Warner Bros reverses on Superman Lawsuit
electric_mayhem
Posts: 641
Huh?
Calling Joe Sergi, calling Joe Sergi...
:-?
Calling Joe Sergi, calling Joe Sergi...
In a strategic move in the copyright battle between Warner Bros and the heirs to Superman’s creators, the studio has filed an appeal to reverse earlier rulings in the case and put everything out in open court in a trial. “This long-running dispute should be brought to an end,” Warner Bros wrote in a dense 117-page appeal (read it here) filed Friday with the 9th Circuit Court. In typical Hollywood legalities, the move actually resolves nothing — expect to see a response from the heirs and then another back from Warner Bros, and all off it to end up one way or another in the Appellate Court sometime in the late summer or early fall.http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/warner-bros-wants-rights-fight-with-superman-heirs-decided-in-court/
Through the courts, the estate of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel recaptured half of the original Superman rights in 2008, with the estate of co-creator Joe Shuster to do the same in 2013. Warner Bros, which owns longtime Superman publisher DC Comics, disagrees with those decisions. “This case is about the ownership of copyright in the earliest comics that introduced elements of the iconic Superman character and story,” the appeal from Warners lawyer Daniel Petrocelli states. “The case presents an unusually broad array of doctrinal, factual, and procedural issues. But much of the case reduces to a familiar proposition: a deal is a deal.”
Warners contends that Laura Siegel Larson, the heir to the Siegel estate, “reneged” on a copyright deal with DC that “guaranteed the family many millions of dollars in cash, royalties, and other compensation.” In its call to have the issue decided by trial, the studio says “the family asserted there was no deal without a long form and the district court agreed, casting aside established California contract law principles — principles essential to the entertainment industry, where many business deals are never formalized.” The latest legal move by Warner Bros follows a win last year in the matter, when Judge Otis Wright tossed out a First Amendment suit by Marc Toberoff, a rights lawyer for the heirs.
None of this will have any immediate effect on the upcoming Zack Snyder-directed Superman reboot Man Of Steel, scheduled to be released June 14, 2013, or any potential sequels from that property.
:-?
Comments
The original decision was a summary judgment ruling. That means that the Court ruled that under the undisputed material facts (and giving every inference to the nonmoving party) the Siegels, as a matter of law, own Superman.
There are two ways to go when you have to oppose a Summary Judgment motion (technically 3 since you can also ask the Court to put off ruling until the parties gather evidence):
1. you can argue that the facts are not in dispute, but that under the law, you should win. Or
2. you can argue there are material facts in dispute and that you need to resolve them with a trial. This includes facts or things where the credibility of witnesses can be evaluated.
Here is a simple example (I hope):
Paul crashes in Dianne at an intersection with a traffic light. if both Paul and Dianne agree that the light was broken, then they can cross move for summary judgment to see who had the legal right of way when they hit each other. The judge will rule as a matter of law on the undisputed facts. However, Paul says that his light was green and Dianne says that it was red. This is a factual dispute and a judge will need to hear evidence to see who is telling the truth and then after he (or a jury) makes that determination, the Court will then apply the law to the facts as found during the trial. make sense?
Warner took the first approach and cross moved for Summary judgment against the Siegels. They lost. Now, they are taking the second approach and trying to point out a bunch of she said/he said things that would need to be resolved with a trial (and, from what I've seen in the filing, it appears as though they are maintaining the first approach as an alternative argument).
The appeal is what is really going to make a difference in this case since the odds of this getting to the Supreme Court are pretty thin (I would dare say almost nonexistent).
Sorry for the delayed response.
Thanks
Joe