`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT G
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/18/2025 07:59 PMINDEX NO. 155397/2025
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PARTIA L SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Marc Toberoff (State Bar No. 188547)
` mtoberoff@ipwla.com
`Keith G. Adams (State Bar No. 240497)
` kgadams@ipwla.com
`Pablo D. Arredondo (State Bar No. 241142)
` parredondo@ipwla.com
`David Harris (State Bar No. 255557)
` dharris@ipwla.com
`TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`22337 Pacific Coast Highway #348
`Malibu, California 90265
`Telephone: (310) 246-3333
`Facsimile: (310) 246-3101
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Mark Warren
`Peary, as personal representative of the
`Estate of Joseph Shuster, Jean Adele Peavy,
`and Laura Siegel Larson, individually and
`as personal representative of the Estate of
`Joanne Siegel
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION
`DC COMICS,
` Plaintiff,
` vs.
`
`PACIFIC PICTURES CORPORATION;
`IP WORLDWIDE, LLC; IPW, LLC;
`MARC TOBEROFF, an individual;
`MARK WARREN PEARY, as personal
`representative of the ESTATE OF
`JOSEPH SHUSTER; JEAN ADELE
`PEAVY, an individual; LAURA
`SIEGEL LARSON, individually and as
`personal representative of the ESTATE
`OF JOANNE SIEGEL, and DOES 1-10,
`inclusive,
`
` Defendants.
`Case No: CV 10 -03633 ODW (RZx)
`
`Hon. Otis D. Wright II, U.S.D.J.
`Hon. Ralph Zarefsky, U.S.M.J.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT ON FIRST,
`SECOND AND THIRD CLAIMS
`FOR RELIEF
`
`Statement of Uncontroverted Facts
`and Conclusions of Law;
`Declaration of Keith G. Adams; and
`[Proposed] Order filed concurrently herewith
`
`Complaint filed: May 14, 2010
`Discovery Cutoff: None Set
`Trial Date: None Set
`
`Date: October 15, 2012
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`Place: Courtroom 11
`
`
`Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 478 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 36 Page ID
`#:29199
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/18/2025 07:59 PMINDEX NO. 155397/2025
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JU DGMENT
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
` PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 15, 2012, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon
`thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Courtroom 11 of the above-captioned Court,
`located at 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012, defendants Mark
`Warren Peary, as personal representative of the estate of Superman’s co-creator
`Joseph Shuster (the “Shuster Executor”), Jean Adele Peavy, and Laura Siegel Larson,
`individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Joanne Siegel, will and
`hereby do move for partial summary judgment as to the First, Second and Third
`Claims for Relief in plaintiff DC Comics’ (“DC”) first amended complaint (Docket
`No. 49; “FAC”) pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(a).
`DC’s First Claim (FAC ¶¶105-34) fails as a matter of law because the Shuster
`Executor duly served and filed notices of termination in accordance with section
`304(d) of the Copyright Act (the “Termination”), and the regulations promulgated
`thereunder, 37 C.F.R. § 201.10. The First Claim seeks to invalidate this
`straightforward statutory Termination based on five clearly erroneous theories:
`• Part (1) (FAC ¶¶107-11) relies on wordplay to argue that Joe Shuster’s
`termination rights under section 304(c) ceased to exist but did not “expire,”
`contradicting the plain language and structure of the statute. The Shuster
`Executor owns the “entire termination interest” under a plain reading of 17
`U.S.C. § 304(c)(2)(D) because Joseph Shuster left no widow, child or
`grandchild, and his termination rights under section 304(c) had not been
`exercised and expired before October 27, 1998, the effective date of the
`Copyright Term Extension Act. Pub. L. 105-298; 17 U.S.C. § 304(d); 67 Fed.
`Reg. 69134, 69135; Stewart v. Abend , 495 U.S. 207, 212 (1990).
