In 1998, the copyright was extended again with the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. This time the copyright term was extended to 95 years with a further window for reclamation introduced. In January 2004 Mark Peary, nephew and legal heir to Joe Shuster's estate, filed notice of his intent to reclaim Shuster's half of the copyright, the termination effective in 2013.[66] The status of Siegel's share of the copyright is now the subject of a legal battle. Warner Bros. and the Siegels entered into discussions on how to resolve the issues raised by the termination notice, but these discussions were set aside by the Siegels and in October 2004 they filed suit alleging copyright infringement on the part of Warner Bros. Warner Bros. counter sued, alleging that the termination notice contains defects, among other arguments.[67][68] On March 26, 2008, Judge Larson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled that Siegel's estate was entitled to claim a share in the United States copyright. The ruling does not affect the International rights, which Time Warner holds on the character through DC. Issues regarding the amount of monies owed Siegel's estate and whether the claim the estate has extends to derivative works such as movie versions will be settled at trial, although any compensation would be owed only from works published since 1999. Time Warner offered no statement on the ruling but does have the right to challenge it.[69][70] The case was scheduled to be heard in a California federal court in May 2008.[71]
A similar termination-of-copyright notice filed in 2002 by Siegel's wife and daughter concerning the Superboy character was ruled on in their favor on March 23, 2006.[72] However, on July 27, 2007, the same court issued a ruling[73] reversing the March 23, 2006 ruling. This ruling is currently subject to a legal challenge from Time Warner, with the case as yet unresolved.[69]
A July 9, 2009, verdict on the case denied a claim by Siegel's family that it was owed licensing fees. US District Court judge Stephen G. Larson said Warner Bros. and DC Comics have fulfilled their obligations to the Siegels under a profit-sharing agreement for the 2006 movie Superman Returns and the CW series Smallville. However, the court also ruled that if Warner Bros. did not start a new Superman film by 2011, the family would have the right to sue to recover damages.[74] Warner Bros hired David S. Goyer to write the script and Christopher Nolan to produce in 2010
A similar termination-of-copyright notice filed in 2002 by Siegel's wife and daughter concerning the Superboy character was ruled on in their favor on March 23, 2006.[72] However, on July 27, 2007, the same court issued a ruling[73] reversing the March 23, 2006 ruling. This ruling is currently subject to a legal challenge from Time Warner, with the case as yet unresolved.[69]
A July 9, 2009, verdict on the case denied a claim by Siegel's family that it was owed licensing fees. US District Court judge Stephen G. Larson said Warner Bros. and DC Comics have fulfilled their obligations to the Siegels under a profit-sharing agreement for the 2006 movie Superman Returns and the CW series Smallville. However, the court also ruled that if Warner Bros. did not start a new Superman film by 2011, the family would have the right to sue to recover damages.[74] Warner Bros hired David S. Goyer to write the script and Christopher Nolan to produce in 2010
0 comments:
Post a Comment