Beyond the Credits: Contract Law’s Missing Scene

Iris Wang

Edited by Keerthi Chalamalasetty, Ananya Singh, Judge Baskin, and Sahith Mocharla

Dune: Part Two met rave reviews from audiences and critics after its release in March 2024. The film posted an impressive $700 million in gross box office revenue [1]. Yet instead of being thrilled with their windfall, Legendary Pictures (Dune’s production company) was at risk of losing a significant portion of that money. After the greatly anticipated release of Dune: Part Two in 2024, Legendary Pictures received a copyright infringement claim from Lionsgate, specifically for foreign film and adaptation rights to the Dune films’ property. With around 60.5% of gross revenue being from international revenue, the potential loss could be hundreds of millions in revenue and significantly impact the future of the Dune franchise value and the ability to share its content to the world [2]. Unfortunately, ongoing conflicts and complicated contracts expose the central issue of the gap in power between large studios and the creators. Furthermore, the frequency of these cases calls into question the ability of U.S. copyright law to protect creators from large companies with significantly more resources as Hollywood studios maintain unequal bargaining power through contracts and silencing settlements. 

The dispute began in 1965, when Frank Herbert published the first Dune novel. Herbert sold almost 20 million copies and translated the book into more than 20 languages, making Dune one of the most popular science fiction novels of all time [3]. As the original author, Herbert owned the copyright to the five sequels in the Dune universe. In 1976, Dino De Laurentiis, a famous Italian movie producer, and his company acquired adaptation rights to the novel. When the contract was renegotiated in 1981, his company acquired rights “not only to Dune but also to the sequel books (both written and unwritten)”, and later produced the acclaimed 1984 Dune film [4]. Herbert’s estate and Dino De Laurentiis were in a contract that allowed De Laurentiis to produce and distribute certain Dune movies globally in certain countries. 

However, by 1987, De Laurentiis’ film production company came under threat through both corporate mergers and filed bankruptcies as DeLaurentiis “sold assets and sought to restructure its debt in order to survive” [5]. Yet when the dust settled, the original contract for Dune survived, now owned by Lionsgate––the firm acquiring the asset during the corporate upheaval. Because Lionsgate acquired De Laurentiis' film along with the rights that came along with it, the old contract remained entirely enforceable and granted the original foreign adaptation rights stated in the contract [6]. However, on November 21, 2016, Legendary Entertainment acquired rights to the Dune novel through an agreement with Frank Herbert’s estate. The agreement granted film and television motion picture rights for development and production of future projects for a global audience [7]. As a result, Denis Villeneuve, a Canadian film director and writer, released a new two-part film adaptation with the first half of Dune in 2021, and the second in 2024 [8]. However, without careful contract interpretation and due diligence when producing the new films, Legendary risked copyright infringement. 

The dispute between Legendary and Lionsgate stemmed from the lack of specific foreign adaptation rights outlined in the original contract between Herbert and De Laureuntiis. Legendary assumed they secured the worldwide rights to Dune from their clean deal with Herbert estate. This assumption was made based on the cancelation of the original contract with De Laurentiis within the United States in 1976. Legendary Entertainment assumed that the original contract was canceled based on the reversion concept from the 1909 U.S. Copyright Act. Reversion is the process by which ownership or control of an asset returns to the original owner after that owner has previously granted another entity a limited or temporary interest in it [9]. Under the original 1909 Copyright Act, the copyright term is divided into initial and renewal terms [10]. This means in the initial copyright term, if the author dies before the renewal term, then the right to renew the copyright would be authorized by the author's heirs, in this case the Herbert estate. As a result, this would cancel any prior contracts the author had signed. Since Herbert died before the renewal term for the 1965 novel, the Dune novel ‘reverted’ to his estate. Thus, Legendary assumed the contract Herbert signed with De Laurentiis (now owned by Lionsgate) was nullified for future adaptations. Plainly, Legendary has the right to produce new Dune films in the United States. However, copyright is territorial. Because this is a U.S. law, other countries are not obligated to follow the reversion rule. The original contract with De Laurentiis granted adaptation and distribution rights to the film globally. As a result, Lionsgate argued that the original international film rights were valid and enforceable in foreign countries.

