Right before the Man of Steel celebrates its 70th birthday, a federal court judge has ruled (.pdf) that the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerome Siegel could claim an ownership share of the character’s domestic copyright. The ruling vests in Siegel’s heirs ownership in the first Superman comic, Detective Comics’ Action Comics No. 1.

Wikipedia has informative biographies for Siegel and his partner, Joseph Shuster, while William Patry (whose work the opinion cites 14 times) provides additional analysis and insight. The case centered on whether Siegel’s estate successfully had terminated the copyright pursuant to Section 304(c).

Siegel and Shuster sold the rights to the comic 70 years ago for $130 (or $14814.32 in today’s money). In comparison, Warner Bros. collected more than $200 million in domestic box office for the 2006 film Superman Returns. This total excludes ancillary (and lucrative) licensing income from all manner of tchotchkes from T-shirts to lunch boxes.

What immediately struck us was the diligence of Siegel’s estate in pursuing this issue. We compare this to the untidy, legally chaotic, and “deplorable” condition of the James Brown estate, which owes $400,000 in taxes and needs to sell memorabilia to preserve its assets.

Michael Cieply. Ruling Gives Heirs a Share of Superman Copyright. The New York Times. March 29, 2008.

See also:
Joy Howe. James Brown’s Estate To Be Sold. WJBF-TV (Augusta, Ga.) Feb. 29, 2008.

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Julie Hilden. Seinfeld Sued: Will “Sneaky Chef” Author Missy Chase Lapine Succeed In Her Suit Against Jerry and Jessica Seinfeld? FindLaw. Jan. 15, 2008. We reported on Jessica Seinfeld’s cookbook back in October. Now the inevitable lawsuit (.pdf) has been filed, alleging copyright infringement and defamation, among other things. As William Patry noted in a comment about an infringement case involving the Baltimore Ravens’ logo, substantial similarity should not be enough to win an infringement lawsuit. The evidence also should show the defendant had access to the allegedly infringed work. Stay tuned.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 22, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Nate Anderson. EFF Tries to Quash Labels’ ‘Making Available’ Claims. ArsTechnica. Jan. 13, 2008. EFF’s brief (.pdf) in the Atlantic v. Howell case argues, among other things, that “an infringement of the distribution right requires unauthorized, actual dissemination of copies of a copyrighted work,” not just downloads to a shared network folder. The hearing in an Arizona federal court occurs January 24.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 15, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Trevor Maxwell. Maine Law Students Enter Battle on Downloading, Against Record Labels. Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel. Jan. 7, 2008. One could dismiss this as a typical “bringing to a knife to a gun fight” scenario. But after more than 15,000 Canadians organized and (at least temporarily) halted choke hold copyright legislation, we wondered if the copyright issue ever would gain such a level of citizen interest and outrage here in America. The actions of law students suggest a start. Categories: Cases & Litigation; Education; File Sharing, P2P & Downloads; Music.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 8, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

The Wired Campus (Chronicle of Higher Education). Bucking Music Piracy Accusations at the U. of Washington. Jan. 2, 2008. Another sign that universities increasingly are reversing their former stance on file sharing lawsuit subpoenas, which reflexively shuttled requested information to the RIAA’s local counsel. As the file sharing lawsuit campaign becomes less pro forma, we wonder when local counsel (which the RIAA uses to file these lawsuits) begins to balk at accepting the work because the litigation sucks up too many resources from their respective practices.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 8, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Torrent Freak. Porn Company Vivid Sues Its Own Customer Over Copyright. Dec. 11, 2007. Vivid Entertainment Group, which now is to adult entertainment what Playboy used to be, sues an adult version of YouTube, even though PornoTube’s owner (AEBN) already has a contractual relationship with Vivid to deliver pay-per-view porn. Either this is a colossal slip of due diligence, or Vivid had decided (like the movie and music industries) that lawsuits are the better business strategy.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Dec. 18, 2007, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Threat Level (Wired). Recording Industry Tells Court (Again) That MP3s Are a Crime. Dec. 11, 2007. The blogosphere has been all over this story, and it seems based on the assertions of Ray Beckerman, whose work we respect. We have to say, though, we’re not seeing what the big deal is. What we read was this: “It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of [] copyrighted sound recordings on his computer. … Virtually all of the sound recordings … ‘.mp3′ format. … Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by [plaintiff recording companies].” If this is the quote to which Beckerman is referring, we see that as RIAA arguing the as yet untested “making available” theory, not necessarily that converting CDs to .MP3 files is de facto infringement. Don’t get us wrong: RIAA likely thinks CD to MP3 transfers are illegal, even to iPods. It just wants to be mealy-mouthed about it so as to preserve any remaining shred of public credibility it retains.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Dec. 18, 2007, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense