Superman rights stay with Warner Bros.

A judge ruled that Warner Bros. will retain its rights to the Superman character despite the attempt of the heirs of one of the original artists to retake part of the copyrights.

Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP
'Man of Steel' is directed by 'Watchmen''s Zack Snyder (l.) and stars Henry Cavill (r.).

A judge ruled that DC Comics and, by extension, its parent company Warner Bros. will keep its rights to the character of Superman, despite the attempt of the heirs of original artist Joe Shuster to retake their rights to the character.

U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright ruled that in 1992, when DC Comics agreed to take care of Shuster’s debts after his then-recent death and pay his sister Jean $25,000 annually for the remainder of her life, the Shuster family lost the right to renegotiate copyright.

“The 1992 agreement, which represented the Shuster heirs' opportunity to renegotiate the prior grants of Joe Shuster's copyrights, superseded and replaced all prior grants of the Superman copyrights,” Wright wrote in his decision.

The lawyer for the Shusters, Marc Toberoff, said in a statement that “we respectfully disagree with [the order’s] factual and legal conclusions. It is surprising given that the judge appeared to emphatically agree with our position at the summary judgment hearing.”

Shuster and his co-artist Jerry Siegel signed over rights to Superman to DC Comics’ Jack Liebowitz and Harry Donenfeld for $130 in the 1930s, with Superman appearing in a comic book for the first time in 1938. A judge ruled that the Siegel family had rights to the character in a 2008 case, but Warner Bros. is still able to use Superman while paying the family (Warner Bros. is appealing that ruling). However, Wright said that the case with the Shusters is different because they entered into the 1992 agreement.

Warner Bros. is releasing a new “Superman” film, titled “Man of Steel,” in 2013, starring “The Tudors” star Henry Cavill as the Caped Crusader and “The Muppets” actress Amy Adams as Lois Lane.

It is predicted the Shuster family will appeal Wright’s ruling.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.