We don’t know how closely you’ve been following the “Superman” copyright litigation story, but here’s a brief recap for those not quite up to speed.
Lawyer Marc Toberoff, who seems to specialize in wrestling the creative rights for various fictional characters away from studios and restoring them to the families of their original creators, most recently set his sights on Warner Bros, representing the Shuster and Siegel families in the battle over the extremely lucrative Superman rights. WB, already facing a previous court ruling stating that at least a portion of those rights will be lost to them come 2013, and naturally anxious to fight back against the man considered by many to be a studio’s nemesis in such disputes, hired a bulldog lawyer of their own, Daniel Petrocelli, to go on the offensive and prevent any further loss of ground.
And offensive is certainly the right word, with Petrocelli just today filing a suit against Toberoff directly, claiming Toberoff has a financial interest in the issue outside of his capacity as a lawyer for the families, and therefore a conflict of interest should prevent him from repping the Shusters and the Siegels. Even more juicily, the suit is based on evidence that was allegedly stolen from Toberoff’s office, and, according to WB, was”‘mysteriously” left on its doorstep by a “whistleblower.”
Talking to Deadline today, Toberoff has lashed out at what he calls WB’s/Petrocelli’s “gutter tactics” and claims:
“Even before filing this lawsuit, Warner Bros launched a well-coordinated media campaign to defame me. Warner Brothers and Mr. Petrocelli are well aware that their frivolous allegations in the complaint will never prevail. However, that’s not the purpose of the lawsuit against me. The purpose is to defame me or potentially conflict me out of the case and thereby pressure my clients to sell back the Superman and Superboy copyrights they’ve recaptured at a distress sales price.”
It’s an interesting point he makes — seemingly the very existence of such a lawsuit, whether or not it is of any legal merit, may itself constitute a conflict of interest and therefore force Toberoff to resign as attorney to the Siegels and the Shusters.
But before we get all misty-eyed about poor Toberoff and the nasty big studio that’s trying to stiff the creators’ families, and bearing in mind that as yet we have no direct response to Toberoff’s comments from Petrocelli or WB or DC, it’s worth remembering that back in September 2009, The Hollywood Reporter mentioned Toberoff’s other major project — a production company he set up called Intellectual Properties Worldwide (which has the forthcoming “Piranha 3D” listed on its IMDB page). The 2009 THR article concludes with:
“Toberoff has always stressed to us that he separates his legal work from his business ventures, but he’s admitted that he’d be pleased if his clients — after reclaiming rights — came to him to explore their next steps.”
This is of interest because of the claim, according to Deadline, in today’s lawsuit that “Toberoff caused the Shuster and Siegel families to repudiate their agreements and relations with DC, enter into a web of new agreements with his companies, and terminate and seek to recapture DC’s Superman copyright interests” and that this was done “to position Toberoff and his companies to secure a controlling financial interest in the families’ collective claims — leaving him as the largest financial stakeholder (47.5%), while relegating the Siegel heirs (27.5%) and Shuster heirs (25%) to minority status.”
Now, we’re a bit fuzzy on the legal minutiae involved, but however much credence you give to WB’s claims, Toberoff is a man who, in his capacity as attorney for Jack Kirby’s family has put plans in motion to secure the rights to “X-Men,” “The Hulk,” “The Fantastic Four,” and other properties for the Kirby family in the future, in addition to the work he’s now doing for the Siegels and the Shusters. If he succeeds in any of these cases, his relationships with the new rights owners certainly would see him in a uniquely privileged position when it comes to the future development of any of those massive franchises.
Obviously, this is all highly speculative (don’t sue), and for the moment what is really at issue is the immediate future of the Man of Steel. As Toberoff has pointed out to WB, come 2013 “… neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros will be able to exploit any new Superman works without a license from the Siegels and Shusters.” Not only this, but if production doesn’t start on a Superman sequel or reboot in 2011 at the latest, the families could sue for the rights at that point, since the franchise would have lain dormant for more than an acceptable time.
The full complaint touches on a whole raft of issues — from Siegel and Shuster’s own relationships with DC to the allegations of Toberoff’s undue financial involvement in the Superman outcome. But no matter what, it seems the fans are going to be pro-the Shusters and the Siegels (and therefore probably pro-Toberoff) in the dispute, with Petrocelli’s seemingly underhanded tactics doing WB no favours in this regard. We safely predict this story is only going to get more involved and most probably more bitter as time goes on — in fact, when the dust settles, we can see the whole palaver being made into a movie. If they can just work out who owns the rights.
Right now Christopher Nolan and David Goyer — the overseer and writer of the next “Superman” film respectively — are probably groaning over this news and then saying to each other, “fuck it, let’s keep moving forward.” Or at least, that’s what we do in times of potential crisis.