UPDATE: Warner Bros. Staves Off Superman Copyright Challenge

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

After a protracted battle between the company that claimed the copyright of Superman against the estates of the creators of the comics superhero that rivaled the epic struggles the Man of Steel fought against criminal mastermind Lex Luthor, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit last week voted 2-1 in favor of Warner Bros, according to Deadline.com.

With Judge Sidney Runyan Thomas dissenting, Judges John Sedwick and Stephen Reinhardt upheld the trial court decision for the entertainment conglomerate against the heirs of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, ruling Warner Bros. is the copyright holder of Superman and his alter ego, intrepid Daily Planet reporter Clark Kent. The case, DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp. et al. (Case No. 12-cv-57245), has been closely watched by the perpetually pre-adolescent staff of this blog (see "TUOL" post 8/17/09).

In a 12-page Memorandum of Law, the appellate court reaffirmed that DC Comics, which is owned by Warner Bros., holds the copyright to Superman, seemingly removing any further obstacles to the studio producing more Superman and Superboy films.

That is, unless, as Superman addicts everywhere know, the decision actually was rendered by the Bizarro-9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Movie Companies Sue Internet Movie Streamer

Image via CrunchBaseIn Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. et al. v. WTV Systems, Inc, WTV Systems, LLC d/b/a /Zediva & Venka Tesh Srinivasan (Case No. 11-cv-02817), recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is seeking damages for copyright infringement [17 U.S.C. secs. 106(4), 501] from a Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company allegedly streaming new Hollywood films over the Internet without license from the film studios.

As reported by the Media Law Prof Blog and Associated Press, the plaintiffs allege they are being deprived of  their right to publicly perform their works by the defendants' streaming movies to customers without paying a license fee to the studios that produced the films.  The defendants argue they are not required to pay license fees because their business is essentially a digital equivalent of a movie-rental store.  The plaintiffs dispute the characterization, arguing rather, that the defendants are a video-on-demand operation illegally streaming movies over the Internet.

Warner Bros. Giving Rotten Tomatoes a Squeeze

Image via WikipediaWarner Bros. has emerged as the favorite to acquire Rotten Tomatoes' parent Flixster entertainment site, according to the Website All Things Digital (ATD).

Though neither party has confirmed the possible sale, All Things Digital says the asking price for the San Francisco-based Flixster is likely in the $60 million to $90 million range.  The five-year-old Flixster was founded by Joe Greenstein and Saran Chari, and  offers among its brands, social movie review site Rotten Tomatoes.

Warner Bros., which includes the Harry Potter, Batman and Rush Hour movies in its stable, has turned to social media in a big way, ATD reports, by engaging in a movie rental venture with Facebook.

Warner Bros. v. Magic X: Where the Rubber Meets the Road

Image via Wikipedia
The Cantonal Court in Schwyz (Switzerland) is expected to decide in the coming weeks whether to ban a product registered in 2006 with Swissreg, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property.


The product is the target of a copyright infringement claim by Warner Bros., overseer of the blockbuster Harry Potter film franchise, against manufacturer Magic X. The product? Harry Popper condoms.

As reported by the Website THR, Esq. (http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com) and the online edition of The Daily Telegraph (www.Telegraph.co.uk), the Popper prophylactic's package boasts a cartoon condom adorned in Harry Potter-type glasses holding a magic wand.

Warners is breaking out the big guns to try to cancel the condom company's trademark registration, but counsel for Magic X insists their product is wholly unrelated to author J.K. Rowling's money-making boy wizard.  The battle has been waged throughout Europe, with Warners having successfully prosecuted its claims in Austria and Germany to date.

Despite its opposition to copyright infringement, the health-conscious staff of "TUOL" advocates protected sex, even if it means wearing Harry Popper condoms, to avoid getting "hog warts."

DC Comics Goes After Kryptonite Attorney in Superman Suit

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

DC Comics, which is owned by Time Warner's Warner Bros. division, wants damages from Marc Toberoff, the attorney representing the heirs of Superman co-creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster in a copyright suit against the media giant (see "TUOL" post 8/17/09).

In a 56-page complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the media company seeks declaratory relief concerning alleged copyright termination and assignment issues, and accuses the attorney of interfering with the economic advantage of his clients' agreements with the comic book publisher (DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp., IP Worldwide LLC, IPW LLC, Marc Toberoff et al.).

According to the plaintiff's suit, the Man of Steel's creators never challenged DC Comics' copyrights and their families abided by lifetime compensation agreements entered into with the media company until Attorney Toberoff came onto the scene like Lex Luthor threatening Metropolis (that part's not in the complaint). The plaintiff claims Toberoff persuaded Siegel and Shuster's descendants to repudiate the compensation agreement that resulted in the lawsuit Joanne Siegel & Laura Siegel Larson v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. et al (Case No. 04-8400). DC Comics accuses Toberoff of violating U.S. Copyright laws and  exploiting the Superman franchise to the media giant's detriment.

As Jimmy Olsen might say: "Jeepers!"

Superman and Bizarro Superman Battle in Court

Image via Wikipedia

Call it the Man of Steel versus the Men of Steal.

Warner Bros. and DC Comics must share the ownership of copyrights of portions of the Superman oeuvre with the heirs of the superhero's creator, Jerry Siegel, ruled Judge Stephen Larson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. The case is Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., Time Warner, Inc. and DC Comics (Case No. 04-8400).

The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Marc Toberoff, who successfully represented the heirs of the creator of Lassie in a copyright dispute that was a real bitch. Judge Larson's ruling gives the plaintiffs co-ownership of the first two weeks of the Superman daily comic strips, along with part of the backstory of Superman, such as the superhero's origins on planet Krypton and his crash-landing on earth. The defendants are the sole owners of the copyrights involving the term "kryptonite," master villain Lex Luthor, and the tights-wearing hero's ability to fly.

Superman's X-ray vision would have trouble penetrating the judge's 92-page decision.