By Samuel Petosa
It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s . . . British copyright law? On January 31, 2025, a lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York against Warner Bros. Discovery and DC Comics ahead of the studios’ marquee summer release: “Superman.” The suit was filed by the Estate of Superman co-creator, Joseph Shuster, who founded the iconic character with Jerry Siegel in 1938. The suit alleges an infringement of British copyright law in countries under its authority, such as Canada, the U.K., and Australia. In the Estate’s view, the studios have infringed upon its copyright for Superman since the rights reverted to the Estate for these jurisdictions in 2017.
British copyright law encompasses British Revisionary Rights, which extends to the 14 British territories. Under these provisions, an author’s heir is entitled to automatically regain copyrights 25 years after the author’s death. This applies to grants made by the author before June 1, 1957. Shuster and Siegel sold the copyright to DC Comics in 1938, so this copyright fits squarely within the law’s authority. Countries with British foundations, such as Australia and Canada, mirror these provisions in their own corresponding copyright law. Shuster passed away in 1992, meaning his estate had an automatic claim to regain the “Superman” copyright beginning in 2017 in these corresponding jurisdictions.
Such law is a stark difference from U.S. Copyright law, which limits right reversion to 35 years after the initial transfer of rights was made. While this would have applied to Shuster’s estate, his brother and sister reached a 1992 deal with DC that terminated its reversion rights in exchange for $25,000 yearly. This differs from Siegel’s estate, who were granted several million dollars in 2001 for Superman’s permanent rights following his 1996 death. In 2012, Schuster’s deal was upheld when U.S. District Court Judge Otis Wright confirmed this termination agreement and “replaced all prior grants of the Superman copyrights . . . it is not subject to termination.” This ruling was later upheld in the Ninth Circuit a year later, seemingly settling the dispute under American copyright law.
Just as the 2012 suit came in anticipation of Warner Bros. blockbuster “Man of Steel,” this action arises merely months before the studio’s highly anticipated character relaunch. “Superman” is scheduled to hit theaters worldwide on July 9, 2025. Directed by Marvel Studios veteran James Gunn, this film launches the first chapter in Warner Bros.’ newly launched “DC Studios.” The studio, launched in 2022 and headed by Gunn, aimed to revamp the Warner-owned DC IP following Warner Bros. and Discovery’s merger. While the 2010’s were dominated by the Disney-owned Marvel Studios, Gunn’s new venture seeks to even the playing field in wide release Superhero content distribution.
With such lofty goals, the Schuster Estate seeks a piece of the pie. The Estate has demanded a jury trial seeking damages for the share of profits from works attributable to the alleged infringement. This would include all works using Superman’s likeness since 2017, including but not limited to: the upcoming Gunn project, “Black Adam,” “Shazam!”, “Zack Snyder’s Justice League,” and “Superman & Lois.” With the Gunn adaptation being predicted to gross over $800 million by some pundits, a share of such profits would be significant compensation toward the Estate, who is in a significantly different financial position than co-creator Siegel’s estate.
While the Complaint calls for damages, it prays for equitable relief as well. The Estate is seeking an injunction on new Superman projects until the lawsuit is settled. The injunction would be a court order blocking Warner Bros. or DC Comics from using the “Superman” copyright without a license. This would effectively bar release of the upcoming summer flick in any country adhering to the British Revisionary Rights system. Countries like the UK and Australia follow these revisionary rights, which is significant considering the previous film iteration, “Man of Steel,” grossed around $46 million and $22 million in each country respectively. While these figures are lower than what a U.S. domestic box office looks like, the wide-ranging British territories and varying countries that use these Rights would accumulate and lose a significant portion of profit for the studio.
While the Estate has stated it does not intend to deprive fans of the iconic character, it seeks to be adequately compensated for its relative’s “fundamental contributions” towards “Superman.” Warner Bros. has not given the public much indication on its response, simply claiming “[w]e fundamentally disagree with the merits of the lawsuit, and will vigorously defend our rights.” On March 5, the studio filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or in the alternative, to transfer venue. The Motion calls for the suit to be dismissed on its merits. If it is denied, the Studio has requested the venue be transferred to the Central District of California, where the Estate has previously brought similar arguments, like in 2012.
Because this is a suit operating under international law, a forum non convenien could be a viable option for the court. Such a ruling would see the Southern District of New York decline its jurisdiction if an alternative forum, such as a British court, may more conveniently hear the case. In making this decision, the court must consider whether evidence could easily be obtained under American jurisdiction and whether such a proceeding would be burdensome to Warner Bros. and DC. This must be considered against public interest, such as the differing Revisionary Rights laws presiding over the trial and whether that would confuse the jury. That last factor is crucial considering the Estate has demanded a jury trial on its merits using several different jurisdiction’s laws. While this decision is at the court’s discretion, and with the Studio’s most recent Motion, it remains to be seen if this case proceeds at the Eastern District of New York.
Unless the Estate can obtain a court order, the upcoming “Superman” release appears to be on schedule. The film released worldwide on July 9, and domestically two days later July 11. Starring David Corensweat, Rachel Brosnahan, and Nicholas Hoult, the film is the latest adaptation of Siegel and Shuster’s iconic character. Gunn and DC Studios have high hopes for this project, with Gunn referring to the upcoming season as the “Summer of Superman.” But if the Estate proceeds with a preliminary injunction, Superman’s kryptonite may be British copyright law after all.
