Written and illustrated in 1933, accredited to Joseph Shuster and Jerome Siegel and stated to be assigned to Detective Comics, Superman has been making the headlines for its “periodic litigation” since decades. A recent claim made by Mark Peary, the estate of Shuster alleges a violation of international laws by DC Comics, and thus Warner Bros (Accused). Filed on January 31, in the District Court of New York, it has been stated that pursuant to the foreign reversion rights in 2017, and 2021, the rights to the Superman franchise reverted to the legal heirs of Shuster and Siegel in United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada and Australia. It has also been stated that the same has taken effect in countries following British law, including India. With the much-anticipated release of the new Superman film in July, the lawsuit, as per Peary does not seek to hurt the makers financially rather justly compensate the rightful owners of the franchise as per Peary.
History
Superman comics were first published in 1934, bearing the base of superhero storytelling. In 1938, Detective Comics approached Shuster and Siegel, who owned the rights in equal proportion, to buy their rights at a mere price of $130/- in total. Drawn from a litigation battle, it is construed that such rights were assigned. In 1947, a suit was filed since due royalty was not paid to Shuster and Siegel, which was settled for $94,000/-. In 1975, an agreement was signed between Shuster and Warner Communications for Shuster to receive $5,000/- per year.
Beginning Of The Dispute
In 1992, the demise of Shuster found its roots to the dispute at hand which was furthered by Siegel’s demise in 1996. To the utter dismay of his family, Shuster left behind a hefty debt instead of what was expected to be a gold mine. A plea by two of the siblings led to the one-pager 1992 “perfunctory” agreement whereby the statutory termination rights of the creators’ heirs under the US Copyright Act was allegedly waived by them, which via various cases was termed to be inalienable in lieu of which they would receive $25,000/- per year. However, it is stated by Peary that the representative of the estate was not appointed until 2003, which invalidated such agreement. The courts, however, declared such termination rights to be eviscerated under US law. However, the matter at hand deals with infringement by the Accused beyond the borders of the United States of America, pursuant to foreign reversion of rights.
The Letter Of The Law
Peary stated in the current dispute that the agreement of 1992 was merely restricted to US law, and did not have an extraterritorial impact. While the dispute particulars to the 4 countries as mentioned below, he has stated that the foreign reversion of rights have also occurred in India, Singapore, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong and Isreal. Therefore, the exploitation of the rights assigned as well as the derivative rights via motion pictures, television shows, and merchandising of products has been done so deprived of authorization and consent. The laws as cited in defense of Peary’s stand are as below:
United Kingdom, Ireland, & Australia
Peary states that under the Copyright Act, 1911, reversionary rights were granted to the heirs of the author 25 years posthumous, renowned to be the “Dicken’s provision”. Whilst the 1956 repealed the same, the applicability of such rights sustained for those works assigned until June 1st 1957 as per §27 of Schedule I of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988.
Since Ireland formed part of the British Empire, the Dicken’s provision applied to the country as well. Traces of such rights can still be found under the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 under §16 of Part I of Schedule I of the aforementioned act.
Australia, being ruled by the British and lacking its own statute to govern copyright, under §239(4) of the Copyright Act, 1968, reiterated the Dicken’s provision to be applicable to assignments falling between 1911 to 1968.
Since the assignment of rights took place on March 3rd, 1938, the Dicken’s provision would apply in this instance. Therefore, the rights of Superman, in the United Kingdom and Ireland, were restored to the estate of Shushter in 2017.
Canada
Canadian law, differing from the abovementioned, provides under §14 read with §9 of the Copyright Act 1985, for reversionary rights to be effective 25 years after the death of the last author. Since Siegel passed away in 1996, the rights of Shuster’s estate for the country of Canada reverted to his estate in 2021.
The Berne Convention
The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, attested to by the United States in 1988, aims to protect copyright and their authors across borders. Under Article 5(1) of the same states that authors are entitled to enjoy their work which are protected by the convention, in countries apart from the “country of origin”, here being the United States of America, which the country in question grants by the convention. The same shall be independent of the protection that such country of origin provides, and no formality shall subsist as per Article 5(2). Thus, Peary iterates the severability of the application of the waiver of 1992.
Current Position & Conclusion
Instated in the Southern District Court of New York, while Peary seeks reinforcement of rights, an injunction against use of such rights without a license, actual and compensatory damages, it shall be a long-standing battle to assess the facts of the case and gauge justice. While the Accused have time and again exploited the rights in their works such as “The Flash”, “Justice League” series, “The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part”, “Supergirl” amongst numerous others, and as it seeks to establish the “DC Extended Universe”, it shall be for the courts to decide on the fate of the fans in the disputed territories. The same shall shape the future of copyright law as disputes with Spider-Man, Jack Kirby, amongst other occur. To “Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow!”
Author: Malaika Karia