Trexler has a FAQ up for those of you who, like me, can say "IANAL" (I am not a lawyer) but want to understand what's going on.

Additionally, see coverage at Journalista ("Sometimes, the good guys do in fact win"), the LA Times, Comics 212, Comic Book Resources, Wired, and soon to be lots more.

Update #2: Tom Bondurant of Newsarama (who is a lawyer) provides his opinion on what it all means. Most amusing are the hair-pulling, clothes-rending, plaintive cries of "woe is me, what will I do in a world without Superman?".

Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood Daily gets to put her anti-studio spin on the ruling.