James Gunn’s Superman Tied Up in Super Lawsuit
Is U.K. copyright law Warner Bros. Discovery’s kryptonite?
admin
Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. It’s …international copyright law! Once again, DC Comics is being sued for rights to their most iconic character (Sorry, Batman). The estate of Joe Shuster has found another legal channel to try and regain control of Superman. Both Shuster and his Supes co-creator Jerry Siegel (and their estates, now that both men are dead) have beefed with DC many times over the rights to the Man of Steel. Now a new lawsuit is coming at an inopportune time for DC Studios and Warner Bros. Discovery. The full relaunch of the DCU now rests on a teensy clause in U.K. copyright law. Let’s break it down.
Who is suing what now?
The estate of Joe Shuster is suing DC Comics and Warner Bros. Discovery for infringement of copyright. Their argument rests on a quirk of U.K. copyright law, British Reversionary Rights. In Canada, Australia, Ireland, and the U.K., intellectual property reverts to a creator’s estate 25 years after the creator’s death. So according to the Shuster estate, DC et al. has been using Superman without their permission since 2021 (25 years after Shuster’s death). They are seeking a share of profits, as The Hollywood Reporter puts it, “from all works attributable to the alleged copyright infringement.” These include the Snyderverse Justice League, Shazam!, and Black Adam. Yeah, good luck getting profit participation on Black Adam. The Shuster estate is also seeking an injunction against new Superman projects until the lawsuit is settled.
You said this is the latest lawsuit?
Oh yeah. The IP rights to Superman are messy. Like, Bravolebrity breakup levels of mess and acrimony. According to ScreenRant, it started when Siegel and Shuster sold the rights to Superman to DC for $130 in 1938 (a little under three grand in 2025 dollars). That was standard business practice for comics at the time. However, standard business practices for comics at the time were deeply shitty. Still, both Siegel and Shuster worked at DC for another nine years. The beef really got underway when DC published a Superboy story in 1947. The rights to Superboy had never been determined, so S&S sued. They settled out of court, with DC paying $94,013.16 for both characters. Shortly after settling with DC, both Siegel and Shuster were shitcanned by the company.
The next legal volley came in 1965, with S&S trying to regain their rights under the Copyright Act of 1909. The courts upheld the original 1938 sale. Siegel and Shuster then went the PR route, joining other comics creators in demanding better treatment from the companies that made serious bank off their labor. Warner Bros (who’d bought DC Comics in the 60’s) made a three-point agreement with the Superman creators. They’d get a yearly stipend, medical benefits, and a “created by” credit on all future Superman joints in exchange for never contesting ownership of the character again.
When Siegel died in 1996, his family decided to challenge the copyright yet again. In 2001, Siegel’s family was granted several million dollars for the permanent rights to Supes.
Seems like it’d be over, right? Wrong. Both families sued DC/WB yet again in the 2000s, but courts ruled in the company’s favor. It seems the case is settled in American copyright law, but the British Reversionary Rights have opened a new avenue of complaint for the Shuster estate.
Is this like that horror adaptation of Steamboat Willie?
Kind of, but also the opposite? The murderous versions of Steamboat Willie and Winnie the Pooh are legal because those characters have entered the public domain. In the U.S., that happens 95 years after publication. British Reversionary Rights come into effect 25 years after a creator’s death. Rights revert back to the estate, so that they get a hefty chunk of change before a character/book/play enters the public domain.
How does this affect the new Superman movie?
If courts agree to the injunction, Superman would potentially be barred from release in countries that follow U.K. law. Since James Gunn’s movie is set to debut July 11, WBD has major incentive to settle this matter once and for all.
Related