Eventually, Lionsgate and Legendary agreed on a $13 million settlement, marking a resolution of disputes stemming from foreign adaptation rights, while also highlighting the significance of silencing settlements in entertainment law. Legendary’s intention behind the settlement was not only to end the dispute, but to protect the franchise by silencing future legal risks. By proposing and agreeing to this, both companies are able to avoid decades of long legal battles over foreign adaptation rights. Legendary, specifically, made this strategic purchase of certainty to Dune rights and maintained confidentiality of the settlement.

Throughout the history of entertainment industries, one thing was certain: public legal battles bring more legal risk to studios. Companies have learned the importance of dispute resolution and careful contract interpretation when approaching legal ownership in the industry. Instead, settlements become the solution now to replace situations where creators spend years fighting a copyright war for their own work, only to obtain a possible financial settlement without ownership. Yet minimal financial compensation––often without ownership or future rights––is far from a fair solution.However, this is not a fair solution. Rather than a form of compensation for a life’s work, this becomes a method of silencing creators from fighting for copyright rights with a simple financial agreement. The consistent occurrence of these legal battles indicate that the U.S. Copyright Law is, at present, inadequately protecting the equal bargaining power of creators, allowing studios to buy silence and avoid legal precedent for future cases. Because copyright law is a specific type of intellectual property law, legal precedents are critical. Precedents in intellectual property law serve as that ‘guiding light’ and ‘shape the evolution’ of protection and regulations for subsequent rulings [11]. It is essential to emphasize the protection of creators, as the precedential value of earlier cases supporting their rights grows increasingly significant. The continuation of studios to buy silence through settlements is, in a way, silencing the law and the system that had been created to protect the people. Rather than providing the chance for creators to fight for their deserved rights, choosing a confidential settlement bypasses legal precedents and contributes to a form of systemic silencing. Such prevention and suppression of creators' perspectives not only misrepresent the purpose of the U.S. Copyright Law, but gives power to studios to protect their business model from being exposed in open court. This conflict is significant to recognize the fundamental conflict with the entertainment industry’s avoidance of U.S. Copyright Law's true purpose to support creators, not protect businesses’ financial models. 

When thinking of Superman, the most common word that comes to mind is a hero. However, the story of this all-American hero ironically represents not only the S shield, but also a longstanding failure of the U.S. copyright law’s right of termination and its intention to provide equal protection to a creator’s bargaining power. Controversial contract disputes in entertainment law are nothing new, but these legal battles have changed with differences in the use of power, yet the decade-long legal war over Superman rights remains a prime example as participating studios manage to maintain power against creators. In 1938, Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegal did what many creators do without knowing the full potential of their work and sold Superman to DC Comics for $130 [12]. The agreement states to “have and hold forever and be your exclusive property,” giving DC Comics clear and unambiguous copyright ownership of Superman. Since then, Siegal and Shuster have attempted multiple times to reassert control of copyright rights to the character [13]. This continued until a settlement in 1975 in which DC Comics agreed to annual payments to compensate the creators [14]. However, when Congress changed U.S. copyright law with the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976, a new opportunity presented itself. The revised law created the right of termination of transfers found in section 304(d) that would allow “authors and their heroes to terminate prior copyright grants” [15]. This right to termination aimed to eliminate the unfairness presented from the renewal right of the Copyright Act of 1909 in the Supreme Court decision to Fred Fisher Music Co. v. M. Wirmark & Sons in 1943. The Fisher decision initiated the revised copyright law because of the unequal position an author could have. More specifically, the decision in Fisher established that it is impossible to determine the potential of a work’s value before it has been exploited. Since the revision was made on January 1, 1978, Congress had extended this right to authors for any agreement prior, including the agreement between DC Comics and Siegal and Shuster. Subsequently, Shuster and Siegal reclaimed their ownership rights to Superman––thanks to the revised Copyright Act of 1976; however, once Joseph Shuster passed away in 1992, Siegal and Shuster’s heirs split down different paths.

