RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’ … 
HBO, FX Lead Critics’ Choice TV Awards — But … 
Hammond On Cannes: A New Day Comes To The Fest As HBO and … 
Cannes: Lionsgate Acquires U.S. On Guillaume Canet’s … 
Toronto Fest Lands World Preem Of Godfrey Reggio’s … 
Cannes: Fleming Reflects And Finds Talented Trio A Breath … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’ 
Former Digital Domain CEO & Auditors Sued For Fraud By … 
Fox Acquires ‘Narc’; Zac Efron Attached To Play … 
ABC’s ‘Nashville’ Undergoes Production … 
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults … 
Mike Lobell Adds Cast To ‘Eisner,’ Plots … 
Sony Shares Rise On Report That It Will Consider … 
Alki David Agrees To End Name Games With Aereo And Barry … 
Next-Gen Xbox One Unveiled With Content Including … 
UPDATE: Apple CEO Challenged For Moving “Crown … 
ESPN Layoffs Could Reach 400 As Part Of Latest Disney Cuts 
Cannes: Weinstein Co Acquires Keanu-Reese Sci-Fi Pic … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’ Up … 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Wolverine’ 
Ang Lee Departs FX Pilot ‘Tyrant’ 
Rights to the flaming-skull motorcycle-riding Ghost Rider belongs to Marvel Comics, a federal judge ruled. The vigilante played by Nicolas Cage in a 2007 movie and its upcoming sequel debuted in 1972 after Marvel freelancer Gary Friedrich first conceived him, the judge ruled. In his 2007 lawsuit, Friedrich claimed Marvel had infringed his rights to the character and its use in movies and merchandise. The judge said Friedrich relinquished his rights to Ghost Rider when he endorsed and cashed checks from Marvel. Those checks contained language relinquishing all rights. Friedrich’s lawyer said he would file an appeal. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance opens February 17.
‘Ghost Rider’ Rights Belong To Marvel, Federal Judge Rules
-
Marketplace
News/Opinion Poll
Loading ...Box Office Poll
Loading ...
A writer screwed. What else is new?
Sorry, I don’t buy that. He had to know Marvel would own all rights to any character created while he was in their employ. It’s a common practice among any industry that employs people who create something. Specific to the comic book world this has been common practice since before most of us were born.
Without getting into my own secret identity, I’ve been in good deals and bad deals. I’ve been lied to by publishers and deceived even by my own agent. Things in the real world are often messy and ambiguous. I’d be the first to say that most deals are open and aboveboard. But not all. And knowing what some very prestigious, very well-regarded publishers and agents have pulled, I won’t assume that Marvel behaved honorably. Experience inclines me to side with the writer.
All that said, I’ve made a good living for a long time, so sh-t happens. You shrug it off, learn from the experience, and score another deal. I haven’t sued anyone yet.
A textbook post, Book Guy, one to cut out and keep on the fridge door: live, learn and keep moving on. Your secret identity is safe with me, even if I have no clue who you are and not even a special phone or signal I could beam into the sky when things turn villainy.
I’m not sure I’d go that far since we simply don’t know enough of the facts to make a judgement in this case. While it is entirely possible that Friedrich is being screwed, it is possible he just has buyer’s (or in this case seller’s) remorse over completely legitimate deals he made 30 years ago.
The first one had major potential. This new one looks even better; but, not happy about another writer getting screwed. Stan Lee swould never have let this happen!
I don’t think Stan could’ve done anything even if he had could. Writing all those books were behind him back then and he was merely stepping down as editor-in-chief and prepping up his bags to follow Jack Kirby out to California. Roy Thomas was running the show back in those days.
~
Coat
Welcome to the “work for hire” provision of the U.S. Copyright Code.
It’s a pretty iconic character, which makes it even more of a surprise that the creator is taking it up the tailpipe. Does the writer get nothing? Credit, even?
