The Legal View: Did Marc Toberoff actually win in today’s Superman case ruling?

201212131445.jpg

You might hear today that the district court judge has handed Toberoff another stunning defeat this week, “a doozy and an outright win for DC.” 

It’s actually a win for Toberoff, at least procedurally.

Here’s what happened. 

The Legal View: Could Alan Moore regain the WATCHMEN copyright?

alan-moore.jpg

In his post, Rich Johnston goes on to wonder whether Alan Moore could eventually terminate the Watchmen transfer from 1985. Commenters argue that this is absurd, but depending on the contract Moore could actually re-claim his share of the property.

The Legal View: What the Shuster ruling means

joe_shuster.jpg

By Jeff Trexler In the book of Genesis, Esau sells his birthright to his younger brother Jacob for some lentil soup. Yesterday, a judge ruled that Joe Shuster’s sister sold the family’s claim on the Superman copyright for a meager pension. Superman may be a modern myth, but that’s not always a good thing.

The Legal View: Ticket crashes and the Tardis

beat-default

Ticketfails have become as much a part of fandom as slashfic and cosplay. While PR flubs and angry complaints get a fair bit of attention, the crash of ticket sales for last week’s promotion of a Doctor Who premiere in New York also illustrates the potential for legal problems.

A few thoughts on the legal dimension of online event ticketing — and why it matters — after the jump.

The Legal View: Legal maneuvering on both sides as judge cancels Superman hearing

beat-default

[On Monday, US District judge Otis Wright cancelled a hearing on the case of the Joe Shuster estate's claim for his half of the copyright to Superman. This led many observers to think a decision was near. The Beat's legal expert, Jeff Trexler explains it's just not that simple.]

The Legal View: Historic Documents in the Siegel & Shuster Lawsuits

beat-default

By Jeff Trexler

— Whatever the merits of the latest summary judgment motion in the dispute over the Superman copyright, its supporting exhibits bring together a number of important documents in two accessible filings.

The Legal View: "Breaking" old news in the Superman copyright case

beat-default

By Jeff Trexler

Other comic news sites are reporting a bombshell development in DC’s legal fight to hold onto the Superman copyright: on Monday, the company filed a court document asserting that the Shuster estate had actually sold its share of the Superman copyright back to DC in 1992 and affirmed this sale in subsequent correspondence.

The Legal View: Retconning the Siegel Case

beat-default

In my last post, we looked at the attorney-client privilege question addressed by yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling in favor of DC. But does a clear victory for DC in a this rather technical legal issue signal a greater loss for the Siegel and Shuster heirs?

The Legal View: Jack Kirby and the Siegel Appeal

beat-default

Last year a federal court in New York denied the Kirby heirs’ attempt to claim the copyright in Spider-Man and other Marvel properties. Why, then, is their lawyer betting the future of the Siegel lawsuit on the same losing arguments?

The Legal View: Facebook vs Superman

beat-default

DC’s latest filing in the Siegel case made headlines because of the company’s request for a trial. But was that really a surprise? In today’s post, we’ll look at what the filing reveals about DC’s not-so-secret war — and how the final fate of Superman may be determined by Facebook and the Winklevoss twins.

Court rules making your own Batmobile violates copyright — UPDATED

beat-default

We’ve mentioned a few times here a lawsuit for copyright infringement by DC against an outfit called Gotham Garage, which sells replica Batmobiles—based on the ’60s Batman TV show in particular—as well as other vehicles based on famed fantasy cars, like the Mach Five.

If you were thinking of buying one, better hurry, because a judge has ruled that the Batmobile is subject to copyright.

The Legal View: The Missing Siegel Check

beat-default

The most revealing development in the Siegel case since I last wrote for The Beat involves a check. Not the check issued to Siegel and Shuster in exchange for the Superman copyright, but one that DC has apparently* not written–payment to the Siegel family for Grant Morrison’s relaunch of Action #1.

THE LEGAL VIEW: Superman vs. Clark Kent

beat-default

My last post explored how continuities between the cover image of Action Comics #1 and subsequent material could give DC a substantial part of the copyright in the original Superman.  One question left unaddressed, however, was the issue of Clark Kent, not to mention other key elements of Superman’s character and mythos appearing in that historic first issue.

In this post, let’s take a quick look at that question and the role it could play in bringing this case to an end.

Court rules in favor of Marvel in Kirby copyright case — with text of ruling and depositions

beat-default

A sad day for those who hoped, perhaps against hope, that Jack “The King’ Kirby’s heirs would get some of the money their father’s creations have made over the years. Characters including Captain America (created in the ’40s with Joe Simon), The Hulk, Iron Man and Thor– you know, if they called next year’s potential biggest-movie-of-all-time THE AVENEGRS “JACK KIRBY’S AVENGERS” they would not be far from the mark.

Deadline has analysis, seeing it as a big setback for lawyer Marc Toberoff, who has won many unlikely IP cases against giant studios in the past:

The Legal View: From Superman to Supergods with Grant Morrison

beat-default

By Jeff Trexler– In March 2008, Grant Morrison’s homage to Siegel and Shuster appeared in comic shops on the very same day that the Siegel heirs recaptured half the original Superman copyright.  Now Morrison is set to work his shaman’s magic once again in the September relaunch of Action #1–and this time, the Siegels could lose everything.

Morrison’s upcoming Supergods holds the key to understanding why. For an explanation and a sneak preview of Morrison’s new book, click below. A mysterious appeal, Joe Shuster’s super-swastika and the final crisis of the legal multiverse–this one has it all.

The Legal View: The Once and Future Superman

beat-default

DC has cited its changes and additions to the Super-verse as grounds for reducing the Siegel heirs’s share of Superman material produced since 1999. A recent Variety article takes this even further, reporting thatNeil Gaiman’s success in winning co-ownership of Medieval Spawn provides legal precedent for giving DC complete ownership of the contemporary Superman, limiting the Siegels’ interest to the far less lucrative 1938 version of the character.

Does DC have strong legal grounds for splitting Superman between The Man of Tomorrow and The Man of Yesterday? Click below to see if Gaiman v. McFarlane is legal kryptonite for creators’ rights–or whether that’s just another misconceived retcon.