Protecting The Artists? Disney's Marvel Uses Copyright To Crush Already Broke Ghost Rider Creator
from the how-nice dept
Five years ago, we wrote about Gary Friedrich, the creator of the comic book character Ghost Rider, and how he was suing tons of companies, claiming that the copyrights associated with Ghost Rider had reverted back to him in 2001. As we noted at the time, there were some questionable things about his lawsuit -- including the fact that he waited years until after a movie and video game had been created and released before suddenly going legal about it. However, apparently Marvel (owned by Disney), in its ultimate vindictiveness, turned around and countersued Friedrich and won, leading to a ridiculous situation: Friedrich, who is broke, is now supposed to pay Marvel $17,000 for Ghost Rider merchandise he had sold in the past. He also isn't supposed to say that he's the co-creator of Ghost Rider any more if saying so involves him getting any kind of commercial advantage.The full ruling in the case makes it clear that Friedrich's copyright claims were suspect in the first place, as it appears he clearly handed over the copyrights on the character to Marvel. The legal stipulation covers the specific terms, including the $17k payment, and the injunction against using the words "Ghost Rider" in connection with the sale of any goods, merchandise or services (i.e., "pay to get the signature of the creator of Ghost Rider!").
While Friedrich appears to have clearly overreached in his initial claim, the vindictiveness of Marvel/Disney is pretty ridiculous here. There's simply no reason for the company to demand $17k from a broke Friedrich, and (on top of that) make it that much harder for him to actually earn the money to pay them. As some are pointing out, you should remember this story the next time big companies claim they want to strengthen copyright law to "protect the content creators."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: artists, comics, copyright, gary friedrich, ghost rider
Companies: disney, marvel
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Crack is whack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apparently, judging by your post, it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, someone will play lawyer and say something stupid like "but if he signed over the rights that means he didn't create it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not trolling, just pointing out that we have taken two unrelated things and created a correlation here. I'm quite certain the lawyers suing the ghost rider guy never claimed they were doing it for the content creators...they were working on behalf of their clients business and legal interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In some ways, they lawyers are doing it in the interest of content creators. If content creator contracts are considered unreliable, the potential is that the studios will pay less or refuse to take as much risk in the future.
It may not be in the best interest of THIS particular artist, but normally when things end up in court, someone isn't going to be happy, no matter what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If the foo shits...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Did anyone claim otherwise?
However, it is the narrative pushed in many other cases, especially when trying to push further laws that may strip the rights from even more artists who have entered into bad contracts.
"they were working on behalf of their clients business and legal interests."
Interests that are part of the same corporations trying to push other laws through, claiming all the time that "it's all for the artists".
They're not directly related in this case, but don't try to fool yourself into thinking that this kind of clear attack on actual content creators is irrelevant when discussing other cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No - they (or at the time Marvel) should have given him a slightly better deal at the outset. Then he would have had a little bit of return from the films etc - and it would have kept him quiet. That way they would have avoided all the legal fees etc.
You're a fool if you think that always driving the hardest bargain you can get away with is good business in the long run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They could have easily handled this without going to this level. It kind of makes them look bad and destroys their claims that they are doing all these things "for the artists".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And while we are at it, and since we are speaking of 'rights' and 'the law' and Disney, how much did Disney pay to acquire the right to make The Lion King from Tezuka again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He can say it, but he cannot TRADE on it - that is a difference.
Statements of fact cannot be denied, however, if he sold all the rights including all references and commercial aspects, he cannot suddenly start selling his autograph as being more valuable because he created this work - he sold that right.
" how much did Disney pay to acquire the right to make The Lion King from Tezuka again?"
I don't know, why not ask them? Perhaps it is more clear to say that the Lion King isn't the same work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's no difference to an 'artist'. If he can't say he created Ghost Rider at a comic book convention then where else is he going to say it? If he says it on his website, and that website generates cash, do you honestly believe Disney will leave him alone?
As for the Lion King...of course it's not the same work. Tezuka's work was done decades before the Lion King came out. I know because I grew up with it and remember watching it as a young boy. I watched it and other shows like Ultraman, Johnny Sokko, Starblazers and Marine Boy - as did millions of other children. Some of those children grew up and even went to work at Disney...The similarities between the two are staggering. But since we're talking about Disney and a Japanese production company, I guess it's okay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Disney devs actually wanted the Lion King to be an homage to Tezuka. They went out of their way to include references to Kimba. It was a nod to what came before.
