The Latest Superman Litigation: Peary v DC Comics, Inc.
Case Closed
A ruling was just handed down in the latest Marc Toberoff led Superman cases. In this case, Mark Warren Peary v DC Comics, Inc, et al, the result isn’t what Toberoff or Peary wanted.
They’ve lost.
In short, the case revolved around the latest Superman film, which is to be released soon. Peary, a nephew of Joe Shuster, filed suit to prevent the film from being released in certain countries - Australia, UK, Canada and Ireland - under copyright infringement. Peary had filed for a preliminary injunction, but, before the court could even consider that, it had to decide if it had the jurisdiction to hear such a case, which was an issue that DC’s lawyers raised.
In summary, ‘..the Court concludes that it does not have jurisdiction and that the case must therefore be dismissed.’
Game over. You can read the full Opinion and Order below.
Where does this leave Superman? This is the latest in a long line of cases brought forth by Marc Toberoff, and he’s invested a lot of time and money into these cases to stop now. An appeal should follow.
Toberoff has made a career out of filing for properties on behalf of the heirs of families. Some he’s won, some he’s lost and a lot have been settled. The cases he’s won seem to involve him on gaining a portion of the property involved. Not always, but more often than not. As they say, the lawyers in these cases get the money, not the parties involved. Make of that what you will.
Expect some more cases trying to wrest control of the character from DC Comics. And, with each case that is lost, another potential loophole is closed and the control over Superman becomes tighter and tighter.
I assumed this was a bullshit case on the basis that whatever substantive issues underlay it were resolved whenever DC/Warner resolved things with the Shuster estate years ago.
But the idea that DC Comics Inc (as the indicated used to read) isn’t a corporation but a partnership and that EC isn’t owned by DC but part of a partnership…?
Suffice to say, that’s news…
OTOH, a dimly remembered mystery, as it were, is that after EC became part of DC, Bill Gaines was some sort of consultant to DC. That of course would be weird if DC owned EC, less so if they were partners.
Maybe one of the defendants’ exhibits explain it…?