Now, U.S. District Judge Otis Wright has ruled that the heirs of Superman’s other creator – Joe Shuster – have no claim to those rights, as Jean Peavy, Shuster’s sister, struck a deal with DC Comics in 1992 covering her late brother’s debts (in addition to paying her $25,000 every year for the rest of her life).
What's the definition of the "iconic" costume? No underwear/belt and that collar is the new normal in the comics/movie, and metal rather than cloth? If Siegel and Shuster have no claim to the noniconic costumes which might very well cover the current one being used in movies and comics, and if not DC either, then who? The tiny S shield from Return of Superman (2006) on Kal's chest might also qualify as noniconicism? Probably not.With all that said, this ruling has no bearing whatsoever on the federal court’s previous ruling that Jerry Siegel’s heirs could reclaim 50% of Superman’s rights – including the origin story, the iconic costume, Clark Kent, and everything else from Action Comics #1 (which would leave Warner Bros. things like Lex Luthor, the power of flight, and Kryptonite).
(Which is what I was trying to say earlier.)