Re: Superman Case With The Shuster/Siegel Estates

thecolorsblend Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:37 pm

BIG news! And good news too! It's really surprising how ready, willing and able DC has been to (once again) give compensation for Superman in all this. That's got to look pretty bad in court for the Siegel Parasites. This looks to be a pretty wide-reaching deal. If it is, the big points of this case are basically resolved by now.

Apologist Puncher Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:58 pm

I just hopes this leads to the end of Tober-JackOff's career as a bottom-feeding leech.

thecolorsblend Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:07 pm

Apologist Puncher wrote:I just hopes this leads to the end of Tober-JackOff's career as a bottom-feeding leech.

I'm kind of interested in Toberoff's fate too. At the very least, you'd think he could be accused of some severe ethical violations (rejecting settlement offers without consulting the client arguably for his own personal gain and other shit we probably don't know about). Not sure if any of it necessarily rises to the level of criminal offense but I wonder that he could be disbarred or something.

Apologist Puncher Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:12 pm

thecolorsblend wrote:I'm kind of interested in Toberoff's fate too. At the very least, you'd think he could be accused of some severe ethical violations (rejecting settlement offers without consulting the client arguably for his own personal gain and other shit we probably don't know about). Not sure if any of it necessarily rises to the level of criminal offense but I wonder that he could be disbarred or something.

The Bar takes any and all allegations of misconduct VERY seriously. If the Bros. Warner were smart, once this thing is officially over, they would file a complaint or twelve with them.

non_amos Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:35 pm

Now how about adding the red trunks in post for THE MAN OF STEEL, capice? Happy

thecolorsblend Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:16 am

If you're a legal numbnuts like me, Trexler's commentary will break the whole thing down for you.

Jeff Trexler wrote:In the simplest possible terms, what happened in the Siegel case?

The Siegels 2008 victory is all but officially null and void. The Siegel heirs will instead receive what they are owed under the 2001 settlement agreement.

Is the Supreme Court likely to reverse either of these rulings?

No.

Although members of the Supreme Court have criticized the use of memo dispos, in practice the Court is far less likely to take a case that has been decided in this manner.

The reason? In most cases the law really is pretty straightforward. Without, for example, a circuit split on an important issue, the Court has little reason to stir up the dust by flipping well-established law.

If the 2001 Siegel settlement was so straightforward, why did Toberoff go forward with the Siegel copyright lawsuit?

Three reasons:

Personally, he saw an opportunity to get a percentage of the Superman material for himself and his production company. He persuaded the Siegel + Shuster heirs that they could win; they gave him a big cut of the property; he filed the lawsuits.

Strategically, it’s evident from filings in the Kirby lawsuit that Toberoff considered the Ninth Circuit–and particularly the more liberal judges–to be more friendly legal territory. Not only did the law work against him on this score, but the ample settlement and DC’s retcon of Toberoff as a corporate carpetbagger substantially changed the rhetoric of the case.

Legally, the Siegel settlement was based on what’s called a term sheet, which as an agreement reached before the whole thing is written down in a detailed final contract. Based on the detail of the term sheet and the law of the applicable jurisdiction, it’s possible for a term sheet to be binding even if the parties did not go through with a detailed final contract. The Siegel’s previous attorney before Toberoff thought that the 2001 Siegel term sheet was sufficiently specific to be binding, and the Ninth Circuit agreed.

What next?
For the Siegel case, it’s all over but the lower court filings. With a binding settlement in place, the subsequent Siegel lawsuit is moot. We can expect the district court to follow the Ninth Circuit’s lead on this score and vacate the 2008 opinion.

Legally, that means the 2008 Siegel victory never existed. However, the 2001 settlement is binding, which means the Siegel estate and his daughter, Laura Larson, get a multimillion dollar payout.

In the Pacific Pictures case, we move to proceedings on the various claims by DC against Toberoff and Pacific Pictures. Daniel Petrocelli, Warner Brothers’ outside counsel, is out for blood — after 2008 Toberoff had the reputation of being a Hollywood dragon slayer, and this is a real opportunity to take Toberoff down.

URL- http://comicsbeat.com/todays-superman-rulings-explained

Somebody (non_amos?) ventured that this ruling pretty much ends the lawsuit. That's Trexler's interpretation. Not sure what effect this has on Superboy matters (or even where the Superboy shit stands) but I'm glad the Siegel Parasites got slapped down like this... of course, "slapped down" means millions of dollars being paid to them but if it was a choice between that and the character being destroyed forever... well, at least I'm not the one who has to cut the checks.

non_amos Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:46 pm

non_amos wrote:Now how about adding the red trunks in post for THE MAN OF STEEL, capice?

I'm coming back to this.

I know we previously discussed the 'vagueness' of the trunks issue in THE MAN OF STEEL marketing. There may even be different opinions on this. But I was out walking yesterday & some possibilities occurred to me.

Call it 'Plan A vs. Plan B'. First, Plan B. We're all aware that DC took the trunks off of Superman, supposedly for good. Then we see that Henry Cavill ain't wearing them either in MOS. Then we find out that Zack Snyder was forbidden to use them. So even though this may have already been touched on in some respects, I'm calling the lack of trunks Plan B, obviously brought about due to all the legal crapola of late. Duh heir parasites wanted the rights back. DC's argument OTOH is that the character has 'evolved' from what Siegel & Shuster originally created, so much so that it really is it's own animal now. And DC was responsible for those changes in the character & mythos. So take it a step further. Now we have Superman without the trunks & DC can argue their point, right? In other words, it's not the same thing that Siegel & Shuster created. But you see, this is also like DC covering themselves I guess in case things didn't go their way. So if duh parasites won then we'd continue to have a trunkless Superman in the comics & MOS & all future sequels would also be trunkless.

What about Plan A? Plan A I'd simply call 'classic' Superman, trunks & all, if they could use them that is. And I think this comes back to the point I brought up previously about how vague & obscure the marketing has been so far for MOS. Point being, even though we know there's no trunks, it's like the marketing is avoiding it like the plague. Why? Simple. Plan A vs. Plan B. If WB/DC had lost the case, then they already had a plan in place to compensate for it, both in the comics and the films. However, if they won instead, then they could do whatsoever they pleased, right? So if they want to bring back the trunks, for whatever reason, they can. They have the right. Personally I'm hoping that's exactly why the trunk area has been so obscured with MOS. That they were leaving themselves an 'out', a window of opportunity if things were decided in their favor. Sure, the trunks would have to be added in post & actual trunks saved for the sequel but whatever, just bring them back! Here's hoping.

On the flip side of this though, there's the possibility that the trunks are gone even if they have the right to use them. Why would they do this? Because it seems to be the 'trend' in recent years. Batman hasn't had trunks for years, right? And that had zilch to do with duh parasites. And that seems to be the trend now. Duh general public doesn't want 'Superman wearing his underwear on the outside of his pants'. Comics & films in recent times have veered away from it. Then when you see critics of the trunks on TV, sometimes even the DC people themselves, they bring up how superheroes were originally depicted like 'circus strongmen', including Superman. I guess the whole 'professional wrestler' appearance. So in these people's minds it's time to move away from that. Rolling Eyes

Whatever happens, let's just say that Superman needs the trunks because he simply doesn't look right without them!

thecolorsblend Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:12 pm

^ Yep. Plus, I understand that DC wants to expand their readership but the simple fact of the matter is that there are no new readers. Sure, new people get turned on to comics every year but not in numbers sufficient to replace those dying/quitting. It's a shrinking industry. Why try to appeal to new readers that simply don't exist?

And if gaining new readers truly is the goal, deleting the trunks is the wrong approach to take. They should bring comics back to retail outlets like supermarkets and whatnot. Oh, wait, Marvel is while DC keeps beating the same dead horse with non-stop retcons and continuity "fixes". Oy...

thecolorsblend Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:18 pm

Deadline wrote:On the 75th anniversary today of Superman’s debut, Warner Bros got some more good news about the Man of Steel. The last elements of WB and its subsidiary DC Comics legal issues with the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel effectively came to an end Thursday with a US District Court ruling on the rights to Superboy and some Superman ads. "The Court holds that the 2001 settlement agreement between DC and the Siegels re-granted the Siegels’ Superman, Superboy, and a Superman advertisements that ran in the 1930s to DC in return for substantial advances and royalties," wrote Judge Otis Wright III today (read it here). "The remainder of Defendants’ Motion is therefore Granted and this litigation of superhero proportions now draws to a close," the federal judge added in not uncharacteristic fashion.

