Talk about a class action (not).
http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/gary-friedrich-enterprises-llc-et-al-v.html (http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/gary-friedrich-enterprises-llc-et-al-v.html)
I cannot express in words how angry this makes me.
If I actually read any of Marvel's shit titles, I'd boycott.
That is absolutely evil. It makes me wonder why anyone would even bother attempting to create new characters and stories if this is the way corps treat the talent.
I'm not going to see this movie, i was, but I'm not now.
What's he supposed to have done wrong?
He dared to sue for monies created from the character he helped create. I can only glean bits from the articles but it seems even in 1978 marvel were too sly to allow any wage slave such a thing and had "work for hire" on every check and got them to sign an agreement. Gary Friedrich accepted them back then and the court has decided that he or any other creator was in effect signing away all their rights.
Isn't this Disney,(who now own Marvel) demanding money from a broke old man? Perhaps it's time to have a boycott of more than just this movie?
I think the 'work for hire' thing isn't isolated to people like Disney and Marvel etc. I don't want to go off topic (or go in to the rights and wrongs of it), but you don't have to look far to find other examples.
It's pretty shabby suing him, I think the corporate people are sending a message, to other creators who may be thinking about taking them to court - "You will lose AND it will cost you".
Sure seems a shame - especially coming from the same industry who constantly tell us not to copy nor rip-off their own product.
It's bloody shabby from the perspective of an actual human being, mistreating someone who has contributed to your success, but from the POV of a profit-maximising company... would they really want to give the impression that suing them for creators' rights on work-for-hire material is an action without consequence? Wouldn't that open themselves up to endless litigation from everyone who ever added an extra pouch to Cable's costume?
Obviously the situation and the specific action utterly stinks, but within the world of contracts and lawyers, I'm not sure it isn't just business as usual.
shitty and unnecessary behaviour. I predict a shitstorm of a backlash online followed by a rapid climbdown spun to make them look as good as possible.
Quote from: Dandontdare on 09 February, 2012, 09:05:53 PM
shitty and unnecessary behaviour. I predict a shitstorm of a backlash online followed by a rapid climbdown spun to make them look as good as possible.
I think Marvel/Disney will stand their ground on this one. It is fucking shitty what they have done but they have the
ASS LAW on their side.
V
Quote from: vzzbux on 09 February, 2012, 09:33:18 PM
Quote from: Dandontdare on 09 February, 2012, 09:05:53 PM
shitty and unnecessary behaviour. I predict a shitstorm of a backlash online followed by a rapid climbdown spun to make them look as good as possible.
I think Marvel/Disney will stand their ground on this one. It is fucking shitty what they have done but they have the ASS LAW on their side.
I expect them to make that perfectly clear, and spin it as some great magnanimous gesture 'cos Disney folk are just lovely, whilst not conceding anything legally
Hmm. Not entirely serious, but not completely joking either.
Scene 1. New York City. Mid 70s. It's hot. Damn hot. Air con's creaking like an obese pensioner's walker. If you opened your apartment door, sweat would be running down your back like fanny batter down Roger's mum's bruised thighs.
Marvel Editor: "Hi Mr. Friedrich. I hear you're looking for some writing work with us?"
Mr. Friedrich: "Yeah, that's it. I've been doing some stuff but I hear this is where the money is."
Ed: "Ha ha! Well, we like what we've seen of your work. Have you got any thoughts on what you might bring to the party. Any keen Daredevil story ideas?"
Fred: "Em... No."
Ed: "No? Oh well. Maybe something more out there. How about a new villain for that crazy Silver Surfer?"
Fred: "Um... Not so much."
Ed: "Rrrright.... Okay. How about a wild new hero. You must have something pretty special there, whaddamIwronghere?"
Fred: "Er... Welll... No... Afraid not."
Ed: ".... So. To recap. You haven't got any ideas for any new stories, villains or heroes?"
Fred: "Oh, hell no! I got ideas comin' out the wazoo Mr Editor Man! But those are MY ideas."
Ed: ".... So.... You want to work in an industry that relies on creative input but you don't want to exchange any of your creations for our money?"
Fred: "That's about the size of it."
Ed: " You do see how that leaves us at something of an impasse?"
Exeunt omnes, pursued by a Wolverine.
As for them wanting money from him. I didn't R all of TFA (and IANAFL into the bargain) but, as far as I can tell, he brought an action against them and lost. Isn't he lucky not to be pursued for their legal costs as well?
I don't get this at all.
Gary Friedrich worked for Marvel on a work-for-hire basis, fully aware that he would have no rights to anything he created for them. He created Ghost Rider as part of this contract. In 1978 he even signed an agreement with Marvel that he had no rights to the character.
Then a few years ago he brings a lawsuit against Marvel claiming that he is owed money for Marvel's continued use of the character (a character that both parties have agreed is fully owned by Marvel).
So what are Marvel supposed to do in a case like this? They can't not fight the lawsuit he's brought against them. And in cases like this, it's pretty much standard policy to issue a counter-suit: if they don't do that, they're keeping the door open for everyone else who's ever created anything for Marvel to also sue them.
While the money awarded to Marvel ($17,000) is a significant sum to a one guy and clearly only a drop in the ocean for a company the size of Marvel, why should they have to pay their own legal bills when the plaintiff lost the case? He's lucky it's only $17,000 - I think it's a safe bet that Marvel paid a lot more than that to their lawyers to fight the case.
It seems to me that the commentators on the web are treating Marvel as the bullies simply because they're the wealthier part of the equation. Just because Mr. Friedrich is an impoverished writer doesn't automatically make him the victim.
Seriously, I don't get why Marvel are the bad guys here! What exactly have they done wrong? Have I missed some big, important chunk of the story?
-- Mike
The copyright allegedly lapsed on Ghost Rider and Friedrich's claim comes from his re-asserting his rights to the character technically in a legal limbo at that time (1), but people are down on Marvel because their counter-suit was to stop him referring to himself as the creator of Ghost Rider (which he is) on merchandise (although he did himself no favors selling merchandise with GR on it before he solidified his copyright claim), and they didn't even win their counter-suit - or defeat Friedrich's original suit - they simply bullied Friedrich into settling by maintaining an ever-increasing legal expenditure he couldn't afford to keep up with. Simply put, this wasn't a legal victory, this was a corporation bullying their way out of a legal challenge.
If they were in the right, they should have proved it in court. They didn't.
(1) I'm not sure on the specifics, but the rough gist is that if a company doesn't publish a book featuring a character and that character's distinct likeness/logo/whatever within a five year period, they're ceding certain rights to retain that character/character likeness/logo/whatever, or at least leave themselves open to some sort of legal challenge from rival parties. Basically, that's why Marvel put out small print runs of limited series like Darkhawk and Captain Marvel out of the blue every couple of years by people you've never heard of - no-one cares how these books sell, they're just keeping the IP in circulation.
Thanks, Prof! That does explain why so many people are down on Marvel because of this... But I'm not sure my opinions have been swayed just yet. Claiming copyright ownership of the character because Marvel neglected to "top-up" their own copyright claim doesn't sit well with me. It smacks of Friedrich thinking, "Hey, look, they screwed up! I reckon I can make money from this!"
As a creator, my gut reaction
is to side with Friedrich (the "David versus Goliath" syndrome: we all want the little guy to win), but my brain was telling me that he was in the wrong. I still don't get why anyone expected Marvel to behave any other way. If you create a character
for someone else, it's
their character. If you later try to bring a lawsuit against them, they're naturally going to fight it.
Quote from: Professah Byah on 10 February, 2012, 01:08:58 AM
If they were in the right, they should have proved it in court. They didn't.
That Marvel didn't win their counter-suit doesn't mean they
weren't right. If the legal battle hadn't been terminated prematurely (by mutual agreement, for whatever reason), Friedrich would probably have lost a hell of a lot more than $17,000 (the figure that it is estimated he earned from unauthorised sales of Marvel-related merchandise).
-- Mike
Not making a comment on the case per-say but its worth remembering that we have a thread on this very site were we the fans of 2000ad look out for what we think are copyright infringements for characters we care about. Characters owned by a company that's bought the rights from others that no longer sit with the creators who made them. We do this to protect the comic we love, so I'm not questioning the motives for that thread.
There are a lot of variables in this specific case that don't sit well, or make it easy to glare at Marvel and people might well be right to do so. At the end of the day, right or wrong though, if we defend the right of Rebellion to protect the copyright on characters they own are we not on sticky ground then damning Marvel for doing the same thing?
Quote from: Mike Carroll on 10 February, 2012, 02:03:42 AMClaiming copyright ownership of the character because Marvel neglected to "top-up" their own copyright claim doesn't sit well with me. It smacks of Friedrich thinking, "Hey, look, they screwed up! I reckon I can make money from this!"
That's one interpretation of Friedrich's actions, but it's worth bearing in mind that this wasn't some clever loophole he discovered, it's how Marvel and a great many other companies conduct their business in order to safeguard their franchises from the kind of IP squatting where someone buys the rights and then does nothing with them, preventing others from exploiting the property (as happened with Spider-Man throughout the 1980s and 1990s). After a certain amount of time of a property not being used it reverts back to the original owners - this is actually quite fair and Marvel fully endorses this process, they're just on the other side of it for once and rather than quash it appropriately and send a message that they (probably) have the law on their side, they chose the path of the bully and stripped Friedrich of his right to be identified as the creator of Ghost Rider in any collections, adaptations or continuations of the property.
