Warner Brothers Sues ‘Superman’ Lawyer By MICHAEL CIEPLY and BROOKS BARNES<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/brooks_barnes/index.html?inline=nyt-per> Published: May 14, 2010
LOS ANGELES — In an aggressive move to defend its “Superman” franchise, Warner Brothers<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/warner_bros_entertainment_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org>on Friday filed a lawsuit accusing a lawyer for the comic book hero’s co-creators of trying to seize control of nearly half of the lucrative property. Enlarge This Image<javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/05/15/business/15warner_CA0.html','15warner_CA0_html','width=720,height=600,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')> <javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/05/15/business/15warner_CA0.html','15warner_CA0_html','width=720,height=600,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')> David James/Warner Brothers Pictures Warner Brothers is working on a new Superman movie, although it is still in the early stages of development. The suit was filed in the United States District court for the Central District of California against, among others, Marc Toberoff, a lawyer and film producer who helped the heirs of the Superman co-creator Jerome Siegel win a ruling that in 2008 let them recapture rights from Warner. Mr. Toberoff has also represented the estate of Joseph Shuster, who with Mr. Siegel created Superman as a comic book series in the 1930s. But Warner’s suit on Friday said Mr. Toberoff had worked for years to interfere with agreements between the studio and the heirs, to leave himself with at least 47.5 percent of any rights recovered, while the Siegel heirs and Shuster heirs would each receive only about a quarter of the rights. “These agreements are unlawful under the copyright laws, are void as against public policy, and both violate DC Comics’ rights and threaten the ongoing viability of the Superman property,” the complaint said. In an interview, Mr. Toberoff said that Warner had resorted to “thug tactics” and “a smear campaign against me personally” in a “last-ditch effort” to hold on to Superman. “Warner Brothers has substantially been on the losing end of this case,” he said. Warner’s suit cited an extensive timeline of Mr. Toberoff’s attempts since 2001 to become involved with Superman. The suit said the timeline was prepared by a lawyer previously employed by Mr. Toberoff, who was not named in the complaint, and eventually provided to Warner under a court order. The timeline, attached as an exhibit, included an introduction written by the lawyer, whose name is not included. “The below information should save Time Warner<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/time_warner_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org>potentially millions and millions of dollars, and if you so choose — have Marc Toberoff suspended, disgraced,” it reads in part. “Consider it an early holiday gift.” Among other things, the timeline describes attempts by Mr. Toberoff and the talent agent Ari Emanuel<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/ariel_z_emanuel/index.html?inline=nyt-per>to persuade the Siegel heirs to join them in exploring the Superman rights with backing from an unnamed billionaire. Mr. Emanuel declined to comment. Warner is working on a new Superman movie, although it is still in the early stages of development. Mr. Toberoff has built a reputation in Hollywood for representing people who claim ownership over many old television shows, films or comic book properties. He currently represents the heirs to the Marvel comic book artist Jack Kirby, who are embroiled in a dispute with The Walt Disney Company<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/disney_walt_company/index.html?inline=nyt-org>and its Marvel Entertainment unit over rights to characters like the “X-Men.” Mr. Toberoff has scored a number of victories, including another one over Warner involving “The Dukes of Hazzard.” But his critics, including lawyers who represent the big studios, have long complained that he exerts too much control over his clients — an issue central to Warner’s complaint. Friday’s action may signal that studios are shifting to offense when it comes to rights issues, which have become a growing point of vulnerability in a film industry that is increasingly dependent on well-known “brands” but are then exposed to the complications of copyright law -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gimik" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gimik?hl=en.
