Not surprising that in the week we saw another trailer for the upcoming Man of Steel there’s news in the ever ongoing case for the rights of Superman between DC Entertainment and the Siegel and Shuster estates. It’s a big win for DC as the company has – at least for now – total control of the last son of Krypton.

The legal statement released today says,

…the copyright termination notice served by the Estate of Joseph Shuster on November 10, 2003, is deemed invalid and ineffective.


…rights-encumbering agreements—including the 2001 Pacific Pictures agreement, 2003 Pacific Pictures agreement, and 2008 consent agreement—are deemed invalid and unenforceable.

Which means the families of the men who created the first ever and easily the most widely known super hero have nothing. Of course, an appeal on their behalf has already been filed so by no means is this the last battle between to two camps over the ownership of Superman.

The bigger ramifications are on how this will effect relations between the comic book industry, particularly the big two DC and Marvel, and their current stable of creators. Will more of today’s top talent be uneasy about working with these two companies when they could get better deals and hold on to the rights of their characters working for others?

Source: Blastr

Category: Comics

Tags: , , , ,


  • davidjam1

    First off, this is not a “creator” trying to keep their rights. Its is great grandchildren of them trying to get a piece of a pie that they had nothing to do with. They want complete rights over every “super.” And if they got it and DC didn’t do what they wanted they could take everything and run to some other company. Which would pretty much devistate the DC universe as a whole. The estates were getting dividends from DC for some time, but they instead want complete control. Yet, the real person behind this whole thing is the lawyer, that has written into it that if he wins he gets a percentage from each family. Sure not a controlling percentage from the family, but when you say something like 20% and the family keeps 30%, then each family would end up with 30% each and the lawyer would own 40%, which means this POS lawyer has a controlling stake of everything and the families wouldn’t.