Gary Friedrich v. Marvel - Ghost Rider Lawsuit Reinstated

[mrwoogieman]

Surprised no one's posted on this yet. The Second Circuit court of appeals in NY has reversed the ruling of the District Judge below that had granted summary judgment to Marvel with respect to Gary's lawsuit over the renewal rights to the Ghost Rider copyright.

 

The case is going back down to the judge for a trial.

 

[Ares]

Surprised no one's posted on this yet. The Second Circuit court of appeals in NY has reversed the ruling of the District Judge below that had granted summary judgment to Marvel with respect to Gary's lawsuit over the renewal rights to the Ghost Rider copyright.

 

The case is going back down to the judge for a trial.

 

Link?

[BlowUpTheMoon]

Link?

 

Link for the lazy.

[Dr. Balls]

Too bad someone can't sue Marvel for authorizing those Ghost Rider movies.

[seanfingh]

Too bad someone can't sue Marvel for authorizing those Ghost Rider movies.

 

[Boba]

 

[Dick Pontoon]

Those movies weren't released - they escaped!

[Gsims718]

[ChrisInBaltimore]

Too bad someone can't sue Marvel for authorizing those Ghost Rider movies.

 

[Mayor006]

In the immortal words of some beer commercial.... here we go.

[fantastic_four]

Just read a few articles about this case. I suspect I'm missing some of what Friedrich thinks gives him rights to the character, but from the arguments I've seen his lawyer putting forward in the cases to date, I'm not seeing why he thinks he's got ownership of rights to the character. Anybody seen evidence that he's got a legitimate claim?

[Comic Book Guy]

Friedrich's attorney, Charles Kramer, said, "We're going to aggressively and vigorously pursue the case."

 

 

[fantastic_four]

Friedrich's attorney, Charles Kramer, said, "We're going to aggressively and vigorously pursue the case."

 

 

I don't know much about this case, but what makes you side with Friedrich? Usually I see people siding with artists and creators simply because they like them more than big companies.

[seanfingh]

Just read a few articles about this case. I suspect I'm missing some of what Friedrich thinks gives him rights to the character, but from the arguments I've seen his lawyer putting forward in the cases to date, I'm not seeing why he thinks he's got ownership of rights to the character. Anybody seen evidence that he's got a legitimate claim?

 

It is a fairly established principle of property law that if you don't expressly give something away (through gift, sale or other transfer) then you retain it. I haven't read about this case, but I suspect that the argument is that Friedrich transferred his rights in the character as it related to the publishing of comic books, but he did not transfer his rights as it related to other uses in other media. Just a WAG by the Fingh.

[Comic Book Guy]

Just read a few articles about this case. I suspect I'm missing some of what Friedrich thinks gives him rights to the character, but from the arguments I've seen his lawyer putting forward in the cases to date, I'm not seeing why he thinks he's got ownership of rights to the character. Anybody seen evidence that he's got a legitimate claim?

 

It sounds to me like Gary is disputing the renewal rights and that the court may agree since they said, "There are genuine disputes of material fact regarding the parties' intent to assign renewal rights in that agreement, the timeliness of Friedrich's ownership claim, and the authorship of the work," the court said in sending the case back for trial.

[fantastic_four]

Just read a few articles about this case. I suspect I'm missing some of what Friedrich thinks gives him rights to the character, but from the arguments I've seen his lawyer putting forward in the cases to date, I'm not seeing why he thinks he's got ownership of rights to the character. Anybody seen evidence that he's got a legitimate claim?

 

It is a fairly established principle of property law that if you don't expressly give something away (through gift, sale or other transfer) then you retain it. I haven't read about this case, but I suspect that the argument is that Friedrich transferred his rights in the character as it related to the publishing of comic books, but he did not transfer his rights as it related to other uses in other media. Just a WAG by the Fingh.

 

I thought by the '70s the Marvel lawyers had the work-for-hire being the property of Marvel thing pretty well worked out. Isn't that why Kirby and his family never won any of their suits?

[Comic Book Guy]

Friedrich's attorney, Charles Kramer, said, "We're going to aggressively and vigorously pursue the case."

 

 

I don't know much about this case, but what makes you side with Friedrich? Usually I see people siding with artists and creators simply because they like them more than big companies.