Enter Michael Eisner, who looked at the devs and said "yeah, I don't care about your homages" and went on to be one of the worst things to happen to Disney in years. Because of Eisner, Disney was known more as a corporation than the development studio powerhouse it was. Eisner is notorious for his micromanaging style at the time and it would eventually lead to top talent leaving the company. It's no surprise that Disney would try to extend copyright given how Eisner always tried to keep control. He really didn't care about the developers. Maybe he's softened a little, but just look the creation of Pixar, which is the direct result of his managing style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playboy_Enterprises,_Inc._v._Welles
See, in this case, the "award" of Playmate of the Year is something that cannot be debated. It is a statement of fact. However, the defendant cannot use Playboy logos or other to promote her business or brand, only the statement of fact.
For the artist, he sold all of the rights to product. He could make the statement that he created the work in, say, a discussion or a newspaper article, but he cannot use the trademark(s) in question to generate demand or income, because he very specifically sold them off.
The statement of fact doesn't come into play because he specifically sold the rights after the fact.
Disney will leave him alone when he stops trying to profit from what he already sold to them, lock stock and goodwill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It sounds ridiculous that someone cannot even say (in a remotely commercial environment, which is far too many today) that he was the actual creator of something. It would be one thing if he had signed an NDA or secrecy agreement - but he cannot because of 'copyright'??? That is just plain stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just because Disney acquired certain 'created' rights does not give them nor a court the power to remove the natural right of him to state for his own purposes what he did and whom he is.
If he wants to charge people for his signature because he was the creator or for any other reason that is his absolute right and would very much fall under your own 1st Amendment principles.
Otherwise what the court is basically stating is he cannot place upon a resume the absolute fact that he did all this about Ghost Rider since that too would be for monetary and commercial gain.
The ability of Disney/Marvel and the court to actually contemplate let alone place upon an order this type of restriction is telling of the absolute problems that the US civil legal system currently has in regards to anything that might somehow affect the profiteering of it's corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
IOW a contractual agreement with a major corporate entity results in the creator losing the rights to his own creative endeavors, as well as sacrificing his First Amendment rights, in order that the corporate suits may fatten their own wallets. Gotcha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or the rights to Jungle Book from Kipling's estate?
(They began work on it the day after it lapsed into Public Domain)
Or the rights to John Carter of Mars from the Burroughs estate.
(Note: the book itself is PD and can be used by anyone as a small-time studio did when they did a low-budget, direct to SyFy Channel "Princess of Mars" movie starring Antonio Sabato and Tracy Lords last year.
Disney just made a deal to license the trademarked "John Carter" name.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Marvel had trademarked the name "Ghost Rider" in the late 1960s, after another comic company went belly-up and their trademark lapsed.
Marvel then created a Western hero using the name (which had also been used by a Western hero at the other company) and the exact same costume and weaponry/equipment as the older hero (but different secret identity)!
1950s Ghost Rider by Magazine Enterprises: http://www.comics.org/series/757
1960s Ghost Rider by Marvel: http://www.comics.org/series/1809
In fact, they used the same artist, Dick Ayers, who had drawn the earlier hero!
The 1960s Ghost Rider was written by Gary Friedrich, but co-conceived by Friedrich, editor Stan Lee, main Marvel writer Roy Thomas, and artist Dick Ayers.
This is NOT the version Friedrich is suing about.
The Ghost Rider book was cancelled at the end of 1967.
The character continued to appear in a Western anthology title until the early 1970s when that was cancelled as well.
Faced with losing the trademark name if it wasn't used, Marvel decided to do a new version.
Gary Friedrich offered up a concept about a demonically-possessed motorcycle rider he had been working on for several years.
While the final version was worked out between Friedrich, artist Mike Ploog, and now-editor Roy Thomas, most of it had been prepared well in advance. (in fact, Freidrich had co-created another motorcycle hero, albeit science-based, named Hell-Rider a couple of years earlier for another publisher using elements from his original mystic-themed cycle-hero proposal.
The new Ghost Rider debuted in Marvel Spotlight #5 (1973)...
http://www.comics.org/issue/25371/
...and received his own comic a year later.
http://www.comics.org/issue/26643/
While he's had several different series since, the character has been an ongoing presence in the Marvel Universe since then.
Any questions, feel free to e-mail me at atomickommiecomics at gmaildotcom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anyone who disagrees with you or Mike is a paid shill? Do you honestly think that nobody can ever honestly have an opposing view?