Fucking lawyers, many just assembly-line jagoffs who think they’re F Lee Bailey. If you ever find yourself starting a sentence with, “Well ACTUALLY, you signed away ALL your rights when…” then congratulations, you’ve grown into a movie villain who’s as slimy as he is generic.
Gee. I wonder why nobody’s created a decent character for Marvel in 20 years. Just keep working off the ingenuity of others, Marvel bullpen. No need to bother coming up with anything remotely original (or interesting).
The first one was an embarassment even for another terrible Nick Cage movie. Man those copolas can go out and spread the bad around, they are like the eagles in that regard
This might be the funniest reply I’ve ever read. Just like the Dude says, “Man, I hate the Eagles.”
However, I enjoy Sophia Coppola’s films.
How has the writer been screwed? He created acharacter for Marvel Comics, he accepted money for it and agreed to the terms of the arrangement. For example, let’s say I bought a piece of land from Gary Friedrich in 1972 and in 1994 I discover there is oil on the property. I then use my money to put up an oil rig and start drilling for oil. I make a million dollars drilling oil – Did I screw Gary Friedrich? He sold me the land and neither one of us knew in 1972 that there was oil there. Does he have the right to sue me to try to get some of the oil money? He sold me all the rights to the land – He has no claim on it twenty years later. I see no difference here.
You obviously don’t work with intellectual property.
If you did, your metaphor applied correctly would be that Gary Friedrich created the oil, and then Marvel drilled it. Even twenty years later they are still profiting from Friedrich’ creation. Intellectual property rights are roughly defined in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – “everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.”
Unfortunately that noble sentiment is often fucked by corporate greed. Especially in media.
How is this a writer a getting screwed? He filed a lawsuit and he lost big time!! He willingly and freely invited a third party to look at the facts of the case and render a decision. The judge found that his his contracts with Marvel effectively gave Marvel all rights. Based on the comments of the judge, this looks like a legally sound judgement. I work for a court in Michigan and people routinely believe that the little guy should prevail even when their cases are legally without merit. Incredible!
If I understand correctly, the guy pitched a story and got someone to buy it.
The company (Marvel) then put the cash out to turn it into a series.
If the writer didn’t check that stuff ahead of time with legal counsel to retain rights (or whatever), how is that Marvel’s fault?
The book could have died and not sold and been discontinued, right?
As a Marvel reader from the 70′s there were several character launches that didn’t work. Ghost Rider certainly wasn’t on the popularity level of SPIDERMAN or THE X-MEN.
Since it was the 70′s and comics were already established and very profitable I have a hard time believing that Marvel wouldn’t have had all this stuff in writing ahead of time.
The series ran, was paid for, then found life much later as a feature.
So how exactly is the writer being screwed?
If he didn’t cover his “creation” with legal protections but cashed the checks happily, it seems those who put up the dough to make it happen “owned” it, right?
(Unless there are details we don’t know about.)
Well said. To the point. Nothing else to be said.
Thanks.
I don’t believe Friedrich created the character; he was, at best, a co-creator. We’re talking about the 1970s here. He was a Marvel employee, acting as a Marvel employee. Any character a Marvel writer creates on his own, then licenses to Marvel, he gets to keep. Brian Michael Bendia created a character named Jennifer Jones (I think that’s the namee). So, if Marvel okays him using her in an Avengers comic, he doesn’t lose his ownership rights to her. He probably gets paid some token licensing fee. But Bendis can’t write a story about Hawkeye or the Vision, who are already-existent characters, and then claim to legally own them. GR is the only character approaching mass popularity that Friedrich comes close to touching, so he was trying to cash in on the connection.
Spot on, Jack.
Also, nowhere is any mention that Gary merely REVAMPED the character based on a western hero character who had a series in the fifties that Marvel used to publish and slapped the name to it.
~
Coat
I’m not really sure why there is always so much controversy about these comics characters. Does the man who first drew the Pillsbury Doughboy OWN the Pillsbury Doughboy, or the Michelin Man, or Lucky the Leprechaun, etc.? If you work for a company and create something while in their employ and are paid for that creation, your employer owns your creation.
It’s sad, but that’s how businesses work.
NO – Don’t accept it. And don’t say ‘Marvel’, you clueless bitches, say ‘Disney’. Do you think Bob Kane kept the rights to BATMAN? No, he didn’t, I assume. Warner Bros wisely brought him on as emeritus consultant for publicity, paid him well, and took care of him. After the initiation of the horror show that was the treatment of the Superman creators – with its ensuing bad press, to this day – the studio treated Batman’s main man with respect.
Could Disneymarvel not bring him on in SOME way, without admitting prior guilt? So sleazy, so cheesy.
And look what they’ve done to THE most badass satanic biker of the ’70s. Just look. A dork in a wig and a big, limp chain. Twice.
The REAL character is 18, blond, s-kicker. Seen any around?
Don’t even get me going on the CG.
May the families of the attorneys who performed this black magick be tortured in dreams forever by the REAL Ghost Rider!
Friedrich filed his lawsuit 3 years before Disney bought Marvel.
but Disney could have settled this. Let him make a book or something, tour around and sell it, do interviews for the movies. The end. But I see what you mean.
“Do you think Bob Kane kept the rights to BATMAN? No, he didn’t, I assume.”
This cracked me up. I love how you took a such a strong stand, answered your own rhetorical question, then immediately backed off it because you weren’t sure you were right and couldn’t be bothered to do the research.
That lack of knowledge is rampant throughout your post, as frug has already pointed out.
The man who first drew the Pillsbury Doughboy, as it happens, was none other than Mart Nodell, the creator of the Green Lantern back in the 40′s. The Pillsbury Doughboy was an idea he came up with as part of an ad campaign back in the early 50′s, so he was a well-compensated employee at the time of its creation. Nothing to fight about there. However, Paul Levitz did arrange on the QT for Nodell and his wife to receive annual payments until their death as compensation for Mart’s contributions to creating Green Lantern. DC knew they had a major mess on their hands if more creators launched their own suits on top of the one filed by the Siegel estate at the time, so they tried to diffuse the situation as best as they could. How many other creators received similar payoffs on the side is unknown.
With regards to Gary Friedrich, there’s many details missing from this reporting, as Friedrich did not sign a contract with Marvel until 1978, which was well past the date he initially created the character, so without any contract to cover their tails, Marvel actually should have lost this one. There’s some great reporting on the net, and details along with documents can be found at ohdannyboy.blogspot.com.
The thing that always amazes me are the people who comment that the company should have prevailed over the writer, as I know very few people these days who feel like they’re treated fairly at their own jobs. I can’t imagine anyone I know feeling anything but a sense of loss for the writer, nor could I imagine people going to attend a film where they root for the corporation over the little guy. I just don’t get that dynamic.
Filmlover – What you are missing is that many of us are not “rooting” for the corporation (in this case Disney/Marvel.) We are instead rooting for common sense, logic and the rule of law. Legal cases should NEVER be decided on how much the judge “likes” or “dislikes” the people in the case, but on the truth or merit of the case itself. That is exactly why justice is portrayed as blind. Justice is not supposed to presume that all corporations are “evil” or that all creators are helpless “victims”
It should also be noted that 3 men are actually credited with the creation of Ghost Righter.Aforementioned writer Gary Friedrich, writer Roy Thomas and artist Mike Ploog.
It should also be noted that there is some controversy surrounding who actually should get credit for it.According to Thomas in a 2001 interview, Friedrich initially had the idea for Ghost Rider, but he was going to be a Daredevil villain called Stunt-Master.Friedrich decided he wanted to make him a weird biker villain called Ghost Rider.Now here’s where the controversy arises.
