Warner Bros Has Lost Krypton; Will Lose Superman in 2013

Warner Bros Has Lost Krypton; Will Lose Superman in 2013

Warner Bros has Lost Superman...Well Some of it.

By Watchtower31 - Aug 13, 2009 10:08 PM EST
Filed Under: Superman
Source: /film


This week Warner Bros has lost Krypton. Last year a Federal judge decided that Time Warner was no longer the sole proprietor of Superman, and that the heirs of Jerome Siegel (of Siegel and Shuster) are entitled to a share of the U.S. copyright to the character. Again this week, a court ruled giving the Siegel family a larger share of the intellectual copyright. And the race is on to get a new Superman film in flight by 2011, as WB/DC is set to lose the complete rights to the man of steel in 2013.

Superman first appeared in Action Comics No. 1, which was published in 1938, and sold to DC Comics by Siegel and co-creator Joel Schuster. DC Comics owns everything after that as it has been deemed a work-for-hire relationship. The court had awarded the Siegel family with many aspects of the Superman copyright, including the basis of the Superman character, his costume, his alter-ego reporter Clark Kent, Lois Lane, the Daily Planet newspaper, and the Clark, Superman, and Lois love triangle storyline.

But the ruling did not give the family the full Superman copyright because DC Comics owns some of the important elements identified with the character including: his ability to fly, vision powers, the term Kryptonite, Lex Luthor, Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, and “expanded origins.”

The court battle is ongoing. On Wednesday, Judge Stephen Larson awarded the Siegel family rights to more additional works, including the first two weeks of the daily Superman newspaper comicstrips, as well as the early Action Comics and Superman comicbooks. What this means is that the Siegels now control depictions of Superman’s origin story. Everything from the planet Krypton, his parents--Jor-L and Lora, the launching of the infant Kal-El into space by his parents as Krypton is destroyed, and young Superman’s crash landing on Earth.

The whole court case is really to determine how much money Warner Bros. and DC owe the Siegel Family from profits they collected from Superman since 1999. And to make matters worse, copyright law will give the Siegel family full ownership of Superman in 2013. This is the date that matters, because after 2013, the Siegels could bring the property to other movie and television studios. So if Warner Bros wants to produce a new Superman movie before they are forced to pay major bucks for the rights, they will need to go into production by 2011.
SUPERMAN: We Now Know When The Next Sneak Preview For The DCU Movie Will Be Released
Related:

SUPERMAN: We Now Know When The Next "Sneak Preview" For The DCU Movie Will Be Released

SUPERMAN: David Corenswet Suits Up As The DCU's Man Of Steel In New Still From The Movie
Recommended For You:

SUPERMAN: David Corenswet Suits Up As The DCU's Man Of Steel In New Still From The Movie

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

1 2
prototype87
prototype87 - 8/14/2009, 1:04 AM
wow, only now huh
MercWitaMouth88
MercWitaMouth88 - 8/14/2009, 1:09 AM
Interesting
DDD
DDD - 8/14/2009, 1:48 AM
Maybe ALL the rights will revert back to the Siegel family and they can do something better with the Superman property! Anything would be better than "Returns". I absolutely despise that movie!
DEATHSTROKEE
DEATHSTROKEE - 8/14/2009, 1:49 AM
wow the heirs seem like whinny douches.. lol
theFACE
theFACE - 8/14/2009, 3:26 AM
this is a disaster, this issue will drag out for years to come, we wont be seeing another Superman movie until at least 2020. @Deathstrokee, i agree, what a bunch of wankers.
LEEE777
LEEE777 - 8/14/2009, 4:07 AM
Well WB should get their a$$e$ in gear and make that DOOMSDAY movie, make it BIG and EPIC an they'll have a winner right there! ; )

Oh yeah an gotta be ROUTH!!!

Do that first and then, worry about a reboot after that, but once DOOMSDAYS out, they wont hav'ta worry about a reboot anyway!

Interesting article @ WATCHTOWER! ; )
WeaponX
WeaponX - 8/14/2009, 4:55 AM
I could say so much about the Siegel estate (the wife and daughter) but I'll just say these greedy twits have been living off the back of Siegel and Shuster like parasites. It's disgusting.

DC made the character a success, not them, as far as I'm concerned they should go [frick] off somewhere and leave the character alone.

Let's hope DC/Warner can reverse this decision like with Superboy and get back to making comics/movies/TV shows/game etc. with the character as a whole and not a mangled carcass picked at by those two buzzards. Maybe someone who was related to Douglas Fairbanks Sr. (who Superman was modeled to resemble) should crawl out of the woodwork and sue the Seigel estate for profiting on their relative's likeness - give them a taste of their own bullshit.
DDD
DDD - 8/14/2009, 5:01 AM
Yeah, bring on Doomsday! Supes has to fight someone who can actually hurt him or this is just going to be him fighting with Lex and catching airplanes and buildings and islands forever. Bor-r-r-ing!

I don't understand why they can't find a scriptwriter who can do this justice.
It's a simple plot, Doomsday, Superman, Badazz movie!
LEEE777
LEEE777 - 8/14/2009, 6:57 AM
DDD @ ; )

Watchtower31
Watchtower31 - 8/14/2009, 7:06 AM
Thanks Lee

This sucks the next movie is never going to come out, by the time it does it'll probably be interactive and you can be the actors in the movie.

Lee I dont think Doomsday would be good for a first movie but maybe a squeal. The first one should be Braniac and Zod.
LEEE777
LEEE777 - 8/14/2009, 7:13 AM
TEA @ I just luv the digs lol! ; D

WATCHTOWER @ It would'nt be a first movie? The franchise can be rebooted without going back to day one again fella! Like a continuation!

Who would'nt wanna see DOOMIE on the big screen it would be EPIC!!!

After all when Superman died in the comics back then, it made WORLDWIDE news!!!!

Something a comic book has never done!

JoshWilding
JoshWilding - 8/14/2009, 7:18 AM
so, does this affect Smallville and the comic books or just the movies?
MarkCassidy
MarkCassidy - 8/14/2009, 7:19 AM
lol, wow kratos, homophobic AND sexist! Are you racist too? What a catch!
comicb00kguy
comicb00kguy - 8/14/2009, 7:26 AM
How in the hell is giving more control to the Siegel family over Superman "making matters worse"? Siegel and Schuster were assraped blind for DC for decades. DC became a huge billion dollar corporation on the back of Superman. Their character is correctly credited with starting an entire industry which we continue to enjoy to this day. I for one am glad to see the courts siding with the families and giving them a long-overdue share of the money that Siegel and Schuster's creation has generated. This won't mean the end of Superman appearing in movies, or limit anything about him in any form of media. All it means is that they have to pay the Siegel family royalties, which they will certainly do.

For those of you siding against the families, let me ask a simple question: How would you like it if something you created made hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars, for someone, and you got screwed out of a fair share of the money for that creation?
LEEE777
LEEE777 - 8/14/2009, 7:31 AM
TEA @ CAVILLE would make a better CAP than you know who lol! :P

We is very colorful lol!!!
LEEE777
LEEE777 - 8/14/2009, 7:39 AM
Lol!!!
JoshWilding
JoshWilding - 8/14/2009, 7:49 AM
dellamorte1872: could agree more! if Singer had been in charge of 'Batman Begins' then we probably would have ended up with the movie being exactly likethe camp 60's TV series! why make a new movie like ones that came out 30 years ago? i bet half the audience who went to see Returns didnt get any of the references and the movie was ruined and boring because of it!
AxlKomix
AxlKomix - 8/14/2009, 7:57 AM
@ comicb00kguy- the issue here isn't that S^2 got screwed, it's that their bitch-ass kids are trying to reap credit off of their family name. They could leave well enough alone. I'm sure they get plenty of royalties as is.

Also, DC didn't need Superman. DC got it's name from another one of it's superstars: Batman. Batman is DC's posterboy now more than ever, but Detective Comics is where he started and that's the name they've taken. If Superman hadn't come along, it wouldn't matter. As for the role Superman's had in the DC universe, DC would have created their own Superman character (look at what Fawcett did with Captain Marvel).
TurdFergunson
TurdFergunson - 8/14/2009, 8:01 AM
its gonna be like 10 years or so before they release a new Superman flick. this is crazy. poor superman fans, yall gonna see like 3 more batman, ironman, spiderman, xmen films in a time span you may get only 1 superman flick. that sux!
Phinehas
Phinehas - 8/14/2009, 9:10 AM
Ror? Aren't you being judgemental of Kratos?