I'll grant you that Friedrich was undoubtedly a bit cheeky trying it on the way he did, but this isn't about the way he went about things, it's how Marvel went about establishing that they can now stop crediting a creator for his work, an approach that has larger implications not just for comics, but for other media as well.
Quote from: Mike Carroll on 09 February, 2012, 11:59:45 PMGary Friedrich worked for Marvel on a work-for-hire basis, fully aware that he would have no rights to anything he created for them. He created Ghost Rider as part of this contract. In 1978 he even signed an agreement with Marvel that he had no rights to the character.
It's even more complex than that. Ghost Rider was originally a western character who they called Phantom Rider when the Johnny Blaze character came out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Rider
The Johnny Blaze character kept that old timey button down the side western jacket look, then they put him on a motorbike and set his head on fire. So, as well as the name, elements carried over from the previous character. Then things get more complicated because Roy Thomas (the editor at the time) says he and the artist created the character when Friedrich wasn't around:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Rider_(comics)#Origins
So proving who designed the character would have come down to "he said, she said" with no easy way to resolve that (especially as the movie design is based on Daniel Ketch, other than the flaming skull). However, this wasn't required as the contract issue seems straightforward:
QuoteIn a decision on Wednesday, however, New York federal judge Katherine Forrest says that it's unnecessary to "travel down the rabbit hole of whether the Character and Work were in fact originally created separate and apart from Marvel, whether they are a 'work for hire,' or whether during an initial conversation in which Friedrich obtained consent to proceed with the project that eventually became the Work, he had thoughts about what rights he might want to retain."
That's because the judge looks at two contracts and decides they plainly give copyright authority to Marvel.
The first contract was at initial creation where Friedrich gave rights in exchange for payment. Friedrich believed that he held onto non-comic derivative versions of the work, but...
The second contract was signed in 1978 where Friedrich agreed to grant "to Marvel forever all rights of any kind and nature in and to the Work."
Judge Forrest says the language of this agreement "could not be clearer" and rejects various arguments such as consideration and adhesion why this contract is not in full force.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/nicolas-cage-ghost-rider-marvel-comics-276589
Now I believe at least one of those contracts is a cheque and endorsing the cheque means you abide by the accompanying rules, which is a bit of a sneaky move but it was pretty standard in the industry. Also if I remember correctly the Jack Kirby lawsuit revolved around this kind of practice but they haven't had any success yet and there is a lot more at stake there.
Quote from: Professah Byah on 10 February, 2012, 01:08:58 AM
The copyright allegedly lapsed on Ghost Rider and Friedrich's claim comes from his re-asserting his rights to the character technically in a legal limbo at that time (1),
...
(1) I'm not sure on the specifics, but the rough gist is that if a company doesn't publish a book featuring a character and that character's distinct likeness/logo/whatever within a five year period, they're ceding certain rights to retain that character/character likeness/logo/whatever, or at least leave themselves open to some sort of legal challenge from rival parties. Basically, that's why Marvel put out small print runs of limited series like Darkhawk and Captain Marvel out of the blue every couple of years by people you've never heard of - no-one cares how these books sell, they're just keeping the IP in circulation.
I've not looked into the details of this specific case but what you are describing is a trademark issue, not copyright. At least with regards to Captain Marvel, otherwise Marvel could just have used that character:
QuoteThis is why, when DC got around to publishing Fawcett's Captain Marvel characters in the 1970s, they had to call the book "Shazam!," as the name Captain Marvel was a trademark owned by Marvel (note the difference between trademark and copyright. Fawcett still owned the copyright on Captain Marvel, so when they licensed the character to DC, DC was able to use the name Captain Marvel IN the comic book, just not when promoting or advertising the comic book. That is where trademarks come into play).
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2005/08/18/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-12/
Although there are complicated situations with copyright on older works (anything published between about 1923 and 1964 had to have its contact renewed) with the more modern examples all you need are copyright notices on what you release* and then you have copyright until it lapses (70 years after the creators death most places, 50 years in others like Australia).
So it isn't that the copyright lapsed, it is that it wasn't ever registered in the first place:
QuoteThe writer asserted he created Johnny Blaze/Ghost Rider in 1968 and, three years later, agreed to publish the character through Magazine Management, which eventually became Marvel Entertainment. Under the agreement, the publisher held the copyright to the character's origin story in 1972′s Marvel Spotlight #5, and to subsequent Ghost Rider works. However, Friedrich alleged the company never registered the work with the U.S. Copyright Office and, pursuant to federal law, he regained the copyrights to Ghost Rider in 2001.
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2011/12/marvel-prevails-in-lawsuit-over-rights-to-ghost-rider/
The problem is, even if copyright did revert to him, by endorsing the cheques from Marvel he transferred copyright back to them.
* Night of the Living Dead is public domain because it was going to be called "Night of the Flesh Eaters" until the last minute and the distributor swapped in a new title card, which didn't have the copyright information on.