Gary Friedrich v. Marvel - Ghost Rider Lawsuit Reinstated

[Comic Book Guy]

But what was the copyright protection period and can whatever was signed still hold up today?

 

If the renewal rights were never assigned to the publisher at the time the rights arrived, there is no need for the author to get the rights back because they are his or her right, not the publisher's. If the publisher continued to have the work in their catalog or somehow continued the exploitation of the work (song, novel, etc.) after the rights should have been returned to the author or his/her heirs, what the author needs to do is to reach an agreement with the publisher, whereby the author is compensated by the publisher. If an agreement cannot be reached, they should consult a lawyer to determine if a copyright infringement or breach of contract lawsuit or further negotiations are appropriate.

 

I think Gary is claiming that at some point he had some rights to the character that Marvel has denied and not paid him for.

 

I don't know that he can or will actually win but I feel bad for the guy given that Marvel won't even let him sign Ghost Rider photos at a convention anymore. They are precluding him from making a living and that sucks for a guy just trying to pay bills. Marvel should be bringing more of these creators into the fold rather than hanging them out to dry.

[fantastic_four]

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.

 

Check that--although a corporate copyright can last for up to 95 years, they do have to explicitly renew them after 28 years.

 

Also apparently in 2007 Friedrich filed a copyright on Marvel Spotlight 5 since he was a co-creator of it. I haven't been able to find out specific info as to whether or not Marvel ever renewed their copyright when it expired in 2001. Friedrich's lawyer is saying they didn't.

[fantastic_four]

I think Gary is claiming that at some point he had some rights to the character that Marvel has denied and not paid him for.

 

It's looking to me as if his contention is that Marvel let the copyright expire, so he renewed it himself. Not sure if that's true or not that Marvel let it expire.

 

 

I don't know that he can or will actually win but I feel bad for the guy given that Marvel won't even let him sign Ghost Rider photos at a convention anymore. They are precluding him from making a living and that sucks for a guy just trying to pay bills. Marvel should be bringing more of these guys into the fold rather than hanging them out to dry.

 

As far as I can tell, Friedrich started this by suing Marvel. Marvel didn't appear to give a mess that Friedrich was signing Ghost Rider photos until they got sued, at which point they counter-sued him for signing photos at conventions. I find it hard to blame Marvel for that specifically when they did it in an attempt to win the suit that Friedrich himself brought up.

[Comic Book Guy]

Well what would you do if you felt that you were owed something that was being denied. At some point legal action may be the only course of action left. I don't think that puts Gary in the wrong and Marvel could of definitely killed the whole thing with kindness instead of retaliating like they did.

[John R]

This older article goes into detail about the creation of Ghost Rider.

[fantastic_four]

Well what would you do if you felt that you were owed something that was being denied. At some point legal action may be the only course of action left. I don't think that puts Gary in the wrong and Marvel could of definitely killed the whole thing with kindness instead of retaliating like they did.

 

Except that you're automatically taking Gary's side over Marvel's, which I assume is due to what I said earlier--fans always favor creators over the big, bad, evil corporation. If Gary has a compelling claim to the copyright, I'm interested in seeing it--mostly because I just have a personal interest in copyright law.

[fantastic_four]

This older article goes into detail about the creation of Ghost Rider.

 

I now see Friedrich's thinking. Apparently in the 1970s, Marvel had the language below on the back of all their checks they paid to freelancers:

 

 

Friedrich's thinking is that since Marvel gave the check to him and probably doesn't still have a copy of it, they have no proof that it was on the back of his check (the image above is an example of what Marvel put on the back of their checks from one they wrote to Ayers in 1974). Not sure if Marvel still has that check or not, but the writing on the back of that check is the specific reason the court ruled in Marvel's favor in 2011. I perused the 48-page appeal filed by Friedrich's lawyer available at the link below, but I found no reference at all to that check--it mostly referred to a rights release Marvel had Friedrich sign in 1978. I think it all comes down to whether or not Marvel actually still has a copy of that original check they wrote to Friedrich when they paid him for his work on Marvel Spotlight #5 and that Friedrich is betting they don't still have it, therefore Marvel has no proof that there was ever an agreement to relinquish his rights for his work on Marvel Spotlight #5. Haven't been able to find out whether or not Marvel does or doesn't still have a copy of that check.

 

http://issuu.com/richjohnston/docs/12-893_opn?e=1268187/3294160#search

[tinynascarfan-migration]

Those movies weren't released - they escaped!

 

Out of all the superhero movies I own, and I pretty much own them all on DVD, Ghost Rider is the only one my wife likes.

 

[Logan510]

He has no case. Marvel already had an existing character named Ghost Rider ( the western character ) and he just updated / modernized the concept. The odds of him bringing the Johnny Blaze Ghost Rider to Marvel created from whole cloth without any knowledge of the previous character are low, being able to prove that claim even lower.

[Comic Book Guy]

Well what would you do if you felt that you were owed something that was being denied. At some point legal action may be the only course of action left. I don't think that puts Gary in the wrong and Marvel could of definitely killed the whole thing with kindness instead of retaliating like they did.

 

Except that you're automatically taking Gary's side over Marvel's, which I assume is due to what I said earlier--fans always favor creators over the big, bad, evil corporation. If Gary has a compelling claim to the copyright, I'm interested in seeing it--mostly because I just have a personal interest in copyright law.

 

I am not siding with Gary just because I am a fan or because Marvel is the big guy...

 

I am not an expert or anything but I think that check kind of proves my point. To my understanding the wording on the back is a common but deceitful (and illegal) tactic to make creators believe that the publisher has rights that they do not.

 

They can not include that last part about the signer giving up any rights to renewal of copyright.

 

Many publishers thought they outsmarted the law and got authors to sign contracts that assign the renewal rights to the publisher when work was assigned. This was illegal because the renewal rights could not be assigned during an initial assignment because the rights did not exist then. Renewal rights were only an expectant right.

 

So for them to say sign here to be paid for your work but by signing here you are giving us your renewal rights is wrong and it can not be enforced.

 

The creator was never informed that this was an illegal act and only served the purpose of defeating the law, and that a creator could not actually assign his/her renewal rights.

 

Maybe a huge class action law suit would change perception and the way many publishers/their attorneys go about handling things.

[Marvelfangirl]

What does Friedrich want from Marvel?

 

Does he want his creation back or does he want more $$$ for Ghost Rider.

[fantastic_four]

I am not an expert or anything but I think that check kind of proves my point. To my understanding that wording on the back is a common but deceitful (and illegal) tactic to make creators believe that the publisher has rights that they do not.

 

They can not include that last part about the signer giving up any rights to renewal of copyright.

 

Many publishers thought they outsmarted the law and got authors to sign contracts that assign the renewal rights to the publisher when work was assigned. This was illegal because the renewal rights could not be assigned during an initial assignment because the rights did not exists then. Renewal rights were only an expectant right.

 

So for them to say sign here to be paid for your work but by signing here you are giving us your renewal rights is wrong and it can not be enforced.

 

The creator was never informed that this was an illegal act and only served the purpose of defeating the law, and that a songwriter could not actually assign his/her renewal rights.

 

Maybe a huge class action law suit would change perception and the way many publishers/their attorneys go about handling things.

 

This sounds like a diatribe against work-for-hire relationships. Without them, literally every single one of the millions of American freelancers across multiple industries could not be hired by companies. Some people actually prefer freelance work; others would rather be permanent employees of a company but can't find anything except contract work. Whether you're a willing freelancer or not, it's a highly profitable situation for both sides, so I don't really understand why you're thinking the law doesn't support them. My understanding is that it does.

 

Probably half of the people who do what I do for a living (software development) are freelancers, but going by what you're saying above, companies couldn't hire them because the software those people write would be owned by them. It simply wouldn't work very well.

[Comic Book Guy]

It is not a diatribe against work for hire. I get that freelance work is important and a great thing but how we feel has nothing to do with the facts of the case. The law is the law and that is why I believe Gary's case was found by a judge to have merit and was reinstated.

 

The law says that when it comes to copyright renewal there is a second period of rights for created works and that it can not be signed over at the time of the works completion because those rights did not exist yet so there was nothing to sign over at that time.

[Comic Book Guy]

 

Probably half of the people who do what I do for a living (software development) are freelancers, but going by what you're saying above, companies couldn't hire them because the software those people write would be owned by them. It simply wouldn't work very well.

 

You are right about that and today things are a little different in regards to copyright law. Today when a creator does work for someone like Marvel, Marvel owns it for the duration of the copyright and there is no renewal period unless terms are specified in the assignment contract. So basically in today's market renewal rights are no longer valid, however based on the wording of the law at the time (which is very clear) I think Gary still has a strong case.

 

Gary and likely many others at the time signed there renewal rights away back then when in fact they couldn't have even if they wanted to. And they also did so based on a fraudulent information provided by the publisher who knew better but was trying to get around the system.

 

It's a pretty shameful act to try and take away someone's potential future earnings that way, especially when they are not providing any sort of retirement or future help for them.

[Prince Namor]

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?

 

Kirby never sued Marvel. Or brought a case against them. Or threatened them.

He just asked for his artwork back.

[dgarthwaite-migration]

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.

 

My understanding is that the character or concept was used before he bought it to Marvel. I keep thinking it was a fanzine. I think Marvel owns what he created for them, but I think Gary has a legitimate case against them owning the character.

 

DG

[John R]

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.

 

My understanding is that the character or concept was used before he bought it to Marvel. I keep thinking it was a fanzine. I think Marvel owns what he created for them, but I think Gary has a legitimate case against them owning the character.

 

DG

 

It was apparently used for this character Hell Rider which Friedrich created at Skywald.

[Mephisto]

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.

 

That does make sense. Other than the original Hulk TV show, what could Kirby have got out of those live action 70's duds. Also, I was very curious about how and why this transpired, if it was supposedly cut and dry that all those 70's and early characters were owned by companies such as Marvel and the creators were SOL did this happen not too long ago.

 

"The new project with Marvel apparently came about while coming to an agreement with Marvel over the use of Thanos in various Marvel Studios movies. Jim Starlin will be both writing and penciling the new project, and Tom Brevoort will be the editor."

[Prince Namor]

Hell-Rider was cool. I want some Q-47!

[Boba]

I'm not really completely aware of all the facts, but I'd like to see one artist actually make good on something he created, and stick it to the man for a change

Right-on Artist Power baby .