【Acrylic Painting by Dennis Tang】
(Paintings and Photos may not be relevant to the incident described; The Making of @ Youtube: Dennis’ notebook)
Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel are the co-creators of Superman. The Shuster heirs stuck with a 1992 agreement paying only a pension of $25,000 per year, while the Siegel heirs is better off with their 2001 agreement included $3 million up front and an ongoing 6% of gross revenues.
Under the US Copyright Act 1976, creators and their heirs are permitted, under certain circumstances, to terminate the grant of a license or transfer to a copyrighted work via a properly executed notice.
But in 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed DC Comics’ ownership of the copyright for Superman, ending the long and complex struggle by the heirs of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster to regain their rights to the iconic superhero.
The appellate court ruled that an attempt by the Shuster heirs to terminate its transfer of the Superman copyright to DC in 2003 was ineffective and the 1992 agreement to grant “any copyrights” in Superman to DC in exchange for a yearly $25,000 pension payment remain valid.
Commented by Jeff Texler, an experienced attorney: “Is it fair that the Shuster heirs only secured a meager pension while the Siegel heirs stand to gain tens of millions of dollars in exchange for the same rights? Arguably not, but from a legal perspective it’s a cautionary tale as old as the biblical story of Jacob and Esau, who sold his precious birthright for some lentil soup. Immediate benefits can be extremely costly in the longer term, especially if an attorney isn’t on hand to negotiate a better deal.”
Superman is not alone. Superhero characters such as Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, Thor, Ant-Man and Black Widow are also involved in a legal dispute for copyright ownership….