URL- http://www.deadline.com/2013/04/warner-bros-gets-superman-birthday-present-as-court-ends-co-creator-heirs-rights-case

Unless I'm misunderstanding something (which is certainly possible), this puts the Superboy aspect of this whole mess to bed. WB now owns Superboy. That can only be good news as far as I'm concerned.

This opens the door to a lot of possibilities. The Pre-Crisis/Bronze Age junkie in me would LOVE a Superboy animated series/movie or live action film. My main beef with Superboy has always been the fact that he's usually written as "young Superman" rather than a kid who goes through his character arcs. This is one reason why Smallville is such a badass concept for me. Clark doesn't always make the right choice in the show. That version of Clark has to grow and mature before he can become Superman. But I'll be the first to admit that if there's a way to put that concept into a "Superboy" vehicle, I'd love to see it.

Plus, the conventional wisdom in children's animation right now is that it's not enough to feature a young sidekick these days. Robin doesn't cut it anymore. Children must be presented with characters that are their age and are directly reflective of their perspective and life experiences or else they simply won't bother tuning in. Well, you can't really do that with Batman as we've always known him. You couldn't do Batman- The Animated Series under that rubric today. But Superboy fits very neatly in with that philosophy. A lot of people think WB has to catch up to Marvel with the big screen live action stuff but in my view it'd be one hell of an oversight if they don't also have boots on the ground with kiddo animated shows. Again, Superboy could be the gateway for all that.

This has a staggering amount of potential.

James Stocks Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:41 am

Only issue I ever had with SUPERBOY is that it renders the introduction of SUPERMAN rather meaningless. With that background, the folks at Metropolis who spot him for the first time in that city would just look up and say "oh, it's that Superboy character from Kansas".

But besides that, I do like your ideas of a SUPERBOY being more prone to mistakes. The silver age admirer in me would also like to see the more wackier stories from that age come to life. Like SUPERBOY being a punkass two-timing Lana Lang and some other girl. The comics always sort of struck me as ARCHIE IN RED TRUNKS. Laughing

thecolorsblend Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:16 am

Superman Heirs Taking Warner Bros. Back To Court
Author: Gabe Toro | published: December 17, 2013 10:30am PST
discussion58 Comments
Superman Heirs Taking Warner Bros. Back To Court image
How much trouble is this Superman guy really worth? Without counting prints and advertising, the studio spent $495 million getting both Superman Returns and Man Of Steel onscreen, neither of which have become nearly as beloved as the Marvel films or the WB’s Dark Knight offerings. And after years of legal wrangling with the relatives of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, Warner Bros. finally nabbed the rights to the character, landing another victory in the one-sided battle of major companies against comic creators.

But the fat lady has not yet sung, and I assure you, it’s not because she has a problem with her larynx. Deadline reports that lawyer Marc Toberoff is issuing a request for a re-hearing of the November 21st decision to award the rights to the studio, backing the 1976 Copyright Act. WB argued successfully that a deal with Shuster’s siblings in 1992 allows them the rights to the character in perpetuity, and the debate is largely whether that agreement can be considered legally binding. The belief is that Toberoff lost the case in November due to not disclosing that he had a side-deal with Pacific Pictures to relocate the rights to the character and producer their own Superman series of films. Et tu, Never Say Never Again?

Needless to say, those films aren’t happening. And regardless of the court’s decision, it has already been ruled that the current run of Superman films, which includes 2015’s untitled Man Of Steel sequel, would not see its rights shift back to the estate. This is ultimately an ugly ongoing battle in the complex history of the rights to Superman, indicative of the manner in which companies treat comic creators who aren’t Stan Lee.

