On a Friday, Joe Shuster’s estate filed a lawsuit against DC Comics and Warner Bros., aiming to reject their copyrights in various international territories.
The legal disagreement concerning the rights to Superman, a conflict ongoing since 2013, was recently rekindled. The court of appeals previously dismissed the claim by the Shuster estate aiming to revoke the Superman copyright. This decision was based on the fact that Shuster’s sister had waived his right to terminate the copyright after his death in 1992.
In this fresh dispute, attorney Marc Toberoff for the estate is bringing up copyright issues across the U.K., Canada, Ireland, and Australia. This legal action precedes Warner Bros. Discovery’s summer release of “Superman,” a move to rekindle the lucrative franchise and initiate a cinematic universe centered around DC characters.
In my professional opinion as a film critic, I find myself delving into the intricacies of a legal matter concerning Superman’s cinematic rights. In a lawsuit lodged in the Southern District of New York, Toberoff posits that the copyright for these films reverted to the Shuster estate in many countries back in 2017, and as recent as 2021, in Canada.
Despite this, the Defendants persistently use Superman in various regions without obtaining permission from the Shuster Estate – in movies, TV shows, and merchandise, which goes against the copyright laws in these countries that state all joint copyright holders must give consent for such actions,” Toberoff stated.
Through a spokesperson, Warner Bros., which owns DC, said it will fight in court.
The representative stated that we strongly oppose the validity of the court case, and we’re determined to protect our legal rights aggressively.
In the year 1938, Superman was conceived by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, and they sold the character for a mere $130. Since then, the creators’ descendants have been trying to regain ownership of their creation, with efforts beginning after Siegel’s passing in 1996.
Since the year 2001, Toberoff has been part of these endeavors. In 2010, Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit against him, alleging that he was attempting to increase his wealth unjustly by colluding with the creators’ estates in an effort to seize control over Superman. The court ruled in favor of the company in a 2-1 decision at the 9th Circuit.
In the lawsuit, Toberoff contends that the earlier case only addressed termination rights as defined by the U.S. Copyright Act, and did not impact the international copyrights held by the estate.
25 years after the death of Superman’s creators, their estates regained ownership of Superman under UK and relevant copyright laws.
Toberoff contends that the American District Court can handle this disagreement because, as a signatory of the Berne Convention since 1988 – an international agreement – it has the authority to do so.
Read More
- INJ PREDICTION. INJ cryptocurrency
- SPELL PREDICTION. SPELL cryptocurrency
- How To Travel Between Maps In Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2
- LDO PREDICTION. LDO cryptocurrency
- The Hilarious Truth Behind FIFA’s ‘Fake’ Pack Luck: Zwe’s Epic Journey
- How to Craft Reforged Radzig Kobyla’s Sword in Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2
- How to find the Medicine Book and cure Thomas in Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2
- Destiny 2: Countdown to Episode Heresy’s End & Community Reactions
- Deep Rock Galactic: Painful Missions That Will Test Your Skills
- When will Sonic the Hedgehog 3 be on Paramount Plus?
2025-01-31 22:47