Writes Variety, "The Siegel and Shuster estates could wind up owning some parts of the Superman story while DC Comics owns others. The estates could get Superman's blue leotard, red cape and boots, plus an ability to leap tall buildings while DC retains villains like Lex Luthor plus Superman's ability to fly. The question is: Could each party proceed with a subsequent project without the other's involvement? In theory, come 2013 auds could see two parallel versions of the Man of Steel ramp up. In practice, that looks pretty unworkable."
The piece goes on to explain that no matter what rights the estates may be awarded, the all-important trademarks will continue to be held by DC/Warner, which would significantly impact on ways that the estates can create merchandise based on the character. Additionally, since the "reclamation" of copyright is limited strictly to the U.S., the international rights will remain with the studio.
The downside for Warners is that "come 2013, DC could still exploit the Superman projects it's already made, but under the Copyright Act, the company could not create new 'derivative' works based on Action Comics No. 1 and other properties held by the heirs. Presumably, more sequels would mean more legal land mines."
The article then postulates that both parties could create Superman adventures, noting a recent legal ruling between Neil Gaiman and Todd McFarlane regarding Spawn. Judge Richard Posner ruled that "Gaiman's 'Medieval Spawn' was 'sufficiently distinct' to justify a separate character copyright from the original Spawn."
Adds Variety, "Along this line of reasoning, one way to settle the Superman dispute would be to split the character in two -- a 1938 Superman and a Modern Superman -- and allow both sides to create new works based on their versions."
For more, just follow the link.