Why Is the Estate of Superman’s Co-Creator Going to Court Over the Hero? It’s Complicated

[[{“value”:”

The longstanding legal battle between the estate of Superman co-creator Joe Shuster and DC Comics, and its parent company, Warner Brothers Discovery, has taken another complicated turn ahead of the Man of Steel’s impending return to theaters this summer. It is worth taking a deeper dive into the litigation, especially as fans question whether it could have an impact on future Superman stories, both on screen and on the page.

As reported by Deadline, Joseph “Joe” Shuster’s estate is suing Warner Bros. Discovery and DC Comics to prevent them from releasing the upcoming James Gunn Superman movie in Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia, on the grounds that they do not own the rights to release the movie in those countries.

While fans wait to learn how the lawsuit will impact the release of Gunn’s DCU reboot, some readers are rightfully wondering how the suit like this could affect DC’s Superman comics.

The History Of The Dispute Between Superman Creator Joe Shuster’s Estate & DC Comics

The Complicated Legal Battle, Explained

In its article on the latest Superman lawsuit, Deadline quoted directly from the lawsuit filed by attorneys for the Shuster Estate, which states:

At issue are foreign copyrights to the original Superman character and story, coauthored by Jerome Siegel and Shuster. Though Siegel and Shuster assigned worldwide Superman rights to DC’s predecessor in 1938 “for a mere $130 ($65 each), the copyright laws of countries with the British legal tradition—including Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia—contain provisions automatically terminating such assignments 25 years after an author’s death, vesting in the Shuster Estate the co-author’s undivided copyright interest in such countries,” the suit said.

Shuster died in 1992 and Siegel in 1996. By operation of law, Shuster’s foreign copyrights automatically reverted to his estate in 2017 in most of these territories (and in 2021 in Canada). Yet Defendants continue to exploit Superman across these jurisdictions without the Shuster Estate’s authorization—including in motion pictures, television series, and merchandise—in direct contravention of these countries’ copyright laws, which require the consent of all joint copyright owners to do so.

In other words, it is important to note that Shuster’s Estate is not disputing the overall rights to the Man of Steel, but rather, more specifically arguing that Warner Bros. Discover does not have distribution rights in the aforementioned countries. This is, unfortunately, just the latest in the longrunning legal battle between Superman publisher DC Comics and the original creators of the character.

As noted in the complaint itself, Shuster and co-creator Jerry Siegel sold the rights to Superman for just $130 in 1938 – which would be the equivalent of just under $3000 today, adjusted for inflation. Considering how much money has been made off Superman in the character’s nearly century-long history, this is next to nothing; yet even at the time, it was clear that the original terms of the deal had wildly undervalued the creators’ profit, as by 1947 the legal troubles between Siegel and Shuster and DC had already begun.

That year, the duo sued DC for the rights to Superman, an attempt which eventually ended with them being awarded a $94,000 settlement – or just over a million dollars by today’s standard. There are several complicating factors when it comes to this new Superman lawsuit, including previous deals made by the Shuster family, as well as the difference between domestic and foreign copyright laws; in 2017, the foreign copyrights to Superman reverted to the Shuster Estate, 25 years after his death, something that factors into the current suit.

The Potential Impact Of The Shuster Lawsuit Against The New Superman Film On The Comics, Explained

This Lawsuit Shouldn’t Affect DC’s Superman Comics, But Other Issues Are Looming

Keeping all of this in mind, the problem at hand is that Joe Shuster’s estate are accusing DC Comics and WBD of failing to pay royalties to the estate to use Superman in countries outside the United States, mainly those within the British Commonwealth of Nations. As specified in the lawsuit, this includes merchandise, movies, and TV shows under the Superman name without the Shuster Estate’s authorization. However, the lawsuit does not directly specific if this mentions Superman’s comic book stories in international markets as well.

The rights of Superman as a brand name were already on shaky ground before this lawsuit. After all, the earliest iteration of Superman will enter the public domain in 2034, along with Batman and Wonder Woman in 2035 and 2037. This is a similar situation to the earliest iteration of Mickey Mouse – Steamboat Willie – entering the public domain last year. When their time comes, the rights to the modern iteration of those characters and their comic books will still belong solely to DC Comics, but there will be versions of the characters that are outside their control.

As for the comics themselves, artistically speaking, this should not affect the Superman comics at all. At best, it could affect the overseas distribution of Superman comic books moving forward. More than anything, though, this lawsuit seems to focus on the spinoff media of the comics, specifically the movies. As much as it may be a hard pill to swallow, comics are for a niche audience in modern times. In modern times, the comics industry is struggling, so funds regarding comics are inconsequential by comparison.

That said, a potential ripple effect from a negative ruling against Warner Bros. and DC, in favor of the Shuster Estate, can’t entirely be ruled out. The success of DC’s Superman comics isn’t entirely removed from the success of the character’s film franchise; in other words, the publisher, just like its parent company, has a lot riding on Gunn’s film being profitable, and attracting a lot of attention for the hero. A court battle drawing time, energy, and focus away from the upcoming release of Gunn’s Superman is certainly not what DC Comics wants.

The Impact Of Copyright Disputes On Other Superhero Franchises Shouldn’t Be Disregarded

It’s Not Just Superman

Of course, heavy-hitter names like Superman and Batman are doing better than their contemporaries ,and are a reason why 2025 could see an uptick for the comics industry. Alternatively, the comics industry could be facing diffculties in 2025 as the Trump administration’s tariff policies loom, which in turn will affect how comics – among other goods and services – will be distributed across the nation. All that being said, when the comic book industry is struggling money-wise as is, there’s more money in bigger markets like movies and merch sales.

Which means from a litigious perspective, there is more incentive to sue the filmmakers, rather than interfere with the comics. Lawsuits like this, involving the rights to superheroes, aren’t uncommon. Still, there have been comic book battles in the courtroom revolving around certain comics characters, like Siegel and Schuster’s past lawsuits over Superman prior to this new one. For example, the Jack Kirby Estate was involved in a legal battle with Marvel for years, regarding Kirby’s ownership over the characters he created, despite Marvel filing him under a “work for hire” clause. That ended in a settlement.

On the DC side of things, while not an outright legal battle, there was a public controversy about Bill Finger not receiving a public credit as Batman’s creator, until DC gave Finger such a creator credit alongside Bob Kane after 2015. There have been many creator-based lawsuits revolving around creators and their comic books. This is such a lawsuit, but whereas past lawsuits attached have been centered around theSuperman character as he pertains to comics, this new suit pertains largely to the upcoming movie releasing overseas, more than anything else.

Source: Deadline

“}]] WBD’s Superman lawsuit explained.  Read More