Its too early to see if this would be good or bad. This may cause WB/DC to grow up and clean up their act. Give Supes a fresh masculine face, a story, and a villian that would actually challenge him.
superdog
superdog - 8/14/2009, 9:17 AM
Axlcomix@ if you honestly believe DC would be as big as it is now and have made as much money without superman your crazy. Batman may currently be thier god standard thanks tothe current movies, but up until the dark knight superman had always been the most selling and most world wide known property. There have been more films, shows, comics about him than any other DC character.

As for the hiers being whiney bitches, all hiers are entitled to the money thier parents had or would have had. Judges are continually ruling in thier favor so i take that to mean DC scrwed over siegel and shuster. So if they have to pay money to make up for that so be it.
Phinehas
Phinehas - 8/14/2009, 9:20 AM
Superdog, if I may add to you point, consider all the franchise merchandise. I would say that Superman far outsells Batman! And I actually enjoy Bats more!
CaptainAmerica
CaptainAmerica - 8/14/2009, 9:23 AM
I just thought of this, if Superman will become a free agent in 2013, then Marvel can buy the rights and even make a film :) Imagine Thor vs Superman, or Hulk vs Superman. It might be possible
Phinehas
Phinehas - 8/14/2009, 9:28 AM
Marvel will ruin it, I guarantee!
GUNSMITH
GUNSMITH - 8/14/2009, 9:30 AM
THEY NEED TO STOP MESSING AROUND AND JUST MAKE THE DAM MOVIE, AND DO IT AS CLOSE TO THE COMIC AS POSSIBLE, DONT CHANGE THE THEME SONG, PEOPE WOULD GET PISSED.GET ZACK SNYDER, AT LEAST HE FIGHTS TO KEEP IT AS DEAD ON TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE.
CaptainAmerica
CaptainAmerica - 8/14/2009, 9:32 AM
How would Marvel ruin it? They are 2 for 2 right now with The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man films.
Shaman
Shaman - 8/14/2009, 9:32 AM
I highly doubt Marvel would ever buy Superman. First of all, they created Sentry. Second, the heirs won't want to sell it either, they'll want to ride it to the grave. Third, from a business perspective, i don't see WB producing a Superman film so quickly, they aren't Marvel. They'll probably kill off the character and everything the heirs own in another infinity crisis type storyline for a final pay off to the heirs. That could make them concentrate more on Captain Marvel for a change and spruce up his image.
CaptainAmerica
CaptainAmerica - 8/14/2009, 9:36 AM
Your right, but who will they go to for comics based on Superman? What im trying to ask is, if DC is gonna lose him, who will publish Superman comics from now on? If Marvel picks him up that would KILL DC.
NERO
NERO - 8/14/2009, 9:39 AM
I still have a problem with this continuing legal case. For one: S&S sold, SOLD mind you, the rights to Superman to DC in like 1940 something, for the pittance of $8000. To me whether it is your creation or not, if you sell it to a larger company, then it is no longer yours.

Once you take money for an intellectual property and sign a contract stating I give the use and rights of said intellectual property to… Then I don’t care if you took a million dollars or thirty cents, YOU WILLINGLY SOLD YOUR INTELECTUAL PROPERTY.

Were the creators smart about it? Hell, no. Did it cost them a fortune in hind sight? Hell, yes. Just keep in mind that around the same time DC bought Supes from them they put out an offer to Bob Kane to sell Batman. Why did Kane come out of his deal smelling like roses and with enough money to live comfortably for the rest of his life and they didn’t? He hired a lawyer to inspect the contract. Kane said once it was the best $85 he ever spent, because it earned him millions.

