Laura Siegel Larson et al. v. Time Warner, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 04-8776 (USDC CDCA 2004), March...

7/25/2019 Laura Siegel Larson et al. v. Time Warner, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 04-8776 (USDC CDCA 2004), March 23, 2006 r

1/17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

14

5

6

7

18

19

20

2

22

23

24

OAESEG

v.

. -

FCI E

-

CLERK US DISTOUR

CENRALDSTRI OF :rIBY PU

.,

Prioty Send

" j

Enter :lClosed

L'- "Ij

J-5/S6_S3 _Scan Oly_

THISCONTUASREQUIRDBY lROtC OF NTRYPRULE ?ltd).UNITED STATES DISTRICT URT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI

- , "

C

r

-

COURT ;

MAR 2 I.

CV 04-8776!UFCRI1 !

DE :lr( 1SIEGEL LAURAARSON, 1 . .- -_., "

Plaintiffs ORDER

IME WARNER, INC ,

))))))))))

))))))

GRNTING PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SRY JUDGMENT &

DEING DEFETS

MOTION FOR SURY

JUDGMENTet a. ,

Defendants.

CKE ON CM:

:j\ Il2A GS,i

'

8 ,03

25 Paintiffs Joanne Siege and Laura b l La r

n' s

26 Motion for Partia Smay Jdgment and Defendant

TimqEXHIBIT 19

885

Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 238-6 Filed 04/04/13 Page 103 of 250 Page ID#:2625


2/17

Warner, Inc s Motion for ummar Judment came on relarlU

2 for hearn on March 2, 26. This Court has consideed :."'

3 all of the papers and arument submitted on the matterand

f ,

NOW FS A RULES AS FOLLOWS:

5

6 As a prelminar matter this Court GTS Plaintffs'

and Defendants' requests for Judcal Notice pursuant to

8 Fed R Evid. 201.

9

0 Ths copriht dispute arses out of facts stemmin

11 back to 938 and earlier, ad includin two previous cases

2 in 1947 and 1973 Plantffs in ths case are Joanne

3 ieel, widow of Jerome eel, and their dauhter, Laura

1 eel Larson Jerome ieel and Joseph huster are the

5 creators of uperman. Jerome ieel is the oriinator6 creator of uperbo with Joseph huster providn much of

17 the illustration Defendants in ths case are Time Waner

18 nc , the parent compan of DC Comics (\Defendants) DC

19 Comcs predecessor in interest was National Comics

20 Publications, Inc (\Natonal) and ts predecessor in

21 nterest was Detective Comcs (\Detective)

22

23 In 1947, Jerome ieel and Joseph huster sued National

2 in the New York upreme Court for the Count of Westchester

25

26 Jerome Siegel passed away n anuary 28/ 996

2

EXHIBIT 19

886



3/17

(the state cort acton seekng a determnaton th!U!

2 ther March , 938 contract was vod Addtonall, he.-;,

3 state cort acton soght to determne who owned the ghts

to perman and to perbo

5

6 On November , 94 dge Addson Yong, the offcal

7 referee n the state cort acton, rendered a detaled

8 nterloctor jdgment Then on Aprl 2 948 dge Yong

9 sgned a detaled fndngs of fact and conclsons of law

e fond that erome egel was the orgnator and sle

owner of the comc strp featre perbo wth the sle and

2 exclsve rght to create, sell, and dstbte the comc

3 strp nder the ttle perbo

5 On Ma 9, 948 the partes entered nto a stplaton6 to settle and on Ma 2 948, the ort entered a consent

7 jdgment, vacatng n all respects the nterloctor

8 jdgment The stplaton provded for a pament of

9 approxmatel $94, 000 00 b Natonal n exchange for

2 ownershp n both perman and perbo

2

22 n 93, egel and hster agan sed Natonal n the

23 othern Dstrct of New York seekng declarator relef

24 that they were entitled to the copyright renewal rigts of

25 perman Natonal conterclamed for a fndng of

26 declaratory relef n its favor. District Judge Lasker

3

EXHIBIT 19

887



4/17

ranted National's Motion for mmary Jdement dismiinIJj

the complaint and indin "National to be the owner othef

3 copyriht of all perman strips drin the renewal tm

Si g l & hster v Ntionl Pridil Pblications Inc,

5 64 F pp 2, (DN.Y 7)

