safe

The Superman Saga: A Lawsuit Takes Flight

Over the years, DC Comics and Superman in particular have had an interesting screen life. Retcons and reinventions are certainly nothing new throughout Warner Bros.’ attempts to bring their iconic characters to life cinematically, though the end results have been wildly mixed. But, now, producer/director James Gunn, along with Peter Safran, one of the lead producers behind Warner’s massively successful The Conjuring Universe, have set out to reboot the series, shifting away from the DCEU in favor of the new DCU. Gunn’s highly anticipated Superman is set to inaugurate the new franchise in the summer of 2025. However, it’s not all smooth soaring for everyone’s favorite Man of Steel, thanks to the filing of a recent lawsuit.

According to Morningpicker’s sources, the rights to the character have quite a few contingencies attached to them, with certain specificities reaching all the way back to 1938, when Superman was the joint creation of illustrator Joseph Shuster and writer Jerome Siegel. Per the lawsuit, the character was originally licensed to Detective Comics, the company that would eventually morph into DC.

However, Shuster’s estate is now arguing that, under British law, the rights to Superman actually reverted to them in 2017 after the 25th anniversary of Shuster’s passing. With that in mind, the suit posits that Warner Bros. has failed to pay proper royalties for the character in several regions outside the U.S., including the U.K., Canada, and Australia.

Unless some sort of agreement is reached, the lawsuit could throw the future of the Superman franchise into disarray.

The Complex Rights to Superman

A History of Retcons and Reinventions

DC Comics’ past attempts to bring Superman to life on the big screen have been marked by both triumphs and missteps. From the campy charm of the 1978 film starring Christopher Reeve to the darker, more brooding take of the 2006 film starring Brandon Routh, each iteration has sought to capture the essence of the iconic superhero while reflecting the sensibilities of its time.

The recent shift towards the DCU, spearheaded by James Gunn, represents another attempt to reinvent Superman for a new generation. Gunn’s vision promises a fresh start for the character, focusing on his origins and exploring themes of hope and redemption. The success of this reboot will depend on its ability to connect with audiences on an emotional level while staying true to the enduring legacy of Superman.

The 1938 Agreement and Its Contingencies

At the heart of the current legal battle lies a complex web of rights and agreements dating back to the creation of Superman in 1938. When Shuster and Siegel first brought the Man of Steel to life, they entered into a licensing agreement with Detective Comics, granting the company the rights to publish and adapt the character. This initial agreement, however, contained certain contingencies that have become the subject of much debate in recent years.

One key point of contention is the question of ownership. While Detective Comics secured the right to publish Superman, the original agreement also stipulated that the character’s creators would retain certain rights. However, the exact nature of these retained rights and the conditions under which they might revert to the creators have been subject to interpretation.

The Lawsuit: A Reversal of Fortune

In 2023, Shuster’s estate filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros., alleging that the company has failed to uphold its obligations under the original 1938 agreement. The estate is seeking financial compensation for what they claim is unpaid royalties for the character’s use in various media formats.

Furthermore, the lawsuit cites British law, which may provide grounds for the rights to Superman to revert back to the estate after 25 years following Shuster’s death in 1992. This legal argument hinges on the interpretation of the original agreement and the specific conditions under which rights might be reclaimed.

The Implications of the Lawsuit

International Release and Royalties

The lawsuit could have significant implications for the international release of James Gunn’s Superman. If the court rules in favor of Shuster’s estate, Warner Bros. could face restrictions on distributing the film in certain regions, including the U.K., Canada, and Australia.

This could result in lost revenue for the studio and potentially delay or even cancel the international release of the highly anticipated film. The financial implications of such a ruling could be substantial, given the global reach of the Superman franchise.

A Precedent for Future Disputes

This lawsuit could set a precedent for future disputes over comic book character rights. Other creators or estates may be emboldened to challenge existing agreements or seek greater control over their creations.

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for the entertainment industry, potentially leading to a shift in the way comic book characters are licensed and controlled.

The Future of Superman

The lawsuit casts a shadow of uncertainty over the future of the Superman franchise. If Warner Bros. is forced to pay significant damages to Shuster’s estate or relinquish control over the character’s rights, it could have a significant impact on the studio’s plans for future Superman films and television shows.

The outcome of this case will undoubtedly shape the landscape of the DC Universe for years to come.

The Role of the Estate and Warner Bros.

Shuster’s Estate: A Desire for Justice

Shuster’s estate maintains that their primary goal is to secure just compensation for Joe Shuster’s contributions to the creation of Superman. They argue that Warner Bros. has profited immensely from the character over the decades and that the estate is entitled to a fair share of those profits.

They emphasize that their lawsuit is not intended to deprive fans of the next Superman film but rather to ensure that the creators of the character are properly recognized and compensated for their work.

Warner Bros.’ Response: A Fight for Rights

Warner Bros. has responded to the lawsuit with a strong defense, stating that they fundamentally disagree with the estate’s claims and will vigorously protect their rights.

The studio argues that the original agreement clearly grants them the rights to Superman and that they have consistently paid appropriate royalties. They maintain that the lawsuit is without merit and are prepared to pursue all available legal remedies to defend their position.