While Thomas says Friedrich came up with the name of the character, he didn’t describe him.Thomas says he decided the idea was too good for a villain.Ghost Rider would be a hero with his own book.Thomas says he and artist Mike Ploog got together without Friedrich to design Ghost Rider.Thomas came up with the skull head and costume design, while Ploog came up with the fiery skull.He says Friedrich later approved of their creation and they started writing the book.
So, Thomas says Friedrich only created the name Ghost Rider, while he created the concept of him riding a bike, being a hero and having his own title, as well as creating the design of the character with Ploog.
That same year, Friedrich responded by saying Thomas’ statements were inaccurate.He says it was his idea.He says it was his idea from inception, that he came up with the motorcycle and the flaming skull.He came up with everything.
He also stated that if Marvel were to ever make a Ghost Rider movie, he would sue them.
I think this guy is full of crap.While Thomas takes most of the credit for Ghost Rider’s creation, he does give some to Friedrich and Ploog.Friedrich, on the other hand, is claiming credit for everything.
It should also be noted that Friedrich was a rabid alcoholic and was pushed out of the comic book industry just 5 short years after the creation of Ghost Rider.That was in 1977.He has published 1 single comic book in the last 34 years.He returned to his hometown and became a courier.
Marvel had a flaming skull character decades before Ghost Rider, the Blazing Skull. Ghost Rider was also already a Marvel trademark as it was a character a series from the sixties (which was retitled Night Rider after the new Ghost Rider came out).
Doesn’t “Ghost Rider” belong to ALL of us, really? It must be a testament to the care and love the filmmakers have for this character… who pisses fire. (Go ahead, watch the trailer if you don’t believe me.)
Image Comics is the only publisher nowadays that takes zero rights away from book creaters. Zero. Long may they reign.
that is not even remotely true.
I’m an artist writer for Image. Have two series out. And, yeah, it is true.
Not familiar with the case but, did the instrument of payment, the check (which must be signed to receive payment), contain contract language for a further assignment of rights beyond that which was already in an existing contract? Or was it an ordinary check with the, “a cashed check is a contract,” tenet being applied?
Wasn’t Image Comics created because of this? Todd McFarlane and a bunch of other popular Marvel employees left in the early 90′s so they can retain ownership to their creations.
This isn’t about movie rights?
Nothing prevented GF from creating, writing, drawing, coloring, printing, marketing, and distributing his own Ghost Rider comic in the 70′s.
Except he didn’t- he did the first two and then the commercial entity known as Marvel Comics did the rest, contributing to the (extremely modest) success Ghost Rider enjoyed in the 20 years it persisted as a comics only character.
In that time, many other writers and artists contributed to the myths and backstory of the character. Many of the concepts and characters used in the movie were not created until the 90s, many years after GF had left the book.
Every comic creator working for a major company knows what “work for hire” means when they sign those vouchers- it means a paycheck now in exchange for signing away future rights.
Serves him right for not reading the fine print on his checks.
Remember Comic Creators it all comes down to signed contracts. If you don’t got it in writing you will lose, or you will win.
Case closed on the matter he lost.
I don’t see how an appeal can be made as the judge here ruled on the evidence. The facts are clear enough.
His own fault for not reading that fine print.
Okay, so what do you do if the fine print is a contract of adhesion?
Don’t sign what you don’t know or understand. Or get a lawyer. Better yet don’t create something for a company that you don’t own. Or at least get a partial financial compensation from continued use.
Or as others pointed out, he had little to do with the characters creation at all.
He did not create the visuals, the bike, and the main concept ideas. Even the name is not original and he took it from a song.
He hardly did anything creative on the character as Thomas and also Ploog did most of the work.
You’re right, if you have bargaining leverage. Otherwise bend over. Many of us have to work for a living.
Few people on this thread understand that intellectual property is — or, rather, it WAS until corporate lobbying killed it — specifically protected under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”
Notice that nowhere does it say “…by securing to the PEOPLE WHO HIRE the authors and inventors.” Making the employer the author is a fabrication of Congress carrying the bag for manufacturers, rights aggregators, corporations, and others who do not create jackshit.
i am all for creators/inventors/authors rights, but who determines the phrase “by securing for limited times” ? what is the “limited times” duration? if a specific amount of time is listed somewhere then we can see what rights were “stepped on” (my emphasis).
