We're continuing the story of the litigation between the estates of Joel Shuster and Jerry Siegel, the creators of Superman, and Warner Bros. There are multiple cases in the courts right now, but they all boil down to who controls and will control the rights to the Superman character. The estates are continuing the lifelong struggles of the two men to regain the copyrights they transferred in the 1930s. Warner's has a big-budget Superman project in the works.

The most recent argument is over some documents in possession of Siegel's estate that Warner's says contain consent agreements and information on how the proceeds will be split between Siegel's and Shuster's heirs.

Warner's learned of the documents' existence during settlement discussions with Mrs. Siegel's attorney. The studio demanded to see them, but the court agreed with the attorney that they were protected by attorney-client privilege.

Warner Bros. demanded access to the agreements a second time, arguing that the agreement would be a violation of the Copyright Act and, so, not excluded from discovery and not protected by attorney-client privilege. The consent agreement was illegal, they argued, because it directed third parties who had not yet gained control of the copyright not to traffic in future interests. Generally, the law doesn't like the subject of a contract to be so remote to the people who are entering into the contract.

The argument came from an earlier case involving the rights to A.A. Milne's Winnie-the-Pooh books. In that case, the author's heirs were trying to rescind an earlier agreement with one company by terminating the copyright in order to enter into a new agreement with another. In the Superman case, the heirs allegedly agreed that they would negotiate together and that they would grant no one, including Warner's, future interests.

What happened? Tune in to our next post!

Source: Reuters, "Warner Bros. loses again in 'Superman' litigation," Eriq Gardner, 04/13/11