This is the third in my series of posts on the fight over the rights to Superman. You can find posts one and two here and here.
In the late 1960s and mid-1970s, Siegel and Shuster and Detective Comics again went to court over the ownership rights of Superman. At issue between the parties were the copyright renewal rights to Superman. Before I dive in to the cases, I need to provide a brief overview of relevant copyright law at the time.
In the late 1960s and mid-1970s, Siegel and Shuster and Detective Comics again went to court over the ownership rights of Superman. At issue between the parties were the copyright renewal rights to Superman. Before I dive in to the cases, I need to provide a brief overview of relevant copyright law at the time.
At the time
of Superman’s creation and at the time of the litigation, U.S. copyright law
was governed by the Copyright Act of 1909. Unlike today where the full term of
copyright protection is granted upon completion of a work, the original term of
copyright protection was for 28 years from the date of publication.[1]
The term of protection could be extended for an additional 28 years if a notice
of renewal was filed with the copyright office.[2] The applicability of the work for hire doctrine also was different than today (see here for my previous discussion of the work made for hire doctrine). Even
though the work for hire doctrine was mentioned in the Copyright Act, there was
no guidance provided.[3]
Instead, courts applied various tests to determine whether an employee-employer
relationship existed thereby making something a work made for hire.
After agreeing
to settle the previous case over Superman and granting the rights to DC, Siegel
and Shuster used the expiration of Superman’s initial copyright term and upcoming
copyright renewal term in another attempt to regain control of the character
they created. They filed their case in federal court in New York in 1969
seeking a declaration that they did not transfer the copyright renewal rights
to DC.[4]
DC argued
Siegel and Shuster had assigned the renewal rights to DC in the various
agreements they had signed over the years and while settling the previous
lawsuit.[5] DC
also argued Superman was a work for hire and ownership of the character
belonged to DC.[6]
The court
ruled Siegel and Shuster were prevented from arguing many of their claims
because of the previous settlement agreement.[7] It
also ruled the language of the settlement agreement seemed to clearly state
that Siegel and Shuster had transferred all ownership rights to DC, including
the renewal rights.[8]
Furthermore, the court ruled Superman was a work for hire because DC had
instructed Siegel and Shuster on the revision and expansion of the Superman
story published in Action Comics #1.[9]
On appeal, the Second Circuit court of appeals
found the lower court had properly ruled that Siegel and Shuster were barred
from relitigating the ownership of Superman due to the state court judgment in
the 1948 case, and it found the lower court was correct in finding that the
judgment and other agreements between the parties had transferred the copyright
renewal rights to DC.[10]
However, the Second Circuit did overturn the lower courts finding that Superman
was a work for hire.[11]
At the time, it appeared the fight
over Superman was over. Siegel and Shuster could not regain Superman through
his renewal rights. However, a change in copyright law in 1976 will give them,
and their heirs, another opportunity to try and take back Superman, which we’ll
begin discussing next time.
[1] See Copyright Act of 1909, § 23, http://www.copyright.gov/history/1909act.pdf
(last visisted Nov. 11, 2016).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Siegel
v. Time Warner, Inc., 496 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1119 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
[5] Siegel
v. National Periodical Publications, Inc., 364 F.Supp. 1032, 1035 (S.D.N.Y.
1973).
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at
1036.
[8] Id. at
1037
[9] Id. at
1036.
[10] Siegel
v. National Periodical Publicatoins, Inc., 508 F.2d 909, 912-14 (2nd Cir.
1974).
[11] Id. at
914.
