US court writes latest chapter in Superman “saga”
Comic book creator DC Comics remains in charge of the copyright to Superman after the latest decision in a decade-long ownership dispute over the character.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday rejected a claim to the superhero’s copyright from the estate of co-creator Joseph Shuster.
Shuster’s estate tried in 2003 to reclaim the superhero’s copyright, which the creator had assigned to DC under a 1938 agreement, by filing a notice of termination.
In response, DC said that under a more recent agreement, signed in 1992 by Shuster’s siblings, the earlier deal was revoked and Superman’s copyright re-granted to the Warner Bros subsidiary.
The 2003 challenge was invalid, the company said, because US law only allows challenges to copyright agreements signed before 1978, and the 1992 deal had superseded the one in 1938.
DC, a subsidiary of Warner Bros, is responsible for developing the Superman brand across TV and film as well as print media.
In a 2-1 ruling, the ninth circuit affirmed a decision from the US District Court for the Central District of California that had backed DC’s rights to Superman.
“The district court correctly held that the 1992 agreement ... superseded the 1938 assignment of copyrights to DC,” said judges Reinhardt and Sedwick.
“The estate’s primary argument to the contrary is that the 1992 agreement does not in express terms, cancel the 1938 agreement,” they added, before saying that this view ran counter to the “plain text” of the later deal.
They rejected the estate’s second claim that the 1992 agreement cannot invalidate the 2003 challenge, because the deal was “an agreement to the contrary” under US law.
“Defendant’s argument runs counter to the plain text of the copyright termination statute,” they said.
But Judge Thomas disagreed with his colleagues, saying the 1992 agreement was invalid.
“The 1992 agreement could not have affected the statutory right of termination,” Thomas said, arguing that in 1992 the law said only an author, his widow or surviving child could terminate copyright.
In 1992, Shuster’s siblings had signed the agreement to revoke his copyright, receiving life-long pensions in return.
“Thus,” Thomas continued, “the question is whether the 1992 agreement was a novation that validly revoked and re-granted Joe Shuster’s 1938 copyright grant.”
Thomas, who said the agreement was not a novation, claimed there is no indication in the 1992 deal that the earlier agreement had been extinguished.
Instead, Thomas said, the statutory right of termination became part of Shuster’s estate, although the judge admitted that “the record is not developed fully enough for me to determine what consequences actually flow from that conclusion.
“It may well be, under California probate law, that the ultimate outcome is unchanged. But on the record before us, and the narrow question presented in this appeal, I must respectfully dissent,” Thomas said.
Unless the estate appeals, the decision closes a long-running dispute between the parties described in this case as “another chapter in the long-running saga”.