The family has tried to knit pick this since the creators died with arguments like they should hold the rights to Superboy, Krypton, etc. Well gee folks; one would assume any logical person would say hey what if we made a comic about Supes as a boy with powers. My feeling is this; they sold Superman as a whole then his mythology went with him as a whole, meaning all side characters places and locations, because it only makes sense that it would be so. Apparently a judge in California disagrees with me, but I find it funny that suites like this weren’t filed during the creator’s lifetimes. It just seems like the families are trying to get money for something they played no part in.

Call me cold, I am all for the little guy, but a contract is a contract. Bust a deal; face the wheel, you know.
StephenStrange
StephenStrange - 8/14/2009, 9:42 AM
Good point Superdog, but on the other hand it's obvious that their greed could ruin the aready dim future of this character. Shaman's point about them riding it to the grave is the over riding factor. They will find various ways of exploiting the situation, and personally I think probably it will be to it's useage's detriment.
bsprecher
bsprecher - 8/14/2009, 9:46 AM
It's going to be a very, very sad day when Warner Bros. loses the rights to Superman...
bsprecher
bsprecher - 8/14/2009, 9:46 AM
Click HERE to see who won the Red Skull casting poll and fan art contest, then write in your pick to play Captain America's femme fatale!

CAP CASTING

What would a good WWII Captain America movie be (or any action movie) without a strong, sexy femme fatale? Which actress would you like to see standing with the Red Skull against Captain America and Bucky in The First Avenger: Captain America?

CONTENDERS:

Angelina Jolie
Carla Cugino
Carrie-Anne Moss
Diane Kruger
Eva Green
Jennifer Garner
Jessica Alba
Kate Beckinsale
Kristina Loken
Lucy Liu
Michelle Rodriguez
Michelle Yeoh
Milla Jovovich
Peta Wilson
Uma Thurman
Yancy Butler
or...

WulfComicFan
WulfComicFan - 8/14/2009, 9:48 AM
@ LEEE< you know I agree with the Doomsday theory, I shall elaborate though, Bring in the Justice League movies too....tie it all in.....But please GOD.....NO ROUTH!!!!! We need a new take on the Boyscaout! No more Reeves cloning!!!!! Everyone who still wants Routh is just living in the past. I mean really Reeves was good, but to have someone come in and try to be the SAME Superman, is a slap in the face of the immortal Reeves' Supes. May he RIP!
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 8/14/2009, 9:49 AM
@ deathstrokee

first of all i find this hysterical. second of all, how are they being douches?? if someone was using something that you rightfully own, and making money off of it, but you weren't seeing a dime, you'd be pissed too. i understand this is entertainment, and you probably like superman, but that doesn't mean WB isn't doing something wrong. and after the watchmen movie debacle, i'm starting to see a pattern with WB...
NERO
NERO - 8/14/2009, 9:50 AM
I agree with that Mulder. The family have shown that the money, not the character or his mythology is what is important to them. God only knows what they would do if they had sole control of Superman, they would be able to allow the image and character to be used by any Tom, Dick, and Harry that approached them with a big bag of cash... I'm talking the Tim Burton style Nick Cage Kal El Superman movie weird level of crap coming out here. Just imagine a Superman movie made by Fox...uh-huuugh.
NERO
NERO - 8/14/2009, 9:55 AM
The problem is Corndog, the people demanding the money, don't own it either. Look S&S pushed for DC to give them what they wanted in 1975. Do you know what that was? To forever be listed as the creators of Superman on all movies and publications and to be basicly given a retirement package of $20K a year for the rest of their natural lives. DC did all that gladly with no lawyers involved. S&S never asked for more. from 1975 to their deaths in the 90's. That implies that they never wanted more themselves. I blame all this on the families.
StephenStrange
StephenStrange - 8/14/2009, 10:08 AM
TIM BURTON STYLE NICK CAGE KAL EL?!?! A FOX Superman????
I feel nauseated now.
Nerosday, what yourr sating is true but reading it was like driving over the top of a really steep hill too fast. My stomach lurched.
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 8/14/2009, 10:18 AM
@ nero

the families may not OWN anything as of now, but at the same time that does not mean they aren't ENTITLED to something. look, the courts keep granting them more and more stuff, which means they must be presenting a pretty convincing case. the courts wouldn't just take something away from WB and give it to someone undeservedly.
1 2
View Recorder