`• Part (2) frivolously argues that a perfunctory 1992 pension agreement between
`DC and Joe Shuster’s siblings (the “1992 Agreement”) bars the Termination as
`a supposed “revocation and re-grant” of Joe Shuster’s Superman copyright
`grants/copyrights, contrary to the plain language of the 1992 Agreement,
`Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 478 Filed 08/20/12 Page 2 of 36 Page ID
`#:29200
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/18/2025 07:59 PMINDEX NO. 155397/2025
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JU DGMENT
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`governing case law, and DC’s own conduct. DC owned Shuster’s Superman
`copyrights through a 1938 Grant and subsequent grants that the 1992
`Agreement did not even identify or purport to rescind and replace. Siegel v.
`Nat’l Periodical Publications, Inc., 508 F.2d 909, 912-913 (2d Cir. 1974). The
`1992 Agreement does not even mention “Superman.” Moreover, in 1992, no
`one held Joe Shuster’s termination rights under the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. §
`304(c)(2)(D). The 1992 Agreement, therefore, does not even come close to
`qualifying as an express “revocation and re-grant” of Joe Shuster’s Superman
`copyright grants/copyrights, in lieu of statutory termination, under binding
`Ninth Circuit precedent. See Milne v. Slesinger, Inc. , 430 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir.
`2005); Classic Media, Inc. v. Mewborn , 532 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2008).
`• Part (3) alleges that the Shuster Executor did not own the termination right,
`when he plainly did as a matter of federal copyright law. The Shuster
`Executor’s termination right was not and could not be transferred to third
`parties. See 17 U.S.C. § 304(c)(2)(A)-(D); 17 U.S.C. §304(c)(6)(D).
`• Part (4) alleges that the Termination omitted alleged “grants” of Joe Shuster’s
`Superman copyrights that were not grants at all. One such purported “grant”
`was the 1992 Agreement, which did not and could not transfer Superman
`copyrights long ago assigned by Siegel and Shuster to DC and already in DC’s
`possession. The other, a May 1948 “consent judgment” has already been
`litigated and held not be a Superman grant in Siegel v. Warner Bros.
`Entertainment Inc. , 542 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1131-32 (C.D. Cal. 2008), which is
`binding on DC.
`• Part (5) frivolously alleges “unclean hands” because Mr. Peary chose not to
`serve a “Superboy” termination notice, even though this decision was
`consistent with the Copyright Act and preclusive factual findings in a 1947
`case regarding “Superboy.” See 17 U.S.C § 304(d): Sears, Roebuck & Co. v.
`Sears PLC , 744 F. Supp. 1297, 1310 (D. Del. 1990).
`Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 478 Filed 08/20/12 Page 3 of 36 Page ID
`#:29201
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/18/2025 07:59 PMINDEX NO. 155397/2025
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JU DGMENT
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`DC’s Second Claim (FAC ¶¶135-64) seeks to re-litigate, and overlaps with,
`issues in Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. , C.D. Cal. Case No. 04-08400
`ODW (RZx), currently on appeal. Much of this claim is barred by the doctrine of
`issue preclusion/collateral estoppel. Cont’l Airlines, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber
`Co., 819 F.2d 1519, 1525 (9th Cir. 1987) ; Brown v. Dunbar, 376 Fed. Appx. 786 (9th
`Cir. 2010).
`DC’s Third Claim (FAC ¶¶165-73) insists that DC has a non-existent exclusive
`“right” to negotiate the purchase of the recovered Superman copyrights. The statute
`provides no such “right,” as case law and treatises confirm. See 17 U.S.C. §
`304(c)(6)(D); Bourne Co. v. MPL Commc’ns, Inc. , 675 F. Supp. 859, 865 (S.D.N.Y.
`1987); 3 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 11.08[A], n.6 (2010).
`DC lacks standing to bring this claim (6 W. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 21:18),
`which is barred as well by the three-year statute of limitations, as DC was on clear
`notice of its purported claim in 2006. 17 U.S.C. § 507(b).
`Defendants respectfully request a hearing and oral argument on the parties’
`cross-motions for partial summary judgment to meaningfully assist the Court, given
`the importance of this case and the unique issues of law raised by these claims. To
`conserve judicial resources, Defendants propose that a hearing on the parties’ cross-
`motions be held on October 15, 2012, or another date, as convenient for the Court.
`This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3,
`which took place on July 11, 2012. This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion,
`the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the concurrently-filed
`declarations, the concurrently-filed Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and
`Conclusions of law, all of the pleadings, files, and records in this proceeding, all
`other matters of which the Court may take judicial notice, and any argument or
`evidence that may be presented to or considered by the Court prior to its ruling.
