Search
Close this search box.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Ah, nothing screams “truth, justice, and the American way” quite like a multi-million-dollar copyright lawsuit.

In a plot twist no one saw coming—except literally everyone—Warner Bros. and DC Comics are facing yet another legal battle over Superman. And just in time for their big-budget movie! How cinematic. It’s as if the universe itself wanted this press tour to have more plot twists than a Zack Snyder slow-motion sequence.

At the heart of this latest caped courtroom crusade is a claim from the estate of Joe Shuster, one-half of Superman’s original creative duo, arguing that DC’s international rights to the character expired in key markets—including Canada, the U.K., Ireland, and Australia—back in 2017 and 2021. But much like Clark Kent mysteriously remaining unrecognizable with just a pair of glasses, Warner Bros. allegedly kept cashing in anyway. Now, the estate is trying to block Superman from soaring into these territories because nothing cements a film’s legacy like a well-timed legal injunction.

So, what’s the legal kryptonite at play here? Shuster died in 1992, and his co-creator, Jerry Siegel, followed in 1996. Under the copyright laws of many countries with British legal traditions—including Canada, the U.K., Australia, and Ireland—an author’s copyright interest reverts to their estate 25 years after their death. Translation: by law, Shuster’s foreign copyrights boomeranged back to his estate in 2017 in most of these countries, and in 2021 in Canada. Which means that any Superman-related profits Warner Bros. has been making in these places since then? Possibly unlicensed. Definitely disputed. And suddenly, very expensive to justify in court.

Of course, Warner Bros. has never been accused of squeezing every last dime out of superhero IP before, right? (Pause for laughter.) The Shuster estate—representing a man who, along with Siegel, spent his life getting financially suplexed by bad contracts—is asking for something radical: proper licensing and fair compensation. A shocking demand, almost as shocking as a billionaire in a Superman movie actually paying taxes.

Naturally, Warner Bros. is denying everything with the legal equivalent of Superman dodging bullets. “Infringement? Us? Impossible!” (Cue dramatic cape swoosh.) The studio insists it still holds the rights, that this lawsuit is as ridiculous as a Lex Luthor real estate scam, and that Superman is now as much a public institution as baseball, fireworks, and sequel fatigue.

But let’s be real—Superman’s legal limbo has been running longer than most Doctor Who regenerations. The Siegel and Shuster families have been fighting for proper credit and royalties for decades because—breaking news—selling Superman to DC for $130 in 1938 turned out to be less of a genius investment than one might hope. Their battle has outlived both creators and multiple Superman reboots, making it Hollywood’s longest-running sequel that didn’t require a new actor in the lead role.

So, what happens if the plaintiffs win? Will Superman get slapped with a fun new tagline—“Unauthorized in Select Territories”? Will Warner Bros. actually have to share their Kryptonian-sized profits? Or will Superman himself be forced into an early retirement, swapping his cape for a law degree and pivoting to intellectual property litigation?

One thing’s for sure—Superman’s greatest enemy isn’t Lex Luthor, General Zod, or even a CGI upper lip mishap. It’s copyright law. A force so powerful, even Kryptonians bow before its might. If only Superman had a villain in his rogues’ gallery dedicated to legal warfare—perhaps The Litigator, a supervillain who defeats heroes not with laser vision but with mountains of paperwork and enough red tape to entangle the entire Justice League.

Because at the end of the day, one thing is always true in a Superman story: the guy fights for what’s right. The real question is—who’s wearing the cape this time?

Author(s)

This content is not intended to provide legal advice or opinion as neither can be given without reference to specific events and situations. © 2021 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP.

Have Questions?

Enjoy this article?
Don’t forget to share.

Related Posts

Intellectual Property Law
Blog
Reading time: 3 mins
If you’ve ever wanted to witness the high-stakes drama of a sneaker soap opera, look no further than the lawsuit[...]
Intellectual Property Law
Blog
Reading time: 3 mins
Ah, Groundhog Day. The day when we anxiously await whether a large rodent—blessed with alleged meteorological skills—will see its shadow[...]
Intellectual Property Law
Blog
Reading time: 2 mins
Move over grumpy cats and Insta-famous felines—we’ve got a new kind of catfight to talk about, and it’s happening in[...]