Table Of Content

2 The Trials Of Superman UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION No. CV 04-08400-SGL HONORABLE STEPHEN G. LARSON, JUDGE PRESIDING JOANNE SIEGEL and LAURA SIEGEL LARSON, Plaintiffs, vs. WARNER BROTHERS ENTERTAINMENT INC.; TIME WARNER, INC.; DC COMICS; and DOES 1-10, Defendants Copyright 2012 Blaq Books 3 The Trials of Superman Published by Blaq Books Compiled and Edited by Daniel Best First published 2012 by Blaq Books First published in Australia Copyright © 2012 by Daniel Best ISBN: 978-0-9807655-2-6 Cover Copyright © 2012 Michael Netzer All art and images is Copyright © 2012 their respective owners. Superman and other related characters are Copyright © 2012 DC Comics The moral right of the author has been asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or means, without the prior permission in writing of the author, nor be circulated in any form other than which it is published without the express written permission of the author. Where possible all external quotes have been attributed. Any corrections should be directed to the author in the first instance so alternations can be made to future editions. The author can be contacted at INTRODUCTION 7 TRIAL DAY 1 10 A.M. SESSION P.M. SESSION 10 48 TRIAL DAY 2 115 A.M. SESSION P.M. SESSION 115 165 TRIAL - DAY 3 231 P.M. SESSION 231 TRIAL DAY 4 292 A.M. SESSION 292 TRIAL DAY 5 374 A.M. SESSION 374 TRIAL DAY 6 412 A.M. SESSION P.M SESSION 412 454 TRIAL DAY 7 510 A.M. SESSION P.M. SESSION 510 556 TRIAL DAY 8 614 A.M. SESSION P.M. SESSION 614 658 TRIAL DAY 9 696 A.M. SESSION P.M. SESSION 696 733 TRIAL DAY 10 795 A.M. SESSION P.M. SESSION 795 843 TRIAL DAY 11 907 A.M. SESSION P.M. SESSION 907 939 STATUS CONFERENCE 989 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 993 STATUS CONFERENCE 1037 MOTIONS 1045 Copyright 2012 Blaq Books 5 For… Steven Bove - who likes the secrets to be told- Michael Nezter - for endless support, encouragement and advice and an amazing cover- Trevor Von Eeden, Alan Kupperberg, Norm Breyfogle and Rich Buckler - for endless support, encouragement and advice- Dr Brendan Carson, Dr Catherine Gunson, Chad Eglinton, Michelle Baylis, Stevie Harris, Anastasia Marsden and Tobias Finch - For countless late nights drinking, fighting and discussing everything under and above the sun- My darling long suffering partner Lyndal and the Three Cattens: Merlin, DeKlerq and Puddin’ Kathleen and Geoffrey - Who’ll get a kick out of seeing their names in print- Without all of you, and many more, I’d have given up long, long time ago… 6 The Trials Of Superman Introduction The never-ending battle for Superman hasn’t really been about ownership since the late 1990s when Joanne Siegel, the widow of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel, filed termination notices against DC Comics to claim the character for herself and her family. The court, in April 1999, found that the character, Superman, was not created as work for hire, that it had been created prior to being bought and published by DC Comics. As such the court then awarded 50% of the copyright to Actions Comics #1 to Joanne Siegel; Joe Shuster, who passed away in 1992, had assigned his rights to his brother and sister, who then negotiated a handsome life-time pension deal with DC in return for the rights. The 50% Siegel copyright was split between Joanne and her daughter, Laura, and Jerry Sigel’s son by his first marriage, Michael Siegel. DC Comics were thus obliged to enter into a partnership with the Siegel’s, which they did, in order to continue publication of the character and to exploit it for maximum profit. Since then the battle has been about control and money; who has the money (DC Comics) and who wants the money (the Siegels and their lawyers). Depending on who you believe, in 2001 DC Comics had reached an agreement to license and control the Siegel’s 50% stake – they already control co-creator Joe Shuster’s 50% share, until 2013 when the Shuster heirs are expected to file suit – when talks fell apart and the Siegel’s walked. The other side of the story is that DC changed the terms of the deal at the last minute leaving the Siegel’s with no choice but to terminate the negotiations. DC have since counterclaimed that the Siegel’s were led into withdrawing from signing the contract in 2001 at the eleventh hour by their current lawyer, Marc Toberoff. As it stood the Siegel’s then filed suit, in 2004, against DC Comics, seeking to validate their ownership, in addition to seeking further rights and to also demand that DC Comics give a full accounting of the money that had been realized since 1999 by the Superman franchise. DC have since filed suit against Toberoff personally, claiming that he had interfered with their negotiations in order to control the copyrights. As of the time of writing, this suit is ongoing. In relation to the current Siegel vs. DC suit a variety of issues were put before the court, relating to both Superman and Superboy, and in August 12, 2009 Judge Larson found that the Siegel’s, “…have successfully recaptured (and Copyright 2012 Blaq Books 7 are co-owners of) the rights to the following works: (1) Action Comics No. 1 (subject to the limitations set forth in the Court’s previous Order); (2) Action Comics No. 4; (3) Superman No. 1, pages three through six and (4) the initial two weeks worth of Superman daily newspaper strips. Ownership in the remainder of the Superman material at issue that was published from 1938 to 1943 remains solely with the defendants (DC Comics).” That is what they won, despite the reports of the time they did not win total control over the character as it is published today. Indeed DC Comics can simply change the name of the current Superman and continue publishing it as the character, in it’s current form, bears little resembelance to the original Siegel and Shuster creation, other than the name and a variation of the logo and costume. This was still a major win, both for the Siegel heirs and Toberoff, but also for creators everywhere – indeed such was the impact of the victory that the heirs of Jack Kirby would file suit against Marvel Comics, using Marc Toberoff, to reclaim copyrights to iconic Marvel characters. Sadly that case would fail as it could not be proven by evidence that Kirby had created any of the Marvel characters separate from instructions from Marvel. The strongest evidence that the Kirby heirs could provide was in the form hearsay, mostly from people who were not there. Marvel had a trump card in Stan Lee, a man who was there. Back to Superman… Once the judge had ratified the court order all that remained was the issue of accounting. The argument was that DC Comics had undervalued Superman and licensed the rights to exploit the character in movies and television by dealing with their parent company, Warner Brothers. DC argued that it had always done the right thing, that the deals negotiated and that the payments received, going back to the Salkind era (the 1970/1980s Superman movies with Christopher Reeve) and extending through to the current deals, including the television series Lois and Clark and the highly successful Smallville, along with the most recent movies, were more than fair and indeed over market value. The argument to resolve this was taken to a ten day bench trial, at which time DC Comics would have to prove that it had not undersold Superman, and the Siegel’s would have to prove otherwise. The trial gave a great insight into the machinations of comic books and motion pictures along with the true value of Superman, as a multi-media concept. 8 The Trials Of Superman A NOTE ON THE TRANSCRIPTS. As people are aware, court transcripts reflect what is said in court and are recorded verbatim. This creates a real time look into the workings of the court and it’s participants, and, as with any conversation, sometimes what is said doesn’t make much sense. When editing these transcripts I have elected only to clean up general grammar and spelling and have left ansers intact – what people said and how they said it are all here on display. There is a few gaps in the transcripts, these were deliberate as the witness in question elected to discuss the details of another case currently in session. The information was subject to a protection order and as such the testimony was stricken from the record. These gaps are identified in the transcripts. Other than those gaps everything that was said, in court, during the trial is intact. Copyright 2012 Blaq Books 9 TRIAL DAY 1 A.M. Session Tuesday, April 28, 2009 INDEX Opening Statement - Plaintiff Opening Statement - Defense WITNESS: Mark Evanier THE CLERK: Calling item No. 1 on calendar, case No. CV 04-08400-SGL, Joanne Siegel, etc., versus Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., etc. Counsel, please state your appearances for the record. MR. TOBEROFF: Good morning, Your Honor, Marc Toberoff, attorney for plaintiffs. THE COURT: Mr. Toberoff. Counsel? MR. BERGMAN: Good morning, Your Honor, Michael Bergman for the defendants. My colleagues will introduce themselves, but if Your Honor pleases, I'd like to introduce Mr. Paul Levitz, who is the president and publisher of DC and who will be DC's designated representative at the trial. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. PERKINS: Patrick Perkins for the defendants, Your Honor. Good morning, Your Honor. MS. MANDAVIA: Anjani Mandavia for defendants. THE COURT: Good morning. And Counsel, go ahead just for the record, if you would. MR. WILLIAMSON: Nicholas Williamson for plaintiffs, Your Honor. Good morning. MR. ADAMS: Keith Adams for plaintiffs, Your Honor. Good morning. THE COURT: Good morning to you all. 10 The Trials Of Superman