The highly anticipated release of James Gunn‘s Superman movie, set for July 11, is facing severe uncertainty as a new lawsuit threatens to block its debut in major international markets. The Shuster Estate’s legal action raises the possibility that the film could be withheld from audiences in the U.K., Ireland, Canada, and Australia, making
“James Gunn Superman movie faces international release lawsuit”
a central issue for the studio’s global rollout.
Legal Battle Threatens Superman’s Release in Key International Markets
James Gunn’s Superman is under immense pressure as attempts to block its release accelerate in four major markets outside the United States. The Shuster Estate, representing co-creator Joe Shuster, has filed for an injunction to prevent the film’s release in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, and Australia—territories that have long been vital for the Superman franchise’s worldwide success.
The conflict follows a longstanding pattern. The estate’s latest legal move comes after their January lawsuit was dismissed in April. In both cases, the heart of the dispute centers on international copyright laws inherited from the British legal tradition. The estate argues that in these jurisdictions, copyright assignments expire 25 years after an author’s death, which for Shuster—who died in July 1992—would be 2017 in most territories and 2021 in Canada.
According to court filings, the Shuster Estate considers continued use of Superman in films, television, and merchandise in these countries a violation of foreign copyright reversion rules. Their complaint reads:
“The copyright laws of countries with the British legal tradition—including Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia—contain provisions automatically terminating such assignments 25 years after an author’s death, vesting in the Shuster Estate the co-author’s undivided copyright interest in such countries.” —Shuster Estate’s legal filing
The estate claims that these laws grant them co-ownership rights in relevant non-U.S. jurisdictions, and that Warner Bros. and DC Studios are exploiting the character without proper authorization. The litigation, led by Mark Warren Peary as the plaintiff and attorney Marc Toberoff, also seeks damages and legal recognition of the estate’s rights in these countries. They emphasize that the reversion of these copyright interests, especially the automatic nature of this transition, has not been properly fought in court until now.
“By operation of law, Shuster’s foreign copyrights automatically reverted to his estate in 2017 in most of these territories (and in 2021 in Canada). Yet Defendants continue to exploit Superman across these jurisdictions without the Shuster Estate’s authorization—including in motion pictures, television series, and merchandise—in direct contravention of these countries’ copyright laws, which require the consent of all joint copyright owners to do so.” —Shuster Estate’s legal filing
Warner Bros. Discovery and DC Comics have countered the claims, insisting that their rights to Superman are valid globally and that they will actively defend their position. A company representative responded:
“We fundamentally disagree with the merits of the lawsuit, and will vigorously defend our rights.” —Warner Bros. spokesperson
The legal motion sought a jury trial, claiming willful and intentional infringement by the studios. However, the case did not proceed to a jury verdict, leaving the core disputes unresolved.
First Lawsuit Dismissed by Federal Court in April 2025
The original lawsuit filed in January 2025 was struck down in April by U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman. In his court order, Furman reasoned that an American federal court lacks the necessary authority to adjudicate disputes concerning foreign copyrights, and therefore dismissed the case outright:
“The Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case; the case therefore must be and is dismissed.” —U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman
This decision also denied the estate’s effort to obtain an injunction stopping the film’s launch in major international markets. Marc Toberoff, the estate’s lawyer, challenged the dismissal by arguing that U.S. courts could enforce foreign copyrights under the Berne Convention—an international treaty signed by member countries to protect authors’ rights across borders. Warner Bros., in contrast, contended in court that such enforcement is not within the purview of a U.S. federal court.
Interestingly, the estate did not pursue similar copyright litigation in the United Kingdom or the other relevant countries. The practical difficulties of such litigation are notable. Instead, Shuster’s nephew chose to file a parallel suit in state court, continuing the attempt to secure an injunction on the film’s release.
Renewed Legal Action Brings Further Release Uncertainty
Refusing to concede defeat, the Shuster Estate, under attorney Marc Toberoff, promptly filed an almost identical lawsuit in the New York state court. This escalation renews the risk to James Gunn’s Superman and has drawn wide industry attention. verification via Matthew Belloni’s reporting in the Puck newsletter has confirmed that the New York Supreme Court instructed Warner Bros. to present their arguments by a set deadline:
“submit opposition papers by Friday [May 23].” —New York Supreme Court directive reported by Eriq Gardner
The critical next step is a court hearing scheduled for June 4, where Warner Bros. Discovery must present reasons why an injunction against the film’s overseas release should not be imposed. As this rapid legal progression unfolds, industry observers are concerned that the lawsuit could undermine the global box office potential for David Corenswet’s portrayal of Superman—the first major release since Zack Snyder’s version of the character. With the film heavily promoted and DC Studios pushing ahead with marketing, Warner Bros. is determined to fight the injunction and stick to the planned July 11 premiere.
The legal process is expected to move quickly due to the proximity of the film’s release date. Although the broader lawsuit could take months, a crucial ruling on the request for an injunction is expected on June 4, potentially deciding whether the film’s international launch will proceed or be delayed in the contested markets.
History of Copyright Struggles Over Superman
The legal wrangling over Superman’s ownership dates back to the character’s inception. In the late 1930s, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, Superman’s creators, sold their rights to DC Comics (known then as National Comics) for a modest $130 between them. Decades later, disputes surfaced over royalties, notably regarding the Superman radio program and later, the Superboy comics, as DC leveraged the characters without further payments.
By 1948, repeated conflicts led DC Comics to pay a $94,000 settlement to Siegel and Shuster. Siegel later returned to DC in 1959, contributing more Superman stories and even creating the Legion of Super-Heroes and, eventually, Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen, before departing in 1965.
The early disputes culminated in a 1975 agreement from Warner Bros. to provide each creator with annual royalties of $20,000. This negotiation coincided with the launch of the Christopher Reeve Superman film and followed a high-profile campaign by Siegel and Shuster for recognition. However, the deal stipulated they would never again contest copyright ownership. The company’s legal assurances, as outlined in the settlement, were unequivocal:
“You acknowledge that Warner Communications Inc. (‘Warner’), both immediately before and immediately after the signing of this agreement, is the sole and exclusive owner of all right, title and interest in and to the ‘Superman’ concept, idea, continuity, pictorial representation, formula, characters, cartoons and comic strips, title, logo, copyrights and trademarks, including any and all renewals and extensions of any such rights, in the United States and throughout the world.” —Warner Bros. legal agreement
The 1976 U.S. Copyright Act added new complexities, offering artists a way to reclaim copyrights sold under unfair terms. The creators’ estates leveraged these provisions in a 2008 legal win, which briefly restored to them rights over Superman’s origin and related story elements. The ruling also mandated that Warner Bros. share profits from future Superman films, such as Man of Steel. This victory proved short-lived, as Warner Bros. appealed the judgment, citing a prior agreement from 2001 as evidence of fair compensation for the rights.
This time, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Warner Bros., restoring their rights before the release of Man of Steel in 2013. Even so, the prolonged tension between creators’ heirs and studios has never been fully settled, with each new film reviving unresolved questions about rights and royalties.
As the Superman legal saga evolves in 2025, another milestone is approaching: in just nine years, the character will enter the public domain in the U.S. According to the Copyright Act, works published before 1978 become freely available 95 years after their debut, meaning Superman will become public property in 2034.
Despite the latest legal gambit by the Shuster Estate and an intense round of court proceedings anticipated in June, James Gunn’s Superman remains scheduled for U.S. theaters on July 11, 2025. The outcome of these legal maneuvers will not only influence the film’s immediate reception but could also reshape the future of superhero movies, copyright law, and creative ownership in global entertainment.