Siegel and Shuster originally sold the rights of their creation for $130 in order to allow Action Comics to keep publishing Superman stories by their pen. Eventually as the character became a sensation, the two were pulling down a heavily disproportional fee, getting into legal battles with the company over the rights to non-Superman characters they were creating underneath the banner of the brand. Both creators passed away in the 1990s, and legal battles undertaken by Simon and Shuster were later taken up by their heirs, to the point where this is borderline Hatfield-McCoys territory. Apparently the heirs have made repeated agreements with Warner Bros. in regards to the rights, but their lawyers continue to insist these deals are not legally binding. Given that Toberoff owns Pacific Pictures, it’s certainly possible these heirs are being used and abused by a couple of greedy jerks.

Of course, an alternate line of Superman movies made by a much smaller, shadier studio? Who isn’t intrigued by Toberoff’s crackpot idea? Without the rights to other DC characters, Pacific Pictures could have made a genuine standalone Superman picture that isn’t beholden to "universe-building" or special guest star characters. Wow, what a novelty that would be?

URL- http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Superman-Heirs-Taking-Warner-Bros-Back-Court-40743.html

How the hell Toberoff isn't in prison right now is completely beyond me.

I say we shouldn't rush off half-cocked on this. Unless I'm badly misinterpreting something, this is merely a "request". Toberoff shouldn't be assumed to have a leg to stand on about any of this. A judge may very well look at this and say "you want more of this? Heh, that's so cute, get out of my courtroom, asshole."

In other words, I don't think it's time to panic yet.

Apologist Puncher Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:43 pm

It's Tober-JackOff's final "Hail Mary" attempt. But the wording by the judge pretty much means he FAILED, and nothing is going to change that.

Good thing for the "heirs" is, they are getting the millions the Bros. Warner agreed to over a decade ago. Hopefully a NEW attorney gets in their ear about suing Tober-JackOff next.

thecolorsblend Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:33 pm

Toberoff and the Parasites are doing a Hail Mary pass but submitting the case to the Supremes. Oddly enough though, *NOBODY* seems to be on their side this time. Even the Eunuch page rubes have 99 problems the Parasites aren't among them.

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=15190#comments

Dare we hope that this outbreak of common sense is due to fandom as a whole getting smarter? Or is it more likely that the Apologists have been shown the door at the Eunuch page so the (admittedly mediocre) collective IQ of Eunuch page members has skyrocketed... right into "mediocre" territory?

non_amos Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:19 pm

I dunno man. I haven't been to duh Homopage enough in recent memory to know what's going on & just now have clicked on this link. I didn't recognize any of those User IDs in the comments though. I couldn't even tell you where the majority of them stand on MOS. If I actually had any time to really post I might would become a troll LOL. Used to be one of duh Homopage's favorite words, along with 'baiting'. Smile

thecolorsblend Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:25 pm

non_amos wrote:I dunno man. I haven't been to duh Homopage enough in recent memory to know what's going on & just now have clicked on this link. I didn't recognize any of those User IDs in the comments though. I couldn't even tell you where the majority of them stand on MOS. If I actually had any time to really post I might would become a troll LOL. Used to be one of duh Homopage's favorite words, along with 'baiting'.

If one's insecure enough, it's easy to confuse "expressing a different opinion" with "trolling".

The Animistic Felcher- "sMAllvilez is hurrible!1!!1!"
TCB- "Oh, I dunno about that. It's presents a pretty coherent and very in depth of the myth of the hero's journey in a way that probably no other Superman adaptation ever has or ever will quite match."
The Eunuch Choir- "omgwtf, stop trolling the Felcher!"

And so forth.

You do get a bit more mileage though if you pretend to be a waaaaaaay over-the-top feminist comic book fan. It'll take a lot longer to get banned. You can ask me how I know this or you can just take my word for it.

non_amos Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:44 am

Yeah I know you were actually banned several times based on past posts. Even though there was this little confusing episode where Herr Fagley got me mixed up with another member & unwittingly banned me only to 'un-ban' me almost immediately afterward when he discovered his mistake. Or it was pointed out to him, whatever. So my actual ID wasn't truly banned but then just one day that turned into dozens of days that turned into months, I pretty much just abandoned them! Pun intended. And then after a lengthy period of inactivity duh Eunuch just cleaned house of inactive accounts so my ID was no longer there.