With pressure to sign appealing contracts with larger entertainment companies, Shuster’s sister signed an agreement with DC Comics preventing the Shusters from “terminating copyright grants to DC” after Shuster’s death [16]. The agreement re-granted the rights of Superman to DC Comics in exchange for an annual survivor payment to Shuster’s sister. Despite this agreement, in 2003, Shuster’s heirs sent termination notices to reclaim their rights with the support of the Copyright Act of 1976. Following, DC Comics claimed that the termination right of the Copyright Act of 1976 did not apply as termination of copyright grants were only granted to contracts prior to January 1, 1978. These specific terms stated in the contract led the court to decide that section 304(d) did not apply as the grant was made in 1992 following Shuster’s death and not in 1938 with the initial contract [17]. Because Shuster’s heirs signed new agreements and re-grants, the families lost their U.S termination rights to Superman in 2010, when a federal court ruled that the 1992 agreement blocked “any further attempt to exercise termination rights under U.S law” [18].

On the other hand, Siegal’s heirs began to reclaim their rights in 1997 after Jerry Siegal died the year before. By 2008, Seigal’s heirs successfully reclaimed a portion of their rights under the termination rights from the U.S copyright law. Nonetheless, there were limitations to the use of trademarks and iconic phrases. “Work for hire” laws prevented the Siegel’s from creating more Superman comics like DC Comics did [19]. This is because by labelling content created as work for hire, the content, by law, “belongs to the employer, not the individual writer or artists” [20]. Thus, taking part in allowing DC to retain much of the modern Superman universe. Unsatisfied, DC Comics appealed in 2008. The Siegal’s ownership of the rights ended in 2013. In October 2001, Seigal's attorney agreed to an oral offer with DC Comics that finalized certain key settlement terms. In those terms, Siegal’s heirs would receive financial compensation in exchange for the “re-grant of all rights in Superman, Superboy, and related properties” [21]. Thus, in 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgement and affirmed that Siegal’s heirs had transferred all rights to DC Comics. This specific result represents the ability of Hollywood studios to enforce contracts due to the gap in power between creators, heirs and corporations with more legal resources. Rather than being the shield the 1976 Act intended to do for creators, it was easily terminated with pressured contracts, reversing its intentions for Siegal’s heirs specifically. 

Although the U.S. copyright laws may not be in favor with Shuster or Siegal’s heirs, the families found hope in British copyright law. On January 31st, 2025, Shuster’s estate filed a copyright lawsuit against both Warner Brothers and DC Comics for the international release of the new Superman film [22]. Currently, the lawsuit claims that copyright laws in jurisdictions stemming from British legal doctrine tend to contain provisions automatically terminate such assignments 25 years after an author’s death, culminating into the Schuster Estate the co-author’s undivided copyright interest in such countries. [23]. According to the timelines of these foreign territories and their respective copyright laws, the copyrights would have reverted by 2017 in most countries. Shuster’s estate argued that Warner Bros continued exploiting Superman in these territories without the Shuster’s Estate’s consent. As of publication, no other information has been provided by the attorneys.

The ongoing conflict within the Superman saga demonstrates the persisting legal issue of entertainment studios raising a copyright battle with creators. Even in the present, the issue continues to be disincentivized due to its prolonged nature and unpredictable legal risks it imposes on the studios’ future franchises. Although the cases surrounding the Superman saga present a historical legal battle, it continues today. This new Superman lawsuit is similar to Lionsgate’s reversion claim for Dune’s foreign copyright law. In both situations, this potential lawsuit threatens the international release of potential hit films in key territories. Unfortunately, if the studio were to lose the legal battle of foreign adaptation rights, past legal cases have shown they still get the last bargaining chip through financial silencing. The significant past legal precedent, Buschwalf v. Paramount demonstrates exactly that power that businesses have over creators, tipping the balance of power and questioning the US copyright law’s ability to protect. 

The confusion of the Dune dispute also reflects a flaw in many contract interpretations from a lack of specified rights for future adaptations. PolyGram Records v. Legacy Entertainment Group, has parallels to Dune, demonstrating the power of contracts and following the chain of title before attempting to exploit entertainment rights [24]. In both cases, contracts dated back to the original owner have specified rights that can grant property interest to the larger companies today. From 1947 to 1953, country music pioneer Hank Williams had a contract with MGM Records to exclusively record and sell phonograph records. At the same time in 1951 and 1952, Hank Williams’ band also performed live pre-recordings on a WSM radio program called Mother’s Best Flour. WSM only used acetate recordings, a type of phonograph record specifically used for radio broadcasting of pre-recordings or as “demos” of new recordings [25]. These acetate records were never exploited into phonograph recordings. When PolyGram Records acquired MGM Records in 1972, PolyGram Records claimed the rights with Williams as the predecessor in interest [26]. In between 1961 and 1997, a former employee of WSM acquired certain acetate recordings and sold them to collector Hillous Bertrum; Burtrum sold these recordings to Legacy Entertainment Group in 1997. As Legacy was preparing to commercially exploit the recordings in compact discs by Hank Williams for Mother’s Best Flour, Polygram found out and claimed exclusive exploitation rights. Without being able to come to an agreement, Polygram filed action against Legacy. Legacy made a claim for exploitation based on rights to the recordings under a chain of title. At the same time, William’s heirs joined Polygram against Legacy since Polygram succeeded Hank Williams’ rights to the recordings. Through legal battle, by April 2000, the trial court dismissed Polygram’s claims as it had no property interest in the recordings. Later in 2003, Legacy and the heirs filed cross motions for summary judgement. The heirs contended that neither Legacy nor Polygram have contractual rights to exploit Williams’ performances, instead claimed those contractual rights. The trial court granted summary judgement in favor of the heirs based on the fact that Legacy and Polygram do not have any rights or interests in the recordings at issue and thus do not have standing to challenge the rights of Hank Williams’ heirs [27]. 

Similarly, the Dune dispute demonstrates that a contract, even from decades ago, is powerful enough to stop profitable exploitation of creative works in the entertainment industry today. Companies must follow the chain of title and ownership of rights with detailed tracing. In the Dune dispute, the settlement between Legendary and Lionsgate highlighted the cost of understanding the specified rights from the contract and interpretation of possible copyright infringement. 

Although the Dune franchise dispute was handled confidentially, the settlement claim resolution signifies a change in reactive litigation in the entertainment industry to dispute negotiations instead. Though this seems like an ideal situation, this is an example of the power of entertainment corporations and studios compared to the creators, in this case, Herbert’s estate. For companies, dispute resolutions lessen the time and financial frustration in contrast to litigation and arbitration in the entertainment industry [28]. Litigation is often criticized for the time and money required to go to trial [29]. An example of such difficulty is shown in Buschwald v. Paramount Pictures Corp [30]. The long litigation process brought a loss of millions in legal fees for both parties. By entering litigation instead of negotiating, Buschwald was out of pocket nearly $200,000, while Paramount lost nearly $3 million. However, even with the significant financial loss on both ends, Paramount continued to attempt to “persuade the court that providing ‘upfront’ money to Buschwald for the idea… [was] sufficient compensation and all that really mattered to the plaintiffs” [31]. Upfront money is the amount of financial compensation that is paid before full revenue is calculated/collected, “regardless of what happens to the movie in the distribution phase” [32]. This claim by Paramount underscores the general assumption by studios that a creator’s ideas have no true value beyond the initial and minimal upfront payment. It reveals the unfair belief that all subsequent profits belong to a studio’s business model, rather than the individuals that created the work. Since Buschwald, the world of entertainment law has leaned further away from litigation, preferring the quick, “cheaper” resolution found in settlements. This effectively transforms potential lawsuits into business opportunities rather than battles over reputation. Once again, this settlement shows a repeating financial business settlement of two large entertainment corporations motivated by company business models and successfully bypassing legal exposure. Even with a lengthy litigation process, Paramount still settled with Buschwald and frames the issue of litigation to lead to silencing through settlements regardless. It becomes a statement to prevent creators from attempting to go into legal battles with major corporations as previous cases all lead to settlements. In the Dune case, Legendary mitigated their risk and settled with a $13 million payment, avoiding further litigation and losses. However, the payment reflects a deflection of the potential value to the claim for Herbert’s estate and its rights. Such prevention contributes more to the idea of systemic silencing in the entertainment industry and highlights an inescapable loop creators may face with legal disputes- trying to figure out if it is “worth” fighting for their rights. 

Through the presence of similar legal disputes in the entertainment industry, there is a growing emphasis on the gap in power present. From the Superman dispute to the recent Dune settlement, a pattern of legal adaptation rights bouncing between studios and creators begin to question the US copyright law’s ability to fulfill its duty of protecting creators. The long-standing Superman battle presents the gap in power between a studio with strong legal resources by continuously winning through pressured contracts and complicated agreements. Although the Dune settlement now shows the modern solution of silent settlements, it still symbolizes a potential systemic failure of truly protecting the rights of creators. Rather than having the convenience creator’s reclaiming rights, it has become a newfound corporate response to avoid conflict and buy silence instead. The power imbalance takes into account the financial advantage studios have versus creators and demonstrates the difficulties creators can have in securing their ideas as their own. There is irony in the fact that a system designed to protect creators is failing to do so in an industry so prevalent in society’s everyday lives. As important as it is to see the next big movie, it is just as important to consider the creators behind those scenes and the legal battles they face for their own work. 

---

[1] Dune: Part Two (2024) - box office and Financial Information (no date) The Numbers. Available at: https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Dune-Part-Two-(2024)#tab=summary (Accessed: 05 November 2025). 

[2] see [1]

[3] Wallace, K. (2025) Dune: The enticing weirdness of a frustrating, fascinating failure , Reactor. Available at: https://reactormag.com/dune-the-enticing-weirdness-of-a-frustrating-fascinating-failure/ (Accessed: 05 November 2025). 

[4] Naha, ed - the making of dune (1984) (no date) Scribd. Available at: https://www.scribd.com/document/523556937/Naha-Ed-The-Making-of-Dune-1984 (Accessed: 05 November 2025). 

[5] DeLaurentiis files bankruptcy (1988) Los Angeles Times. Available at: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-08-16-mn-730-story.html (Accessed: 05 November 2025). 

[6]  Inside legendary and Lionsgate’s ‘dune’ copyright clash - puck. Available at: https://puck.news/inside-legendary-and-lionsgates-dune-copyright-clash/ (Accessed: 06 November 2025). 

[7] Seide, S. (2016) Legendary Entertainment acquires rights to Frank Herbert’s classic sci-fi novel Dune, Legendary. Available at: https://www.legendary.com/legendary-entertainment-acquires-rights-to-frank-herberts-classic-sci-fi-novel-dune/ (Accessed: 05 November 2025). 

[8] Erik Gregersen Erik Gregersen is a senior editor at Encyclopaedia Britannica, specializing in the physical sciences and technology. B. joining B. in 2007 (2025) Dune, Encyclopædia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dune-by-Herbert (Accessed: 05 November 2025). 

[9] Reversion definition & meaning (no date) Merriam-Webster. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reversion (Accessed: 05 November 2025). 

[10]  An act to amend and consolidate the acts respecting copyright. Available at: https://www.copyright.gov/history/1909act.pdf (Accessed: 06 November 2025). 

[11] Olsen, A. (2025) How precedents in IP Law Influence Business Strategies - Schmeiser Olsen, Schmeiser Olsen - An Intellectual Property Law Firm. Available at: https://schmeiserolsen.com/how-precedents-in-ip-law-influence-business-strategies/ (Accessed: 05 November 2025). 

[12] Secure request and redirect. Available at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/PrintRequest?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals%2Fwvb115&id=1165&print=section&div=39&ext=.pdf&format=PDFsearchable&submit=Print%2FDownload (Accessed: 05 November 2025). 

[13] see [12]

[14] see 12

[15] (No date a) Copyright. Available at: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.pdf (Accessed: 06 November 2025). 

[16] DC Comics retains right to Superman copyrights to chagrin of creator’s heirs (2012) Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. Available at: https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/dc-comics-retains-right-to-superman-copyrights-to-chagrin-of-creators-heirs (Accessed: 05 November 2025). 

[17] see [15]

[18] Partow-Navid, P. (2025) Up, up, and litigated: Superman’s 87-Year Copyright War, Gadgets, Gigabytes & Goodwill Blog. Available at: https://www.gadgetsgigabytesandgoodwill.com/2025/07/up-up-and-litigated-supermans-87-year-copyright-war/ (Accessed: 05 November 2025). 

[19] see [18]

[20] see [18]

[21] see [18]

[22] Entertainment, L. (2025) Superman lawsuit: Film Faces Legal Battle Against Co-Creator’s estate, Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2025/02/11/superman-lawsuit-takes-flight-summer-film-faces-legal-battle-against-co-creators-estate/ (Accessed: 05 November 2025). 

[23] Goldsmith, J. (2025) ‘Superman’ estate sues Warner Bros.. Discovery, DC Comics to block release in Key Territories, Deadline. Available at: https://deadline.com/2025/01/superman-estate-sues-warner-bros-discovery-dc-comics-summer-release-1236274354/ (Accessed: 05 November 2025). 

[24] Curtis Lee Cantrell v. Jami Lynn Cantrell :: 2006 :: Tennessee Court of Appeals Decisions :: Tennessee case law :: Tennessee law :: U.S. law :: Justia. Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/tennessee/court-of-appeals/2006/m2003-01075-coa-r3-cv.html (Accessed: 06 November 2025). 

[25] Oxford Duplication Centre (no date) Acetate record disc - lacquer, test, Dubplate,transcription disc, Oxford Duplication Centre. Available at: https://oxfordarchival.com/f/acetate-record-disc---lacquer-test-dubplatetranscription-disc?blogcategory=Audio-Visual%2BCollections (Accessed: 05 November 2025). 

[26] Bakker, G. (2011) The making of a music multinational: PolyGram’s International Businesses, 1945–1998: Business History Review, Cambridge Core. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-history-review/article/abs/making-of-a-music-multinational-polygrams-international-businesses-19451998/8B937B14E2FA53109B835B2684E0B798 (Accessed: 05 November 2025). 

[27] see [24]

[28] Secure request and redirect. Available at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/PrintRequest?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals%2Flaent13&id=489&print=section&div=23&ext=.pdf&format=PDFsearchable&submit=Print%2FDownload (Accessed: 05 November 2025). 

[29] see [28]

[30] Staff, P. (2025) Art Buchwald, Paramount Pictures, and the cost of litigation instead of negotiation, PON. Available at: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/who-won-art-buchwald-paramount-pictures-or-the-lawyers/ (Accessed: 05 November 2025). 

[31] Tamu. Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1488&context=txwes-lr (Accessed: 06 November 2025). 

[32] Arnold, K. (2020) Writers, producers, directors - the deal - Kathryn Arnold: The entertainment expert, Kathryn Arnold | The Entertainment Expert. Available at: https://www.theentertainmentexpert.com/blog-2/blog-post-title-two-hgklk (Accessed: 05 November 2025).