Superman Lawyer Claims Warner Bros. Lawsuit Is A SLAPP
from the slapp-back dept
Earlier this year, we wrote about the odd decision of Warner Bros. studio to personally sue Marc Toberoff, the lawyer who successfully represented the heirs of the creators of Superman to win back some of their copyright, by using copyright’s termination rules. Toberoff is making a career of this, and has been helping numerous other content creators start the process of reclaiming rights using the termination process — which makes him somewhat… disliked in the entertainment industry. Still, to sue him personally seemed quite extreme. As we noted at the time, the lawsuit seemed to be based on the idea that Toberoff is a jerk and a savvy business person. As we noted at the time, that doesn’t appear to be illegal.
Not surprisingly, Toberoff agrees, and he’s filed to dismiss the lawsuit under California’s anti-SLAPP law (one of the most comprehensive anti-SLAPP state laws), claiming that the entire lawsuit is just an attempt to shut him up. Matthew Belloni, at the link above, isn’t convinced this is a real SLAPP situation, but notes that it could make the case a lot more interesting, as Warner Bros., will likely have to prove its case much faster than planned. And, if Toberoff wins, he could also win legal fees and open up a stronger case for Toberoff to file a countersuit for “malicious prosecution.” If this goes according to Toberoff’s plan, Warner Bros. might regret this particular lawsuit even more than they regret losing some of the rights to Superman…
Filed Under: copyright, marc toberoff, slapp, superman, termination
Companies: warner bros.
Comments on “Superman Lawyer Claims Warner Bros. Lawsuit Is A SLAPP”
Nice poker play
Sounds like checking the bet in poker only to have the other player think you have nothing and raise you, only to have you raise him/her back in a big way and for much more than has you simply called the cards 🙂
Re: Nice poker play
Lawsuits are generally much like poker. Attempts to seek a settlement are similar to bluffing.
I got four aces.
Ok, I fold, here is $2k, I don’t want to lose anymore by staying in.
Re: Re: Nice poker play
and the statutory maximum is like the cap too.
So you can bluff (seek huge damages and ask for a settlement) and hope the other side folds (settles).
The other side can call (continue the lawsuit and not fold).
The other side can bet (counter sue).
It might be simpler to say that he was holding a straight, while you held 3 aces and one more just appeared. 😉
I don’t have time to go through the lawsuit docs, so can anyone tell me under what pretext Warner is suing this guy in the first place?
Perhaps anti-SLAPP is the right way to go, seeing Warner appear to be doing this to shut him up.
It just amazes me how much the government has spoiled these big corporations. They almost always give them their way and when they don’t get their way they throw a huge tantrum. They’re like little children.
From what I read Warner Bros. sued Toberoff because Toberoff was taking advantage of content creators to file his lawsuits and get the proceeds of the copyrights himself.
Let’s assume that it’s true. Let’s assume that Toberoff was ripping off the content creators. Even if that is true, that does not give Warner Bros. standing to bring a lawsuit.
So as far as I’m concerned, Warner Bros. lawsuit fails on its face and should be dismissed.
Re: Re:
TY.
If I were one of those content creators I would feel seriously offended by Warner’s behaviour.
Re: Re:
Wait, why not? Warner Bros. is harmed by the conduct, and it is an unfair and deceptive act or practice. If Toberoff’s clients are not actually receiving any benefit from the lawsuits at all then Warner Bros. has a case.
If the plaintiffs are merely knowingly getting a bad deal, Warner Bros. should probably lose. It still has standing – it can complain about another’s harmful breach of duty, even if the duty wasn’t owed to it – but here it will have no ability to prove the breach. The plaintiffs apparently thought it was a good enough deal to enter into it.
Apart from the pot-calling-the-kettle-black issue of the content industry complaining about the unfairness of copyright rules, Warner Bros. has a valid point here. I do not know if Toberoff is one, but unscrupulous lawyers have made an industry out of exploiting stupid IP law to benefit themselves at the expense of society (and sometimes their clients).
monster fight
It’s like Godzilla vs. Mothra.
Re:
So your idea of supporting the military is exploiting them to promote your advertising campaign?
"warn a brother"
LOL
up up and away
Spell out acronyms
Using acronyms may make you sound smart and in the know, but failing to spell them out so people don’t know what you’re talking about is annoying.
Re: Spell out acronyms
or maybe he can start a page with a permlink somewhere on the techdirt homepage (www.techdirt.com) called common acronyms where Mike can list all the common acronyms used on Techdirt and others can comment and add their own.
Re: Re: Spell out acronyms
In fact I think that most blogs should probably have included a permlink that links to common acronyms that get updated periodically. BTW, this idea is not patentable.
Re: Re: Re: Spell out acronyms
(common acronyms used in that specific blog that is)