6

7 Jde asker noted that the indins o the tate

8 preme Cort of Westchester were bindin on the distrct

9 cort d citin to Vrnitron Cor v B njamin, 44 F2d

0 O 8 (2d Cir 7)) Jde Lasker made a clear

distinction between ) the indins of fact of the state

cort and (2) the stiplated settlement and resltin

3 consent jdment Si g l & Shst r 58 F 2d at

4

5 ieel and hster appealed and the econd Circit6 affirmed findin that the district cort "properly decided

7 that the state cort jdment of May 2 48 effectively

8 estopped the plaintis rom relitiatin the isse o

9 ownership of the renewal copyriht. Si g l & hster v

0 National Prioical Pblications nc et al 5 F 2d ,

2 2- (2d Cir 74)

22

23 n November 22 Jerome ieel's widow and dahter

2 served notices of termination for the perboy copyrihts

5 prsant to ection 4c) Today Plaintiffs seek a

26 determination that they effectively terminated Defendants'

4

EXHIBIT 19

888



5/17

1 renewal rights in Superboy pursuant to 7 U.S.C.

2 November 7, 2004.

3

4 17 USC 304(c) provides for termination of

transfers and licenses covering the extended renewal term

6 Under the 90 Copyright Act, protection was divided into

two separate consecutive terms of twenty-eight years: the

8 "initial term and the "renewal term But as most

9

authors/creators were required to contract away both the10 initial and renewa periods at the same time, they were

effectively denied the protection ongress sought to

2 provide

13

14 As a relt, on January , 978, the 976 Copyright Act

15 took effect signficantly enhancing the rights of authors

16 and their heirs 9 U.SC 0, et seq. The 1976 Act

1 extended the renewa term from 28 to 47 years for works in

18 their renewa term when the 976 Act took effect. Along with

19 addng 19 years to the renewa term period, the 96 Act

20 couped the extension with a new right of authors and their

21 heirs to recapture the renewal of the copyright in works by

22 terinating any prior grant of the work executed before

23 January , 978. 7 US.C. 304(c. It is under this

4 provision that Plaintiffs have sought to recapture Jerome

25 Siegel's ownership in the Superboy copyrghts.

6

EXHIBIT 19

889



6/17

Fndamnta to th argmnts prsntd by both

laintiffs and Dfndants is th ffct of th ntrltory.r:

jdgmnt issd by Jdg Yong on ovmbr 2 9 aq th

dtaid findings of fact and concsions of law h issd

on April 2 98

6

7 Crrnty Dfndants attmpt to ritigat isss

dtrmind in th 9 stat cort cas. Dfndants arg

vigorosly that only th consnt dgmnt has any prclsiv

ffct and that Jdg Yongs findings of fact hav no

ffct whatsovr on this litigation. Dfndants tak this

position bcas thir dsird otcom is consistnty in

dirct confict with th findings issd by Jdg Yong

Spcificay Jdg ongs findings contradict Dfndants'

assrtions rgarding th ownrship of Sprbo 2

whthr Sprboy is simply a drivativ work of Sprman

and 3 whthr Sprboy was a "work for hir soy ownd

by Dfndants prdcssors in intrst ationa and

Dtctiv

Dfndants crrnt argmnt that Jdg Yongs

findings ar not binding contradicts th position takn by

thir prdcssors in intrst in th 93 litigation and

th 9 Scond Circit appa rgarding Sprman. In

appying th doctrin of rs jdicata in favor of

26 Dfndants dg Laskr prcldd and th Scond Circt

6

EXHIBIT 19

890



7/17

affrmd, Plantffs from ltatn th ssu of ownshptl

1".-,

:,2 of th rnwal prod of th Suprman coprhts

c/ 3

avn rld on Jud Youn's fndns for prvos

5 favorabl dtrmnatons rardn Suprman, Dfndants now

6 tak th nconsstnt poston that ths ourt s not bound

7 b th stat court fndns as th rlat to Suprbo.

8 Dfndants attmpt to ras nun ssus of matral fact,

9

whr th facts wr clarl dtrmnd b Jud Youn aftr0 th opportunt to tak vdnc and har tstmon on that

vdnc from th parts drctl nvolvd n cratn ths

2 rlatonshp

3

ontrar to Dfndants' assrtons now, both th

5 Southrn Dstrct of Nw York and th Scond rcut ookd6 drctl to, vn ctn to, Jud Youn's fndns of fact

7 Ths ourt holds that t s consstnt to contnu ths

8 poston and wl look to Jud Youn's fndns as bndn

9 whr rlvant Hr, whl th consnt judmnt vacatd

20 th ntrlocutor judmnt n ts ntrt, ths ourt n

2 kpn a consstnt poston wth th prvous ltaton

22 holds that Jud Youns fndns of fact hav prclusv

23 rs judcata and collatral stoppl ffct on ths ort

2

25 hs ourt now fnds that Plantffs hav avald

26 thmsvs of thr lal rht to rcaptur th Suprbo

7

EXHIBIT 19

891



8/17

1 opyrigs pursuan o 7 SC 304 c) and 37 C.Fi

2 200. As su s our GRTS Plainffs otio for:

'"

(j\/':1

Para Summary Judgmn

4

5 Dfndans argud a Plainffs Suprboy nois of

6 rmnaon ar nffv baus 976 A spfs

7 a only grans rlaing o "any opyrig subsising in

8 r is firs or rnwal rm on January , 978 ar

9sub o Sion 304

10

11 Howvr Plainiffs prsnd unonrovrd vdn

12 supporing a Suprboy opyrig was in fa

13 subsising n s rnwal rm as of 976 As

14 ffiv da. Spfialy Plainffs poind o

15 fa a opyrg n sralizd magazin Mre Fun

16 Cmics, o 0 was surd on ovmbr 3, 944 wi

17 rgsraion numbr B65365 and n rnwd on July 7,

18 972 wnyig yars lar by aional undr rnwal

19 rgisraion numbr R532582 In 947 sa our

2 aon Judg Young spfally drmind a Div

oms publisd Suprboy omi srp basd upon

da plan and onpon of Sigl n a magazn nild

23 More Fun Cmics.

24

25 Alrnavly Dfndans argud a vn f

opyrgs wr subssng n r rnwal prod as of

8

EXHIBIT 19

892



9/17

nury , 198, iniff noice of erminion ei!

ineffecve he ubmiion re no eligibe for :

3 erminion "ork mde for hire. /I he Ninh Circ h'V I

4 ummrized he ork for hre docrine folo

5

7

8

9

0

hen one peron engge noher, heher

employee or n independen conrcor, o

produce ork of n riic nure, . n he

bence of n expre conrcul reervion of

he copyrigh in he ri, he preumpion re

h he muu nen of he prie i h he

ie o he copyrigh hll e in he peron

hoe innce nd expene he ork i done.

3 Sef-Rezion F llowhip hrh v Annd Church of Sef-

4 R izion, 206 F3d 1322, 1326 (9h Cir. 2000 (quoing

5 n-Brook Builr Hrdre v. G rl r, 352 F2d 298, 300 (9h Cir. 1965 .

7

8 efendn rgumen h Superboy ork for hre

9 fil, hi concuion direcly conflic ih udge

20 Young's findings in the state court action. Specificaly,

udge Young found h

3 (1 Under Siege nd Shuer Sepember 12, 1938 greemen

24 ih eecive Comic, hey ere o provide eecive

5 ih he righ of fir reful nd ix eek

9

EXHIBIT 19

893



10/17

onideraion period.

x-c(

3 (2) On November 3, 1938, Siegel ubmed in a rii94 mailed o Deeive for i onideraion a ynopi,

5 ummary of idea, onepion, pan for a ne omi knon

6 a Superboy puruan o he Sepember 12, 1938

7 agreemen.

8

9

(3) Deeive delined o indiae i eleion o publih0 Superboy ihin he ix eek and on Deember 2, 1938

eeive by leer o Segel eleed no o publih

2 Superboy.4

3

4 hile no menioning he erm ork for hire, udge

5 Young finding naurally impliae he queion. Here a6 preumpion of ork for hire anno be found in

7 Defendan favor, ine no only did udge aylor fnd ha

8 Defendan eleed no o publih Superboy, bu he alo

9

202 uge Yung fu tat Sege nepeenty create s

2 rgna Superby Synpss an Superby Stry uner te terms f teSeptember 12 1938 agreement between Sege an s pubser wc

permtte m t create new cmc strp cncepts an stres utsete ve Sege an Suster were currenty prucng fr Detectve

23 Te agreement ny awe Detectve a rgt f frst refusa taccept/reject wtn s weeks f a new submssn [Dec ber

4 E. B, Pg 32 FOF 56-59 60-62]

25 3 [Dec berff E B Pg 32 FOF #55 56.

26 [Dec berff E. B, Pg. 32FOF

#58 59.

0

EXHIBIT 19

894



11/17

found tht lintiff Siegel nd not Ntionl s thsole!

2 oner of the Superboy property his finding ill no

Laura Siegel Larson et al. v. Time Warner, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 04-8776 (USDC CDCA 2004), March...

Documents

Transcript of Laura Siegel Larson et al. v. Time Warner, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 04-8776 (USDC CDCA 2004), March...