Yeah I've been tempted since I have a new ISP to sign up again with a different name but somehow I just never get around to it! It's almost like it just ain't worth the trouble. I wonder though how long it'd take them to figure out who I was, if ever LOL.

thecolorsblend Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:07 am

non_amos wrote:Yeah I've been tempted since I have a new ISP to sign up again with a different name

Finally got rid of that dial-up account in Colorado, did you? Very Happy

non_amos wrote:It's almost like it just ain't worth the trouble. I wonder though how long it'd take them to figure out who I was, if ever LOL.

As I've gotten older, I've either gotten wiser or more apathetic. Toss a coin, really. Time was I wanted to educate people on certain things they're inexcusably wrong about. I was young and full of beans. It's probably why I ever fell in with the Realists in the first place. But if that same bullshit happened today, odds are I'd just wash my hands of fandom altogether and be done with it. I just don't have the same energy to "fight the good fight" anymore. This country's going to shit a little more every day. Look how people are reacting to the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision. Someone's free to practice their religion. Well, that's just the end of your fucking world, isn't it? But really it's not about Hobby Lobby or contraception or, to a degree, even religion. It's one side of this country wanting to force the other side to violate their own conscience with a gun and prison bars on the other side of the argument.

But making that point invariably gets shouted down by the leftwing mob of pissed off feminazis and "morally offended", pajama-wearing mangina college burnouts. My view of the left isn't drastically different from the way I see a good bit of Superman fandom. I hate them, I resent the simple fucking fact of their existence and I wouldn't piss on any of 'em if they were on fire... but I just don't have the same energy to get in the dirt and trade punches like I used to.

My final remarks on the subject are to remind all of you where the idea of employer-sponsored health insurance comes from. Back in the Depression, but esp WW2, employers were eager to get skilled employees working in their manufacturing facilities. The government had put in price- and wage-controls (because those ALWAYS work!) so employers couldn't attract a work force with higher pay. So instead they began offering benefits. Health insurance, pensions, that kind of bullshit. The private sector was hemmed in by the government so they found loopholes to get around government interference.

We went from benefits like those I've described being understood to be perks to this bullshit sense of entitlement where anything less than neverending free handouts and "corporate responsibility" is some unemployed layabout's Gaia-given right. All that in less than a century.

As much as I've enjoyed the left having heart attacks over the Hobby Lobby decision (and I HAVE), the sheer number of people who are upset about this is just fucking depressing.

thecolorsblend Mon Oct 06, 2014 8:08 pm

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/supreme-court-denies-review-superman-738308

Basically SCOTUS declined to hear this farce. In the legal world, that means the last court ruling stands. In this case, that's the one granting DC/WB ownership of the character. Yes yes yes, this was totally predictable, we all saw it coming but now it's official.

non_amos Mon Oct 06, 2014 11:49 pm

Good! But I've been so busy working lately but still wondered, why is it so dead around here lately? It's like no one is really posting or anything, myself included. Our images are even gone now with something about Image Shack or something. What's going on?

thecolorsblend Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:46 pm

non_amos wrote:Good! But I've been so busy working lately but still wondered, why is it so dead around here lately? It's like no one is really posting or anything, myself included. Our images are even gone now with something about Image Shack or something. What's going on?

For me, it's a combination of things. A lot of other things I'm into have been broadened, plus I've taken on some new responsibilities for my job, prep for which eats up a lot of time, which leaves less for family/friend stuff and even less time for diversions.

But on top of all that, I'm never been the type to introduce topics and lines of discussion. I do fine when I respond to what other people are saying but it's tough to come up with a decent (and original) idea for a thread. Other people seem able to do it effortlessly but it's always been a pain in my ass. I get the idea that most of us around here are about the same way, where they can't necessarily come up with ideas for discussion out of whole cloth. I think the Puncher can but not usually the rest of us. So that's not much help.

Apologist Puncher Wed Oct 22, 2014 7:11 pm

It's tough to find things I'm actually "up" for talking about. Shit comes out, I say "That's kind of cool...", then move on. When things finally start popping up in regards to 'B v.S', there will be a lot more to talk about.

But I'll try to post things I think people might be interested in.

Sponsored content