`///
`///
`Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 478 Filed 08/20/12 Page 4 of 36 Page ID
`#:29202
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/18/2025 07:59 PMINDEX NO. 155397/2025
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JU DGMENT
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`Dated: August 20, 2012 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
` /s/ Marc Toberoff
` Marc Toberoff
`
`TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`Attorneys for Defendants Mark Warren Peary, as
`personal representative of the Estate of Joseph
`Shuster, Jean Adele Peavy, and Laura Siegel
`Larson, individually and as personal representative
`of the Estate of Joanne Siegel
`Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 478 Filed 08/20/12 Page 5 of 36 Page ID
`#:29203
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/18/2025 07:59 PMINDEX NO. 155397/2025
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` i
`TABLES OF CONTENTS AND AUTHORITIES
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ................. ........................ 2
`
`A. The Termination Right Under The U.S. Copyright Act ........ 2
`
`B. The Relationship Between Superman’s Co-Creators
`And DC .................................................................................. 3
`
`C. The 1992 Agreement To A Modest Pension Increase ........... 4
`
`D. The Executor Of Shuster’s Estate Exercises His
`Termination Right .................................................................. 5
`
`E. Enforcement Of The Siegel Termination, Triggering
`This Action ............................................................................. 6
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................... 6
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 7
`
`I. THE TERMINATION MET THE STATUTORY
`REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................... 7
`
`II. DC’S FIRST CLAIM IS BARRED AS A MATTER OF
`LAW ................................................................................................. 8
`
`A. The Shuster Executor Possessed The § 304(d)
`Termination Right .................................................................. 8
`
`1. If No Statutory Heirs, Executors Hold
`Termination Rights ...................................................... 8
`
`2. Shuster’s Section 304(c) Termination Rights
`Expired ....................................................................... 10
`
`B. The 1992 Agreement Does Not Affect The Shuster
`Termination .......................................................................... 11
`
`1. “Revocation And Re-grant” Exception In Milne
`And Mewborn ............................................................ 12
`
`2. The 1992 Agreement Is Not A “Revocation And
`Re-Grant” ................................................................... 14
`
`3. There Is No Novation Under New York Law ........... 15
`
`C. The Shuster Executor Properly Signed The Shuster
`Termination .......................................................................... 18
`
`D. The Shuster Termination Properly Listed All Copyright
`Grants ................................................................................... 18
`
`Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 478 Filed 08/20/12 Page 6 of 36 Page ID
`#:29204
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/18/2025 07:59 PMINDEX NO. 155397/2025
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ii
`TABLES OF CONTENTS AND AUTHORITIES
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`E. There Are No “Unclean Hands” That Would Bar
`Termination .......................................................................... 19
`
`1. PPC’s Exclusion Is Proper, Not “Unclean
` Hands” ....................................................................... 19
`
`2. No “Unclean Hands” In Deciding To Not
`Terminate Superboy .................................................. 20
`
`III. DC’S SECOND CLAIM IS LARGELY PRECLUDED ....... ........ 22
`
`IV. DC’S THIRD CLAIM FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW ..... ...... 22
`
`A. Section 304(c)(6)(D) Does Not Provide DC With Any
`Rights ................................................................................... 22
`
`B. DC Lacks Standing To Bring Its Third Claim ..................... 24
`
`C. DC’s Third Claim Is Barred By The Statute Of
`Limitations ........................................................................... 24
`
`V. THE COURT MAY ENTER JUDGMENT UNDER F.R.C.P.
`54(b) ............................................................................................... 24
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 25
`Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 478 Filed 08/20/12 Page 7 of 36 Page ID
`#:29205
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/18/2025 07:59 PMINDEX NO. 155397/2025
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` iii
`TABLES OF CONTENTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Federal Cases Pages
`
`Alexander v. Sandoval ,
` 532 U.S. 275 (2001) .................................................................................................. 24
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. ,
` 477 U.S. 242 (1986) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`Artichoke Joe’s Cal. Grand Casino v. Norton ,
` 353 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................... 9
`
`Bourne Co. v. MPL Commc’ns, Inc. ,
` 675 F. Supp. 859 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) ........................................................................... 23
`
`Brown Bros. Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Beam Const. Corp. ,
` 41 N.Y.2d 397 (1977) ............................................................................................... 15
`
`Celotex Corporation v. Catrett ,
` 477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`Citibank, N.A. v. Benedict ,
` 2000 WL 322785 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2000) ............................................................ 16
`
`Classic Media, Inc. v. Mewborn ,
` 532 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................... 13-15
`
`Clinton v. Jones ,
` 520 U.S. 681 (1997) .................................................................................................. 22
`
`Cont’l Airlines, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
` 819 F.2d 1519 (9th Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 19, 25
`
`Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co. ,
` 446 U.S. 1 (1980) ...................................................................................................... 25
`
`Davimos v. Halle ,
` 60 A.D.3d 576 (2009) ............................................................................................... 17
`
`Duane Reade, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. ,
` 411 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2005) ..................................................................................... 16
`
`Frank Associates, Inc. v. John J. Ryan & Sons, Inc.,
` 117 N.Y.S.2d 406 (App. Div. 1952) ......................................................................... 16
`
`Gausvik v. Perez ,
` 392 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................. 17
`
`Goldbard v. Empire State Mut. Ins. Co. ,
` 5 A.D. 2d 230 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958) ...................................................................... 15
`
`Greenberg v. Nat’l Geographic Society ,
` 533 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................. 2
`Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 478 Filed 08/20/12 Page 8 of 36 Page ID
`#:29206
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/18/2025 07:59 PMINDEX NO. 155397/2025
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` iv
`TABLES OF CONTENTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Groucho Marx Prods. V. Day & Night Co. ,
` 689 F.2d 317 (2d Cir. 1982) ..................................................................................... 11
`
`Gucci Am., Inc. v. Guess?, Inc. ,
` 2012 WL 2304247 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2012) .......................................................... 22
`
`Harris v. Emus Records Corp. ,
` 734 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1983) .................................................................................. 20
`
`International Klafter Co., Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co. ,
` 869 F.2d 96 (2d Cir. 1989) ....................................................................................... 16
`
`Lennon v. Seaman ,
` 84 F.Supp.2d 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) .......................................................................... 20
`
`Lucky’s Detroit, LLC v. Double L Inc. ,
` 2012 WL 219418 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 25, 2012) .......................................................... 22
`
`Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon ,
` 310 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 2002) ....................................................................................... 3
`
`McKesson HBOC, Inc. ERISA Litig. ,
` 391 F. Supp. 2d 812 (N.D. Cal. 2005) ...................................................................... 19
`
`Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc .,
` 362 U.S. 373 (1960) .................................................................................................. 10
`
`Milne v. Slesinger, Inc. ,
` 430 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................. 12-15
`
`Milton H. Greene Archives v. CMG Worldwide ,
` 568 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2008) .................................................................... 11
`
`Music Sales Corp. v. Morris ,
` 73 F. Supp. 2d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ........................................................................ 10
`
`N.Y. Times v. Tasini ,
` 533 U.S. 483 (2001) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`Noel v. Hall ,
` 568 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................... 25
`
` Adidas Am., Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. ,
` 166 Fed. Appx. 268 (9th Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 25
`
`Pelich v. INS ,
` 329 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................. 19
`
`Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. Steinbeck ,
` 537 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 11, 13-14
`
`Rivers v. Walt Disney Co. ,
` 980 F. Supp. 1358 (C.D. Cal. 1997) ......................................................................... 22
`
`Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 478 Filed 08/20/12 Page 9 of 36 Page ID
`#:29207
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/18/2025 07:59 PMINDEX NO. 155397/2025
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` v
`TABLES OF CONTENTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Rottlund Co. ,
` 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16723 .................................................................................. 20
`
`Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Sears PLC ,
` 744 F. Supp. 1297 (D. Del. 1990) ............................................................................. 22
`
`Shady Records, Inc. v. Source Ent., Inc. ,
` 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26143 (S.D.N.Y. January 2, 2005) ..................................... 20
`
`Siegel v. Warner Bros. Ent. Inc. ,
` 542 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (C.D. Cal. 2009) .............................................................. passim
`
`Siegel v. Nat’l Periodical Publications, Inc.,
` 508 F.2d 909 (2d Cir. 1974) ..................................................................... 4, 11, 17, 21
`
`Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. ,
` C.D. Cal. Case No. 04-08400 ODW (RZx) ................................................................ 2
`
`Silvers v. Sony Pictures Ent., Inc. ,
` 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................... 10
`
`Stewart v. Abend ,
` 495 U.S. 207, 212 (1990) ...................................................................................... 2, 10
`
`Yahaya v. Hua ,
` 1989 WL 214481 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.28, 1989) ............................................................. 16
`
`Statutes/Rules
`
`17 U.S.C. § 203 ............................................................................................................. 2
`
`17 U.S.C. § 304 .................................................................................................... passim
`
`37 C.F.R. § 201.10 .............................................................................................. 7, 8, 19
`
`F.R.C.P. 54(b) ............................................................................................................. 25
`
`F.R.C.P. 56 .................................................................................................................... 6
`
`L.R. 7-3 ......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`2 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer On Copyright
` § 7.20 ......................................................................................................................... 20
`
`3 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer On Copyright
` § 9.02 ........................................................................................................................... 2
`
` § 11.03 ......................................................................................................................... 9
`
` § 11.08 ....................................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 478 Filed 08/20/12 Page 10 of 36 Page ID
`#:29208
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/18/2025 07:59 PMINDEX NO. 155397/2025
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` vi
`TABLES OF CONTENTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`3 W. Patry, Patry on Copyright (2010)
`
` § 7:47 ......................................................................................................................... 23
`
`6 W. Patry, Patry on Copyright
` § 21:18....................................................................................................................... 24
`
`67 Fed. Reg. 69134 ............................................................................................... 11, 21
`
`67 Fed. Reg. 69135 ............................................................................................... 11, 21
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 105-452 (1998),
` 105th Congress, 2d Sess. ........................................................................................ 3, 9
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976) ...................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 478 Filed 08/20/12 Page 11 of 36 Page ID
`#:29209
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/18/2025 07:59 PMINDEX NO. 155397/2025
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`INTRODUCTION
`For nearly as long as Superman has fought for justice, Siegel and Shuster
`struggled to participate in the fruits of their creation, to no avail. Congress enacted
`the Copyright Act’s termination provisions to remedy the harsh publisher/author
`imbalance, and to enable authors and their families to finally benefit from the
`increased value of their copyrights. If ever there were a case that fit squarely within
`Congress’ concerted objectives, it is that of Siegel and Shuster. After the Court
`upheld the Siegels’ statutory termination, DC Comics (including its predecessors,
`“DC”) brought this action as to the Shuster estate’s mirror image termination in a
`last-ditch effort to derail its long-awaited statutory recovery, with meritless claims.
`Summary judgment in favor of Defendants is amply justified on DC’s First,
`Second and Third Claims, and most of its Second Claim (Dkt. 49, First Amended
`Complaint (“FAC”), ¶¶105-173).
`In 2003, Mark Warren Peary, the executor of Joseph Shuster’s estate, duly
`served and filed notices of termination in accordance with section 304(d) of the
`Copyright Act (the “Termination”). DC’s First Claim (FAC ¶¶105-34) seeks to
`invalidate this straightforward statutory termination based on five theories, each of
`which is clearly erroneous as a matter of law. Part (1) relies on wordplay to argue
`that Joe Shuster’s termination rights under section 304(c) ceased to exist but did not
`“expire,” contradicting the plain language and structure of the statute. Part (2)
`frivolously argues that a short 1992 pension agreement between DC and Shuster’s
`siblings bars the Termination as a supposed “revocation and re-grant” of Shuster’s
`Superman copyright grants, contrary to the language of the 1992 agreement, binding
`Ninth Circuit precedent, and DC’s own actions. Part (3) alleges that the executor did
`not own the termination right, when he plainly did as a matter of federal copyright
`law. Part (4) alleges that the Termination omitted alleged “grants” of Joe Shuster’s
`Superman copyrights that were not grants at all. Part (5) frivolously alleges “unclean
`hands” because Mr. Peary chose not to serve a Superboy termination notice,
`Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 478 Filed 08/20/12 Page 12 of 36 Page ID
`#:29210
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/18/2025 07:59 PMINDEX NO. 155397/2025
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`consistent with the Copyright Act and preclusive factual findings in a Superboy suit.
`DC’s Second Claim seeks to re-litigate issues presented in the more-advanced,
`related case of Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. , C.D. Cal. Case No. 04-
`08400 ODW (RZx), currently on appeal. Much of this claim is barred by issue
`preclusion; the remainder should be stayed until resolved in the Siegel case.
`DC’s Third Claim insists that DC has a non-existent exclusive “right” to
`negotiate the purchase of the recovered Superman copyrights. The statute provides
`DC no such “right,” as both case law and treatises confirm. DC lacks standing under
`the statute to bring this claim, which is barred as well by the statute of limitations.
`DC has proceeded with these meritless claims for well over two years. Despite
`nearly a decade of discovery between this case and the Siegel case, DC cannot
`present any evidence to support its erroneous legal theories. DC’s claims should be
`rejected, and this Court should confirm, consistent with Congress’ clear objectives,
`that the Shuster Termination is valid and effective, just like the Siegels’ termination.
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`A. The Termination Right Under The U.S. Copyright Act
` For over two centuries, the Copyright Act has consistently provided authors
`and their families with the right to recover previously transferred copyrights to enable
`their participation in the increased value of such copyrights. See Stewart v. Abend ,
`495 U.S. 207, 219 (1990), 3 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer On Copyright
`(“ Nimmer ”), § 9.02. These protections culminated in the 1976 Copyright Act’s
`termination provisions. 17 U.S.C. §§ 203(a), 304(c)-(d).
` “The 1976 Copyright Act was supposed to reverse two hundred years of
`publishers’ exploitation of authors under the [] Copyright Act.” Greenberg v. Nat’l
`Geographic Society, 533 F.3d 1244, 1259 n.1 (11th Cir. 2008). When Congress
`extended the copyright term, it intended to benefit authors rather than grantees. See
`H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976) at 140. Congress thus coupled the extension with a
`new right of authors and “statutory heirs” (i.e. , spouse, children and grandchildren) to
`Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 478 Filed 08/20/12 Page 13 of 36 Page ID
`#:29211
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/18/2025 07:59 PMINDEX NO. 155397/2025
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`terminate transfers of copyright signed before January 1, 1978. 17 U.S.C. § 304(c).
`In recognizing the intent of the 1976 Act to “enhance the author’s position,”
`the Supreme Court has emphasized this “inalienable” right “to revoke a copyright
`transfer.” N.Y. Times v. Tasini , 533 U.S. 483, 496 (2001); see also Stewart, 495 U.S.
`at 230 (“[The 1976 Act] provides an inalienable termination right”).
` When Congress further extended the copyright term in the 1998 Copyright
`Term Extension Act (Pub. L. 105-298; “CTEA”), it again coupled this extension with
`a second termination right in § 304(d), for situations where § 304(c)’s termination
`right had not been exercised by 1998. 17 U.S.C. §§ 304(b), (d). See H.R. Rep. No.
`105-452 (1998) (“H.R. Rep. 105-452”) at 8 (intent of CTEA was for “the original
`authors of works and their beneficiaries to benefit from the extended [renewal]
`copyright protection”). Congress also, for the first time, provided the termination
`right to the executor of an author’s estate, if the author was not survived by a spouse,
`child or grandchild. 17 U.S.C. § 304(c)(2)(D).
` The Copyright Act’s termination rights lie in stark contrast to ordinary contract
`principles, as they empower authors, their statutory heirs and estates to recover
`copyrights by terminating prior grants without cause . Id ., § 304(c)(5). To ensure that
`termination rights are not contractually waived or circumvented, Congress further
`abrogated freedom of contract principles to make these rights inalienable. Hence,
`“[t]ermination … may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.”
`Id. , § 304(c)(5); see Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon , 310 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 2002)
`(agreement that effectively bars termination by re-characterizing works is void as an
`“agreement to the contrary”). Moreover, “[a] further grant…of any right covered by
`a terminated grant is valid only if it is made after the effect