The Superman copyright conundrum

The most recent development in this long-running courtroom drama revolves around the Shuster estate's lawsuit directed at DC Comics along with Warner Bros Discovery. The present action uses multinational copyright reversion laws in the UK, Canada, Australia and Ireland, wherein entitlements instinctively revert back to the author's estate 25 years following their demise, in order to oppose Warner Bros' ownership of Superman in foreign territories, in contrast to prior conflicts that concentrated on US copyright law. If effective, this action might establish a precedent for the future of corporate-owned intellectual property and interfere with the worldwide release of James Gunn's next Superman (2025) movie.

The most recent complaint by Schuster's heirs adds further to the lengthy history of legal issues surrounding the Superman property, which dates back to the late 1930s. The heirs had then filed a lawsuit against DC Comics for royalties on the Superman radio program along with additional items after Shuster and Siegel sold the rights to the Man of Steel to obtain $130. Due to DC Comics' refusal to pay Siegel and Shuster for their artwork that was published using an entirely distinct name, the publication of Superboy comics also became a significant legal matter.

The initial proprietors were subsequently granted a $94,000 compensation deal in 1948, despite the fact that DC Comics had been making millions on Superman. After finishing his stint with Superman's pal Jimmy Olsen, Siegel was really recruited again by DC Comics in 1959, which is when he would create runs on Superman and Legion of Super-Heroes until his contract expired in 1965.

Warner Bros struck a settlement with Shuster and Siegel after the year 1975, offering to pay them $20,000 per calendar year for the remainder of their physical existence, provided they declined to challenge Superman's rights of ownership.

The long-term managerial ownership of Superman's rights by Warner Bros appeared to be deliberate, complex legally and firmly ingrained in decades-old contracts. Warner Bros has used a number of contractual ploys, legal tactics, along with legal safeguards to keep the Man of Steel under control, much like Lex Luthor's calculated and deliberate plans to dominate Metropolis.

The clear and unchangeable recognition by Siegel and Shuster that Warner owns the exclusive rights regarding Superman is a pillar of Warner Bros' legal strategy. The 1975 Agreement's Clause 2 says:

"You acknowledge that Warner Communications Inc. (‘Warner’), both immediately before and immediately after the signing of this agreement, is the sole and exclusive owner of all right, title and interest in and to the ‘Superman’ concept, idea, continuity, pictorial representation, formula, characters, cartoons and comic strips, title, logo, copyrights and trademarks, including any and all renewals and extensions of any such rights, in the United States and throughout the world."

Through obtaining the aforementioned provision, Warner Bros made sure that no copyright reversion or challenge could be successful under US law, therefore barring any subsequent claims from Siegel and Shuster or their heirs after them. This clause served as the basis for other court decisions, such as the 2013 Siegel & Shuster v. Warner Bros. decision by the 9th Circuit, which upheld Warner Bros' irrevocable ownership of all Superman copyrights.

Two separate but connected intellectual property theories—termination rights, which are based on US copyright law, and reversionary interest, which is acknowledged in Canada, the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries—are at the very core of this conflict. Regardless of whether the rights in question were previously traded or transferred, reversionary interest, as defined by Section 14 of the Canadian Copyright Act, instinctively restores them to the author's estate twenty-five years after their passing. The copyright naturally reverts to the deceased's heirs when the 25-year time has passed, unlike termination rights in the United States, which need to be exercised by the estate. Based on this legal argument, the Shuster estate contends that throughout Canada and other jurisdictions with comparable legislation, Joe Shuster's portion in Superman's copyright passed back to his heirs in 2017 because he passed away in 1992.

Precedents like Anne of Green Gables Licensing Authority Inc v. Avonlea Traditions Inc (2000), which affirmed that established heirs may recover copyright regardless of circumstances where previous contracts were previously reached, support the estate's position substantially. Kelley Estate v. Roy (2002), an additional significant decision, established that entities cannot elect not to use reversionary rights, which means that Warner Bros contracts from earlier decades cannot supersede laws. Should the Shuster estate be successful, Warner Bros may be forced to change license contracts or limit the release of Superman films, TV shows and products abroad.

Warner Bros is expected to refute such charges by pointing to US copyright legislation, namely the 1976 US Copyright Act's termination rights. In the United States, termination privileges need intentional regulatory steps by the author or their heirs to recover rights of ownership, contrary to Canada's free reversion. The US Copyright Act's §§ 203 and 304 provide for the cessation of previous copyright advancements, but the entire process is fairly complicated and requires submitting a notice of termination within a stringent five-year timeframe that starts 35 years following the original transference.

The entertainment behemoth might also point to precedent-setting decisions like Scorpio Music SA v. Willis (2012), whereby Victor Willis, co-founder of the Village People, effectively recovered his ownership interests in 33 recordings pursuant to termination rights. The court's ruling in that case determined that terminating rights were required to be demonstrated standalone by each intellectual property holder, supporting Warner Bros.’ possible argument that even if Shuster’s heirs adhered to the proper procedures, they were limited to recover their portion of the Superman royalties, while Siegel's share remains within Warner Bros’ control.

The idea that companies may use contractual arrangements to overrule municipal reversionary rights might have been strengthened if the court sided with Warner Bros, further solidifying corporate control over historical creative works.

Legal observers and enthusiasts worldwide debate the ramifications for one of the most well-known superheroes in the entertainment industry as the iconic Man of Steel gets closer to becoming a public domain entity in 2034.

According to the United States Copyright legislation, artworks published prior to to the year 1978 become public domain 95 years after they are first published. Superman will thus become an open-source creative artefact for the whole public to exploit, joining Popeye as well as Tintin, who will enter the public domain in 2025. But there are significant legal hurdles, similar to those Disney experienced regarding Mickey Mouse, whose initial Steamboat Willie portrayal was slated to become freely accessible in 2024.

Popeye, Tintin and Mickey Mouse are examples of how entering the public sphere can sometimes not correspond to complete creative freedom. The fight over Superman's identity will continue long beyond 2034 due to legal obstacles regarding trademarks, derivative copyrights, and connection to brands. Even if the original Superman may eventually be available to the wider public, the struggle for his survival will not be over.

The upcoming open-access situation surrounding Superman's initial appearance from Action Comics #1 presents Warner Bros Discovery and DC Studios with an unprecedented legal and business issue as the 2034 deadline draws near. The eventual ownership of Superman is in an atmosphere of uncertainty due to the ongoing litigation by the Shuster estate and the wider ramifications of copyright expiry. The interaction of copyright, trademark law and business strategy will decide who really owns the Man of Steel. It is clear from the Mickey Mouse public domain story that disputes over proprietary rights do not stop when copyright expires. Rather, derivative copyrights, corporate rebranding and trademark protections establish further levels of control that restrict the usage of public domain characters. Warner Bros is expected to vigorously defend their contemporary Superman versions, making sure that the superhero survives to be a corporate asset, just the way Disney still has considerable ownership of Mickey Mouse.

Thinking in terms of the legal issues, such as the Shuster estate's global copyright claims, might complicate DC's grandiose cinema revival by interfering with its promotion and distribution plans for the 2025 Superman movie. Warner Bros would surely look for a quick settlement of all these lawsuits in order to circumvent any delays in the release of the movie, especially because the DCU's future depends on the success of its main character and billions of dollars are at risk.

Himanshu Mishra is a second year law student at the Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia.