Inside the Superboy Copyright Decision

This story originally appeared in PW Comics Week on April 11, 2006 Sign up now!

by Heidi MacDonald, PW Comics Week -- Publishers Weekly, 4/11/2006

It's one of the saddest tales in copyright history—two teenagers created one of the most popular characters of all time and sold the rights for $130. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster spent the rest of their lives trying to get back the rights to Superman and share in the enormous profits of their creation.

Both went through periods of extreme poverty. Shuster died blind and alone. Siegel went to court twice, in 1947 and 1973, to try to get back his share of the copyright. The 1973 lawsuit ended in defeat, with the bizarre decision—corrected on appeal but with no repercussions—that Superman was created as work-for-hire, when all the evidence was to the contrary. But the 1947 decision, which also involved the character Superboy, established precedents that have led to Siegel's heirs at last regaining the copyright to Superboy.

On March 23, federal judge Ronald S.W. Lew ruled that Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson, Jerome Siegel's widow and daughter, had successfully recaptured the copyright to Superboy, effective November 17, 2004. The ruling throws into question not just Superboy, but the very successful TV show Smallville, which may be ruled to have infringed Siegel and Larson's copyright.

The long legal battle over Siegel and Shuster's creations goes back to 1938, when they sold Superman to National Publications, which published the first appearance of the Man of Steel in Action Comics #1.

That same year, Siegel created a pitch for a new strip, entitled "Superboy." In this proposal, new elements of the Superman legend were created, including details of his childhood and adolescence and such supporting characters as Pete Ross and Lana Lang.

National rejected the pitch.

But in 1945, a character named Superboy debuted in More Fun comics. Siegel had nothing to do with it—he was in the army.

When he got out, however, he and Shuster sued for the copyrights to both Superman and Superboy. The judgment in 1947 split the difference—National owned Superman but not Superboy, a character that had clearly been created separately. However, Siegel and Shuster settled at that time for $94,000, granting the copyright for characters to National, which later became DC Comics—a part of the Time Warner company. Despite the settlement, the decision confirmed one thing: Superboy was Jerry Siegel's creation.

In 1973, with a major Superman motion picture about to be made, Siegel sued again—this time he lost. A group of creators, including Neal Adams and Jerry Robinson, were incensed by the treatment of Superman's creators, and waged a public relations campaign that resulted in partial vindication—Warner agreed that Siegel and Shuster would henceforth be credited as creators of Superman on all comics, TV shows and films, and they were to receive a yearly pension of $35,000 each.

Shuster died in 1992, Siegel in 1996.

However, the 1976 Copyright Act included a new provision—while the terms of copyright were extended, the new law allowed authors to terminate grant of copyright when those renewal terms came up. Some legal observers believe this clause was actually inspired by the plight of Siegel and Shuster, which received a great deal of publicity during the time when the new copyright laws were being argued.

Contacted by PWCW, the Siegels' attorney, Marc Toberoff, gave his own take on why the copyright termination clause was included. Toberoff says that the clause was not added to wreak havoc on the publishing world, but to protect authors. Fifty-six years is a long time, says Toberoff, and in order to clear all the hurdles necessary for a copyright grant termination to take effect, there has to be a lot of money at stake to survive the economic war of attrition that the legal battle will cause. Toberoff said the Siegel decision could be significant—with more creations coming up for copyright renewal, publishers may try to sweeten the pot to keep authors or their heirs from filing.

In his March 23 decision, Judge Lew ruled that there was no factual basis to support Time Warner's claim that Superboy was not owned by Siegel and his heirs—in fact, the 1947 case had decided just that.

But many legal questions remain, especially regarding Smallville, the TV series set during the teenage years of Superman. Whether or not Smallville is about Superboy was not included in Judge Lew's decision. However, he wrote, "Enough facts are presented that this Court, contrary to Defendents [Time Warner's] request, could find that the main character in Smallville, is, in fact, Superboy."

Should that be the case, every episode of Smallville created since November 2004 would be an infringement on Siegel and Larson's copyright. Time Warner has vowed to appeal, and the matter is far from settled.

But it doesn't end there. On February 2, 1998, Siegel and Larson filed a termination of grant for Superman "and 2,607 other titles," which would have taken effect on April 16, 1999. Joe Shuster had no children, but his nephew and executor, Mark Peary, also filed for termination of grant, which would take effect on October 26, 2013. DC had argued in the past that because the Siegels did not own more than 50% of Superman, the termination was not valid, but it is speculated that this is the subject of ongoing negotiations.

While the legal battles go on behind the scenes, real-world repercussions are already being felt. Perhaps expecting the court decision to go against Time Warner, DC recently killed off several versions of Superboy in its Infinite Crisis miniseries.

For Joanne Siegel—who was the model for Lois Lane—and Laura Siegel Larson, the March 23 decision provides some vindication after a very long battle. Or as one legal observer put it, "It's the first good news they've had in 50 years."