Superman has soared back onto the big screen, and unless you’ve been locked in the Fortress of Solitude, you already know his origin story: Rocketed from the doomed planet Krypton. Raised in Kansas. Secretly, a mild-mannered reporter. Publicly, the world’s greatest hero.
But behind the scenes, in the real world, Superman has another origin story. One filled not with General Zod or Brainiac, but with contracts, copyright law, and a battle for ownership that has spanned generations.
Writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster created Superman in the 1930s. In 1938, Siegel and Shuster sold the rights to Superman to what would become DC Comics. The price? A one-time payment of $130.
That deal gave DC the exclusive right to publish Superman stories. But it did not give Siegel and Shuster royalties, long-term compensation, or any creative control. As Superman became a pop culture juggernaut, appearing in comics, radio shows, movies, cereal boxes, Halloween costumes, and more, Siegel and Shuster were left behind, not unlike Clark Kent in Superman II, stripped of his powers and sitting helpless in that Smallville diner, wondering where he fits in.
The two creators sued DC in 1947 and again in the 1970s, seeking to reclaim their rights. Each time, courts sided with DC. The pair eventually received a modest annual stipend starting in the late 1970s, but only after public outcry during the lead-up to the first Superman film. DC did not quite go full evil-Superman (Superman III style), but they certainly did not volunteer to make things right until the pressure mounted.
Still, that was not the end of the story.
In 2008, a federal judge ruled that Siegel’s widow and daughter had successfully reclaimed a portion of the Superman copyright under termination rights (sometimes referred to as reversion rights), a powerful creator-friendly mechanism built into U.S. law.
Under U.S. copyright law, any transfer or license of copyright can be terminated 35 years after the grant (or, in some cases, 35 years after publication), so long as the work was not made for hire. This rule was written into the 1976 Copyright Act to give creators a second chance when early deals turned out to be one-sided or unfair. It is a legal safety net for people like Siegel and Shuster, who gave up the rights to a billion-dollar icon before anyone knew just how valuable he would become.
Think of Superman I, when Clark turns back time to save Lois. Or Superman Returns, where Superman returns (hence the title) to Earth after a five-year absence, only to find the world has moved on without him. Except in this case, the world did not move on, and thanks to copyright law, Superman’s creators were given a way to return to the story they started.
Of course, this was not the legal equivalent of snapping Zod’s neck (Man of Steel style). The Siegels did not wipe DC’s rights off the map. What they reclaimed was co-ownership of the original 1938 Superman: the character as he appeared in Action Comics #1, complete with cape, powers, and origin story.
DC still retains control over much of the modern Superman universe, including:
- The broader mythology and characters introduced after 1938 (such as Lex Luthor’s later incarnations, Kryptonite, the Fortress of Solitude, the Bottle City of Kandor, and yes, even Superman IV: The Quest for Peace’s infamous Nuclear Man, for better or worse)
- Trademarks, including the “S” shield, Superman’s name, and iconic phrases like “Up, up, and away” or “Faster than a speeding bullet”
- All content created as “work for hire,” which by law belongs to the employer, not the individual writer or artist
So, while the Siegels had initially reclaimed a significant piece of Superman’s origin, they couldn’t simply publish their own Superman comic with the full cast and mythology. DC still controlled the rest of the cinematic and commercial empire.
However, the Siegels’ partial victory was short-lived. After the district court ruled in favor of the Siegel heirs in 2008, DC Comics appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In 2013, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, concluding that an October 19, 2001 letter from the Siegels’ attorney constituted a binding acceptance of DC’s October 16, 2001 oral offer, which finalized the key settlement terms that had been negotiated over several years, including substantial financial compensation to the Siegel heirs in exchange for the re-grant of all rights in Superman, Superboy, and related properties. The court held that, under California contract law, the letter formed an enforceable agreement, even if some formalities were to be completed later.
The case was remanded to the district court, and on April 18, 2013, Judge Otis D. Wright entered judgment in favor of DC, holding that the October 2001 agreement transferred all of the Siegel heirs’ rights.
Laura Siegel Larson appealed the district court’s 2013 judgment back to the Ninth Circuit, raising new arguments. Larson claimed, for the first time, that her mother Joanne Siegel had rescinded the agreement in letters written in 2002 and that DC Comics had acquiesced to that rescission. However, the Ninth Circuit held in a February 10, 2016, memorandum that this argument was waived, because it had not been raised earlier in the litigation:
As a result, DC regained full rights, cutting off the Siegels’ termination claims and reaffirming its control over the Superman franchise.
The Shuster estate also tried to exercise termination rights but ran into legal roadblocks. In 1992, Joe Shuster’s sister signed a settlement re-granting rights to DC in exchange for an annual payment. In 2010, a federal court ruled that the 1992 agreement, signed by Shuster’s sister, his statutory heir, constituted a post-termination grant, effectively blocking any further attempt to exercise termination rights under U.S. law.
Most recently, in 2025, the Shuster estate filed suit again, this time citing British copyright law, claiming that Shuster’s rights reverted in 2017 under U.K. rules. They sought royalties and tried to block the release of the new Superman movie overseas.
The case was later refiled in New York state court, which heard the injunction motion and denied it on the grounds that (i) the plaintiff had no likelihood of success on the merits; and (ii) there was a lack of irreparable harm.
For this Gen X’er, the Christopher Reeve films, yes, even Superman III, will always have a spot in the Fortress of Nostalgia. Superman IV? Straight to the Pocket Universe, no appeal.
While social media throws punches over who wore the cape best, Reeve, Cavill, Routh, or Corenswet, the real heavyweight fight is about who owns Superman. Spoiler: it might not be settled until the Man of Steel flies into the public domain. Similar to other copyrighted works, Superman is not protected forever. On January 1, 2034, Action Comics #1 (Superman’s debut) will enter the public domain in the United States. That means anyone could legally use that original version of Superman without paying a license fee. Later developments (like heat vision, Lois Lane’s modern versions, and new villains) may remain protected by separate copyrights or trademarks.
Still, the countdown has started.
Characters like Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, and Winnie the Pooh have already joined the public domain. Superman is not far behind. Maybe he will get there before Nicolas Cage finally gets his full shot at the role (excluding that questionable CGI cameo in The Flash).
And while I am no movie critic, I give the latest incarnation ten stars, an A+, and two thumbs up. It delivers truth, justice, and everything you could hope for in a Superman story.
Maybe the sequel will include some IP drama. My pitch: Lex Luthor travels back in time and trademarks the Superman logo, then sues Superman for infringement in the present day. James Gunn, feel free to call me if you want a treatment. (Note: generally, ideas are not protectable IP)