 

Renewal right is an additional, second, period of rights for created works, such as a song. This was included in the law so that after a certain time songwriters and other authors could get back the rights to whatever creation they assigned to a publisher.

 

Marvel should just give the poor guy an undisclosed settlement and be done with it. I think this could open up a huge can of worms for them if Gary wins based on his claims as others could follow in his footsteps.

 

Publishers have been violating this law for years and got authors to sign contracts that assigne the renewal rights to the publisher when a work was assigned initially. This was illegal because the renewal rights could not be assigned during an initial assignment because the rights did not exists then.

[seanfingh]

Just read a few articles about this case. I suspect I'm missing some of what Friedrich thinks gives him rights to the character, but from the arguments I've seen his lawyer putting forward in the cases to date, I'm not seeing why he thinks he's got ownership of rights to the character. Anybody seen evidence that he's got a legitimate claim?

 

It is a fairly established principle of property law that if you don't expressly give something away (through gift, sale or other transfer) then you retain it. I haven't read about this case, but I suspect that the argument is that Friedrich transferred his rights in the character as it related to the publishing of comic books, but he did not transfer his rights as it related to other uses in other media. Just a WAG by the Fingh.

 

I thought by the '70s the Marvel lawyers had the work-for-hire being the property of Marvel thing pretty well worked out. Isn't that why Kirby and his family never won any of their suits?

 

They did some kind of subsequent agreement, and it could have been predicated upon what was going with Siegel and Shuster in the late 70's. They were not relying upon their normal work for hire documents. It may have been because he created the character and then brought it to Marvel.

 

Again, this is me just bullspitting, having done no research into the case, and going off nothing other than what I can remember reading over the years.

[fantastic_four]

Friedrich's attorney, Charles Kramer, said, "We're going to aggressively and vigorously pursue the case."

 

 

I don't know much about this case, but what makes you side with Friedrich? Usually I see people siding with artists and creators simply because they like them more than big companies.

 

Renewal right is an additional, second, period of rights for created works, such as a song. This was included in the law so that after a certain time songwriters and other authors could get back the rights to whatever creation they assigned to a publisher.

 

Marvel should just give the poor guy an undisclosed settlement and be done with it. I think this could open up a huge can of worms for them if Gary wins based on his claims as others could follow in his footsteps.

 

Publishers have been violating this law for years and got authors to sign contracts that assigne the renewal rights to the publisher when a work was assigned initially. This was illegal because the renewal rights were could not be assigned during an initial assignment because the rights did not exists then.

 

If you create something on your own dime that makes sense, but Marvel was paying him. It's their property, and that's what the previous decision found. Haven't found any articles pointing out why the new decision overturned that.

 

We keep referring to what's in dispute as the "copyright" on Ghost Rider, but I don't think that's it. Copyrights owned by corporations last 95 years and apply to the content of original works. A character is covered by trademark, I think. Those don't last that long--I forget how long they last.

[fantastic_four]

Just read a few articles about this case. I suspect I'm missing some of what Friedrich thinks gives him rights to the character, but from the arguments I've seen his lawyer putting forward in the cases to date, I'm not seeing why he thinks he's got ownership of rights to the character. Anybody seen evidence that he's got a legitimate claim?

 

It is a fairly established principle of property law that if you don't expressly give something away (through gift, sale or other transfer) then you retain it. I haven't read about this case, but I suspect that the argument is that Friedrich transferred his rights in the character as it related to the publishing of comic books, but he did not transfer his rights as it related to other uses in other media. Just a WAG by the Fingh.

 

I thought by the '70s the Marvel lawyers had the work-for-hire being the property of Marvel thing pretty well worked out. Isn't that why Kirby and his family never won any of their suits?

 

They did some kind of subsequent agreement, and it could have been predicated upon what was going with Siegel and Shuster in the late 70's. They were not relying upon their normal work for hire documents. It may have been because he created the character and then brought it to Marvel.

 

Again, this is me just bullspitting, having done no research into the case, and going off nothing other than what I can remember reading over the years.

 

The articles I'm reading are saying Marvel had language on the back of every check they paid to freelancers saying that the work they were being paid for belonged to Marvel. That back-of-check language is why the 2011 Friedrich v. Marvel judge ruled for Marvel, but I haven't seen the reasoning for why that got overturned.