Read all about it here... No real surprises here. Disney employs the best copyright lawyers on Earth.
Also, they never really had a leg to stand on. It was very clear all that stuff was work-for-hire. As much as I love Kirby, and as interesting a decision in his family's favor would have been, this was the correct verdict.
Warners take note with Superman. Marvel just keeps edging them out in every arena. Sells. Movie quality Legal battles.
The difference is that Marvel has always appeared to have the presumption of ownership regarding its characters, whereas DC doesn't have a leg to stand on in claiming that Superman was work-for-hire.
I've never really "gotten" these cases, anyway. The argument I usually hear is something like, "Well, the creator didn't know what they had when they worked for DC, Marvel, etc." That's right - because they didn't have anything at that time. DC and Marvel funded it, published it, advertised it, edited it, etc - the company *built* it. Why are those efforts considered worthless in view of why these characters make money? We're essentially saying that the work of thousands of people over the course of decades had no value; it instead happened because of just one person. It's a big effort on the part of the company to make these characters profitable (especially when one considers 70 years or more). For instance, are the Siegels going to reimburse DC for the present day value of the legal expenses it took to kill Captain Marvel so that Superman sales could rebound? Without those legal moves in the late 1940's, it's possible the value of Superman could be as low as Captain Marvel's is today. What I see in a case like the Siegels and the Kirbys is one where the creators' family argues, "Thanks for building up our property; now give us all the money." It's a heist, and I don't support it at all. I'm glad Marvel won this one.
They were paid. Sorry scale at the time was what it was but you chose to work there. I'm over this Superman stuff. If the creators had honest to goodness made the character into what he was, even during the 40's all on their own that would be one thing. They didn't. They've been paid. I'm just not with the family's complaint and I'll leave it at that regardless of any retorts.
Once again, that has nothing to do with it. DC could have paid them a million dollars in 1938 money and the Siegel/Shuster estates would still own the copyright. DC purchased the copyright for its original existence, 54 years. When Congress extended copyrights, they specified that anything not work-for-hire would revert to its original owners - otherwise DC is (and, since 1994, has been) profitting from something they never paid for.
An appeal is being filed. I think that they should stop wasting their time. The only ones making out here are the lawyers.
Yep. The courts have clearly understood that, time after time. It doesn't matter if anyone else thinks differently; this is the law. I'm glad to see Warners lose.