The Legal View

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...

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.

[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.]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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: