Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

Decision Date12 August 2009
Docket NumberCase No. CV-04-8400-SGL (RZx).
Citation658 F.Supp.2d 1036
PartiesJoanne SIEGEL and Laura Siegel Larson, Plaintiffs, v. WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.; Time Warner Inc.; and DC Comics, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Central District of California

Jeffrey Bruce Linden, Keith Gregory Adams, Marc Toberoff, Nicholas Calvin Williamson, Rafael Gomez-Cabrera, Marc Toberoff Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Anjani Mandavia, David L. Burg, Michael Bergman, Adam Beriah Hagen, Weissmann Wolff Bergman Coleman Grodin & Evall, Beverly Hills, CA, James D. Weinberger, Roger L. Zissu, Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, Jonathan Zavin, Loeb & Loeb LLP, New York, NY, Patrick T. Perkins, Perkins Law Offices, Cold Spring, NY, for Defendants.

ORDER RESOLVING ADDITIONAL ISSUES

STEPHEN G. LARSON, District Judge.

The 1976 Copyright Act contains many intricate formalities that an author (or his or her heirs) must navigate to successfully terminate the grant to the copyright in an original work of authorship, but perhaps none is more fundamental an impediment than the one excluding from the reach of termination the copyright "in a work made for hire." 17 U.S.C. § 304(c); see 1 MELVILLE B. NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 5.03[A] at 5-12 (2008) (commenting that the exclusion "relating to termination of transfers is probably the most important feature of the work for hire doctrine with respect to works created at present"); 3 WILLIAM F. PATRY, PATRY ON COPYRIGHT § 7:42 (2008) (labeling as a "significant exclusion" to the right to terminate the grant in "work-for-hire creations"). The complexity of the 1976 Act's termination procedures stems as much from the fact that those provisions intersect with and must be construed in light of the body of copyright law that existed at the time the works were created (here, the 1909 Copyright Act) as from the intricacies set forth in the 1976 Act itself.

This is particularly true when applying the "work made for hire" bar to works created under the auspices of the 1909 Act, as the law developed by the courts under that Act was oftentimes confused and not well-delineated, with its dimension continuing to evolve long after the effective date of the 1976 Act. See Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children and Adults of Louisiana, Inc. v. Playboy Enterprises, 815 F.2d 323, 325 (5th Cir.1987) (commenting that the term "work for hire" was undefined in statute, and that a "substantial body of cases developed as courts worked out the definition").

Having previously addressed the iconic superhero Superman's first appearance in Action Comics No. 1 in its earlier decision, the Court now considers the myriad relationships and contractual arrangements surrounding the published works of Superman by his creators Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster for the years 1938 to 1943. The task of disentangling these relationships and agreements, and giving legal meaning to them, lies at the heart of this case.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

When the Court last left Superman, the copyright in the earliest published version of the character, as depicted in the comic book Action Comics No. 1, had been reunited with the heirs of one of his creators, Jerome Siegel. See Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., 542 F.Supp.2d 1098, 1145 (C.D.Cal.2008). One might have thought that with the extensive discussion of Superman's creation and development therein, little more would be left to be said about Superman's first years in print; as the Court has since learned, there is more to the story.

Like the arc of a comic book serial, there has been an unfolding of evidence regarding the creation and subsequent publication of Superman. The parties have presented to the Court previously undisclosed evidence surrounding the back story to Superman's creation before 1938, the character's publication for the years 1938 to 1943 in comic books published by Detective Comics after Action Comics No. 1, and in the syndication of daily newspaper comic strips through the McClure Newspaper Syndicate.

A. Pre-1938 Years: Superman's Initial Creation and Development

As recounted in the Court's earlier Orders, the development of Superman evolved, with the character being reworked by Siegel and Shuster over a period of years. However, missing from that account and now disclosed is the existence of another collaborator.

The story picks up with Siegel dramatically rescuing from the flames the cover art work from the pair's initial version of the Superman character in heroic form (as a hulking strong man, sans super-human powers or alien origin, in the fashion of Flash Gordon) after Shuster grew despondent when the publisher to the comic book Detective Dan rescinded its offer to publish the material. See Siegel, 542 F.Supp.2d at 1103. This led to a split of sorts with Siegel, with Shuster apparently deciding he was no longer interested in continuing to illustrate Superman, and Siegel apparently concerned that the character was going nowhere under Shuster's artistic direction. As Siegel later recounted, after the debacle with Detective Dan, Shuster became "very discouraged" and decided that he "did not want to work on Superman anymore." (Decl. Marc Toberoff, Ex. F at 45). Undeterred, Siegel sought out other artists to illustrate his scripts as he continued to flesh out the Superman character. See Siegel, 542 F.Supp.2d at 1103 ("Undaunted, Siegel continued to tinker with his character, but decided to try a different publication format, a newspaper comic strip").

Notably, Siegel approached illustrator Russell Keaton, who at that time was providing the art work for the Buck Rogers Sunday newspaper strips. For a few months spanning the summer and fall of 1934, the pair exchanged correspondence and scripts for Superman. This activity culminated with Siegel and Keaton producing a week's worth of newspaper comic strips (or nine horizontal strips, each containing four panels, with dialogue and illustrations), and Siegel drafting for Keaton's consideration three scripts (for which no illustrations were ever created) for Superman that, taken together, demonstrated the evolving nature of the character.

The story portrayed in the scripts and the week's worth of illustrated material was devoted exclusively to Superman's upbringing as a child by a couple known only as Sam and Molly Kent, and included the first inklings of a science fiction aspect to the character, albeit with a much different take on Superman's now well-familiar origins.

In this earlier version, Siegel conceived of Superman as having been sent as an infant back in time, to then-present day America (circa 1935), in a time machine created by "the last man on Earth" before the planet's destruction. The story is also notable as it contained the first expression of Superman's now familiar super-human powers: That he had a "physical structure millions of years advanced from" those living in 1935, leading him to possess "colossal strength," the ability to "leap over a ten story building," "run[] as fast as an express train," and stated that "nothing less than a bursting shell could penetrate his tough skin." Upon his arrival, Superman spoke a language that his adoptive parents did not understand, and the secret of his origins was tied to a cryptic mystery note accompanying him in the time machine. When, as an adult, Clark Kent was presented with the mystery note, he could not understand the words written on it. Both the illustrated strips and the scripts contain the by-line crediting its authorship to "Jerome Siegel and Russell Keaton." (Decl. Marc Toberoff, Exs. C, D & E).

Keaton eventually chose not to take a chance on someone with such little experience writing comics; by sometime in the first half of 1935, Siegel and Shuster resumed their creative partnership and were again working together on Superman, with the pair poised at the tipping point that would lead them to create the version of the character that would transform the comic book industry. In fact, it was shortly thereafter that Siegel would have his breakthrough moment, conceiving of the now-familiar Superman story on a "hot summer night."1 It was then that Siegel combined his now developed Superman character as a mythic superbeing capable of fantastic feats with a new pseudo-scientific explanation for those feats to make them more plausible—the character's extra terrestrial origin. Shuster then went about creating a graphical representation of Siegel's character, replete with costume and distinctive physical features:

The two then set about combining Siegel's literary material with Shuster's graphical representations. Together they crafted a comic strip consisting of several weeks' worth of material suitable for newspaper syndication. Siegel typed the dialogue and Shuster penciled in artwork, resulting in four weeks of Superman comic strips intended for newspapers. The art work for the first week's worth of "daily comic strips was completely inked" and thus ready for publication. The "three additional weeks of `Superman' newspaper comic strip material" differed from the first week's material "only in that the art work, dialogue and the balloons in which the dialogue appeared had not been inked," instead consisting of no more than black-and-white pencil drawings.

Siegel, 542 F.Supp.2d at 1105. Much of this four weeks' worth of material was later re-cut and re-pasted into a comic book format and published in the first installment of Detective Comics' comic book magazine Action Comics. Not widely known is the amount of material, beyond that published, the pair had created during these formative years, outside the watchful eye of any publisher.

To begin, not all of the four weeks of pre-existing Superman material created by Siegel and Shuster found its way into print in Action Comics No. 1. During the editing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Horror Inc. v. Miller
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • September 28, 2018
    ...201.10(b)(2)(v), and forgive "[h]armless errors" in the notice, 37 C.F.R. § 201.10(e)(1) ; see also Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. , 658 F.Supp.2d 1036, 1093-94 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (finding harmless error in the omission from a termination notice of distinct individual comic strips,......
  • TCA Television Corp. v. McCollum
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • December 17, 2015
    ...be in writing) (citing Dave Grossman Designs, Inc. v. Bortin, 347 F.Supp. 1150, 1154 (N.D.Ill.1972) ); see also Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entm't. Inc., 658 F.Supp.2d 1036, 1086 (C D.Cal.2009) (“[D]uring the time the 1909 Act was in effect, at common law, a copyright was capable of assignment s......
  • Marvel Worldwide Inc. v. Kirby
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 28, 2011
    ...instead is a more narrow inquiry focused on the nature and scope of the parties' business relationship.” Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entm't Inc., 658 F.Supp.2d 1036, 1059 (C.D.Cal.2009). In analyzing that relationship, courts focus on the degree to which the hiring party had the right to control......
  • TufAmerica, Inc. v. Codigo Music LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 16, 2016
    ...the assignor and assignee, and which appears to be absent in the case of Marin and Craft. See Jerry Vogel , 535 F.Supp. at 175. Finally, in Siegel, the assignor's conduct clearly demonstrated acquiescence to an assignment because the assignor explicitly agreed in writing (i) to hand over to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Intellectual Property and Estates: Where Creativity and Planning Intersect
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Trusts & Estates Quarterly (CLA) No. 23-3, March 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...in the termination notice and was still the property of DC Comics).50. Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2009) 658 F. Supp. 2d 1036.51. Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Kirby (2nd Cir. 2013 No. 11-3333).52. 15 USC section 1127.53. Serial no. 72069873.54. Serial no. 72349496.55.......
  • Copyright Transfer Terminations, Trademark, and Trade Dress: Forewarned Is Forearmed
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 43-11, November 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...created for use as a part of an audiovisual work. [43] Rohter, supra note 4. [44] Id. [45] Id. [46] Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entm't lnc, 658 F.Supp.2d 1036, 1060-84 (C.D.Cal. 2009). [47] Id. at 1056. [48] Id. at 1057. [49] Id. at 1060-84. [50] Latin Am. Music Co. v. Am. Soc'y of Composers Aut......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT