Yahoo Web Search

Search results

  1. 1947–1948: Siegel and Shuster sue for ownership of Superman and Superboy. In 1947, Siegel and Shuster sued National Comics Publications for the rights to both Superman and Superboy and a "just share" of all profits that National and its partners made off the character.

  2. People also ask

  3. Dec 3, 2021 · Unsurprisingly, the legal woes over Superman soured Siegel and Shuster's relationship with DC, and their contracts ended and were not renewed before the lawsuit was settled, with Siegel's last Superman story appearing in January/February 1948's World's Finest Comics #32.

  4. Nov 21, 2017 · In 1947, Siegel and Shuster sued DC Comics for the rights to Superman. Sadly, they lost the case and their jobs at DC. The two were absolutely devastated.

    • Last Night Now
    • 2 min
  5. Mar 29, 2008 · A federal judge here on Wednesday ruled that the heirs of Jerome Siegel who 70 years ago sold the rights to the action hero he created with Joseph Shuster to Detective Comics for $130 were...

    • Michael Cieply
  6. In 1947, with the duo receiving less work from DC, Siegel and Shuster sued the company to regain the rights to their most famous creation. The judge sided with DC, but he strangely assigned the rights to Superboy, then only recently introduced in More Fun Comics, to Siegel and Shuster — on the grounds that Superboy was a separate character.

    • Julian Darius
  7. May 18, 2023 · Siegel and Shuster sued National Publications, later known as DC Comics, for financial compensation throughout their lives. With the help of Batman artist Neal Adams, they secured a livable stipend from DC (if comparatively meager compared to the property’s true value) in the years leading up to Superman: The Movie , as an effort to avoid ...

  8. Oct 18, 2012 · The Shuster ruling, coupled with the material provided in DC’s ongoing action against Toberoff and Pacific Pictures, gives the Siegel family ammunition in pursuing a settlement (under threat of a lawsuit) that could reduce if not eliminate Toberoff’s financial interest in their claim.