Lawsuit Sheds Light on Status of 'Superman' Franchise
Wed, July 8, 2009 
The United States District Court, Central District of California, released a finding today in the case of Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson vs. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Time Warner Inc. and DC Comics Inc.
According to the court document: "The question of 'whether the license fees paid' by Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. to its corporate sibling, DC Comics, for the audiovisual rights to the Superman copyright pursuant to various licensing agreements entered into during the 1999 to 2002 period 'represents the fair market value therefor, or whether the license for the works between the related entities was a sweetheart deal.’"
After a 10-day trial, the court determined there is "insufficient evidence that the Superman film agreement between DC Comics and Warner Bros., whether judged by its direct economic terms or its indirect ones, was consummated at below its fair market value." The court also ruled that "the non-exclusive rights conveyed by DC Comics to Warner Bros. in the Smallville television agreement was not for below fair market value and, therefore, finds for the remaining defendants on this point as well."
During the trial, several statements came up that shed some light on the staus of a potential sequel to "Superman Returns."
Regarding the current development of the movie, the document says that Alan Horn -- referred to as "the head of Warner Bros." -- testified that "aside from his 'hopes' to develop the Superman character, at present the property is not under development at Warner Bros. No script has been written, filming has not commenced, and the earliest a Superman film could be theatrically released would be 2012. As Mr Horn explains 'we had hopes to keep the [superman] character alive and to once again reinvent Superman. We are -- our hope is to develop a Superman property and to try again. What hurt us is that the reviews and so on for the Superman movie ... did not get the critical acclaim that Batman got, and we have other issues with superman that concern us.'"
However, the lawsuit also details why it is in the company's interest to get moving on another Superman movie:
"Given that Mr. Horn testified that the release of a sequel to Superman Returns movie could occur in 2012, it is certainly now possible, based on the only competent evidence related to this issue introduced at trial, that filming of such a sequel could occur within the 2009 to 2011 time frame.
"Unless and until it can be shown at that point in time that no filming of a sequel to Superman Returns has commenced, it cannot be said, with any degree of certainty, that the Superman film agreement’s failure to contain a reversion clause keyed to continued and regular development of the property in film has caused any harm.
"In making this statement, the Court is certainly mindful of how close this market deficiency in the Superman film agreement is from shifting from speculation to concrete harm. Even under Mr. Horn's hopeful estimate, no filming of a Superman sequel will commence this year nor is it likely that it will commence next year. Without a script, and there is none at present, filming cannot be commenced. It is only the possibility that filming could begin on a Superman sequel in 2011 that has stayed the Court from making a finding on the reasonable certainty of harm having occurred.
"Given that the potential for said commencement of filming exists at the present time, plaintiffs have not shown that the Superman film agreement, sans a reversion clause, is below the reasonable range for what a willing buyer would pay for the property from a willing seller. If, however, by 2011, no filming has commenced on a Superman sequel, plaintiffs could bring an accounting action at that time to recoup the damages then realized for the Superman film agreement's failure to contain a reversion clause."
Click here to read the lawsuit in its entirety.
Reader Comments (13)
Sorry, my Leagalize isn't good. What was that last paragraph talking about. The family could ask for money because of a "reversion clause?" Does that mean permission of the family for how the character is portrayed?
Mine isn't ethier but i think it means if no movie starts filming by 2011 then they can get money for back damages due to the contract. Basicaly the contract says that if they do not make a movie within a set time frame the seller I.E the fam can disolve the contract and claim loss of income they would have recieved had they made a movie
A reversion clause typically provides that if the buyer does not produce a movie within a certain time, all rights revert back. For example, a book author may sell the rights to his book to a movie producer. But if a movie was not made within a pre-approved time frame -- say, five years -- the rights would go back to the author.
In this case, the "plaintiffs" would be able to recoup lost revenue from a movie not being in production prior to 2011, since there is no reversion clause in the deal between Warner Bros. and DC.
So Jamie, do you think that in the end WB will end up making a sequel to Superman Returns and hope that it makes more money than Superman Returns? Because I'm sure they would rather do that than be sued and have to pay the Siegels, especially right before they lose the rights to Superman in 2013. Doing a reboot, as much as I woud like one, is pointless at this point. Either a sequel to Superman Returns, a Smallville movie that continues right where Season 9 of Smallville left off, or just not make another Superman movie and get sued and just watch them lose the rights in 2013.
I cant see W.B. just sitting by and doing nothing and losing the rights. I think they'll make a film.
The only question is will it be a reboot, SV (doubtful), or a sequel.
I really don't see why they would do a reboot if they wouldn't even be able to make even one sequel to it. And a Smallville movie? Didn't Tom Welling not want to put on the suit? At least for the big screen?
I am just sick about the whole thing. Also Superman Returns got lots of favorable reviews from critics, how soon they forget.
I think WB has totally fumbled the ball. They should have stood behind their product and given the fans the followup Man of Steel with more action scenes and a bad a$$ villian since that seems to be what people expect from summer movies. Leave your brain at the door movies.
Just make the sequel already. Routh is in peak physical shape. Just add a bit more action, please. It doesn't have to be mindless, nonstop action, but it should be more exciting than the first one (which I did like.)
Thanks for the info. I don't know why they delay in making another movie. Can't someone come up with an idea?
All this legal wrangling is very ugly, I just want a new Superman movie, but hey maybe they can make this court case into a reboot movie for Perry Mason with Shia playing Perry using Benjamin Button-esque aging effects, silver linings and all that.
Perry Mason? Fuck that, my friend!
It's gotta be Matlock. Just thaw out Andy Griffith from his cyrogenic chamber, and we're good to go.
Any word on that sequel yet, WB?
Even the judge thinks its an injustice that WB has put Superman in mothballs, hopefully it will get the wheels turning and we'll see BR back in the suit.