The “limited times” are clearly delineated within the U.S. Copyright Code. It used to be 28 years plus a 28 year renewal. Now it’s life of the author plus 70 years, and 95 years from the publication of a work-for-hire or 120 years from creation, whichever comes first. (Unless Disney or Warners has Congress extend it so Mickey and Bugs stay protected.)
I completely agree. Who in their right mind would think otherwise. Major companies buy all rights to the ip if they pay for it.
Do the names JK Rowlings, James Patterson, John Grisham, Tom Clancy and Ian Fleming have any meaning to you? They and thousands of authors retain the rights to their creations. The publishers have only the first print rights and whatever else is negotiated. In this age of print on demand, the publishers won’t get any more than that, and the media companies will still have to deal with the authors who created these works if they wish to have a product that comes with a pre-sold audience.
Comic books are no different, although everyone likes to pretend they are, using the example of multiple creators as a reason to explain the difficulties in crediting authorship.
Let’s use Marvel’s Fantastic Four, X-Men and Avengers series as an example. It’s indisputable that Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created the early issues, characters and basis for each series, so they are essentially the creators of these properties.
What about the creators who come after them, you say, don’t they deserve a share of the pie?
Why, yes, they do, if it is their stories and art which form the basis of whatever licensed product is being produced and sold. Chris Claremont and John Byrne can claim ownership of the stories and art they produced for the X-Men series, as well as any new characters that popped up during those stories, but they cannot claim ownership of the X-Men Lee-Kirby characters or the series itself, which belongs to Lee and Kirby.
The problem with Claremont and Byrne laying claim to the ownership of their stories and art is that the best they can hope for is some sort of financial arrangement with Marvel with regards to the use of their stories and characters, otherwise Claremont and Byrne would have to come to some arrangement with each other how to proceed with using their material minus the Lee-Kirby characters and anything related to the original X-Men series.
In their case, were they to make a deal, such an arrangement would have value because not only do the stories and the Claremont-Byrne characters have value, but so too do Claremont and Byrne and much to bring to the table in terms of marketing simply by reuniting to produce the interesting new offshoot. Their track records alone guarantee comics fans will be paying attention. The curiosity factor alone should result in strong sales on the first issue, and the finished product itself will be what keeps the audiences coming back.
Not every creator will draw similar attention, but the creators that came after which some people claim contributed material of substance that elevated the characters after the work of the initial creators, these are the creators that have something to gain making a claim for their work.
People have to remember that creators often don’t have any leverage when breaking into the comics industry and only gain that leverage through the results of their subsequent works, which comic book publishers tend to downplay in private behind-the-scenes so as to not lose their leverage with the creators.
Very good analysis but it needs qualification. All the book authors you cite wrote their first works on spec and then sold them to book publishers. They were not works for hire. Book publishers have different rules than film and TV companies as far as reversion of rights and ownership of copyright. When Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, and others created their works for Marvel Comics (or Timely Comics or whomever) they were employees performing works for hire for Marvin Goodman. It’s a long and controversial story about the Marvel rights issues, but the bottom line is one that the Ghost Rider case continues to underscore. The key word here is CREATOR versus INTERPRETER, and the key issue is EMPLOYEE versus EMPLOYER. American communications companies get around this messy distinction by forcing authors, in the licensing process, to lie and say that a work which was written on spec will henceforth be considered top be a work for hire.
It sounds like marvel covered themselves with conditional terms on the check. This has always been sleazy and I am not sure it is enforceable most of the time now but they seem to have checks which by the act of being cashed relinquished his rights
Nicolas Cage’s comic book obsession is going too far now. Get back to Leaving Las Vegas-style stories again.