If that is the case, I would say you are dumber than a bag of hammers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is entirely possible to disagree without being a troll or shill. The hallmarks of the troll/shill, though, are pretty clear. If the commenter does any of the following, they can be safely dismissed as such: Engage in any personal attacks, accuse the regular here of mindlessly following Mike's every word, accuse the commenters here of intentionally trying to support piracy or of being pirates themselves, raising arguments that they have already had answered numerous times, and so on.
You get the idea, I'm sure.
In other words, you are merely disagreeing, not trolling, if you are engaging in rational, useful debate and not personal attacks or mindless accusations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The lesson
Greed, vindictiveness and the desire for control for its own sake.
Those who follow this path will either lose everything (as with Friedrich) or destroy their own mental equilibrium (as with the winners) or maybe both (as with Friedrich!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The lesson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://archives.tcj.com/aa02ss/n_marvel.html
The crux of the dispute was the insistence of Marvel Comics, Kirby's longtime creative home, that he sign away all rights to the Marvel-published characters he had created. As a coercive gesture, the company informed him that it would hold hostage all Kirby original art in its possession until he agreed to sign a special release form that was required of no other Marvel freelancer. Kirby refused to sign the document, and Marvel, in turn, refused to return his original art, and the resulting stand-off that played out before the rest of us was both disillusioning and inspiring. On the one hand, for those who still cherished memories of the 1960s as a kind of Camelot, in which "King Kirby" and "Stan the Man" presided over a happy bullpen, this was a particularly sour epilogue. Marvel's corporate lawyers could have chosen no more effective way to spit on the ruins of the House of Ideas -- the House that, as they say, Jack built. But on the other hand, the conflict also presented a vision of comics creators, fans and industry media coming together to tip the balance of power against a corporate giant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Captain America, Bucky, and The Red Skull (with Joe Simon in the 1940s)
The Hulk (along with General Ross, Betty Ross, Major Talbot, etc)
Thor (plus Loki, Jane Foster, and all the Asgardians)
Iron Man (plus Pepper Potts, Happy Hogan and Stark Industries),
Nick Fury, S.H.I.E.L.D. and Hydra
The Howling Commandos
and The Avengers as a team
not to mention
The Fantastic Four, Dr Doom, The Watcher, and Alica Masters. (The Silver Surfer was Kirby's original idea)
The original X-Men team (Cyclops, Jean Grey, Beast, Iceman, Angel, Professor X) and Magneto with his BrotherHood of Evil Mutants
and Marvel gave HIM a raw deal after co-creating more than half their movie/tv franchises...
why wouldn't they give the shaft to Friedrich and...
Steve Ditko (Spider-Man, along with Green Goblin, Harry Osborn, Lizard, Sandman, J. Jonah Jameson, Gwen Stacy, and Aunt May) and Dr Strange.
Marv Wolfman (Blade)
Steve Gerber (Howard the Duck)
???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marvel has received its fair share of lumps from comic fans over the years and this is has got to be one of the biggest "slaps in the face" of the very comic book creators who created their characters in the first place.
I remember the backlash that Marvel received over Jack Kirby's lawsuits against the company over the very characters he helped create for Marvel. Marvel should be ashamed and so should Disney.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Called it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that confusing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Reality, and The Fundraiser
1) The "merchandise" that he was selling (for which he now owes 17K) were his OWN ORIGINAL ART of the character. Convention sketches, etc. -- a common practice (every comics convention has an "artists alley"). As the comics press has said, this is Marvel putting "a bullet in the head of artists' alley."
2) Back when he was working for Marvel, they would put a waiver of your rights on the back of your paycheck -- to get paid, you needed to endorse the check, which required signing away your rights.
3) Steve Niles, the creator of 30 DAYS OF NIGHT is doing a fundraiser for Gary here: http://www.steveniles.com/gary.html
So yes, in short -- this is corporate greed at its worst, and even more: a transparent attempt to make an example of him to any other creator who might dare to bring suit.
The first GHOST RIDER movie made 230million on a budget of 110 million -- yet Marvel/Disney needs 17K from a senior citizen living hand-to-mouth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Reality, and The Fundraiser
Hey, we're always talking about the legacy media companies needing to embrace new business models. I guess this is what they came up with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Reality, and The Fundraiser
You just don't understand. According to Hollywood accounting that movie lost money, therefore Friedrich should be forced to pay the studio for the privilege of being sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Reality, and The Fundraiser
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Reality, and The Fundraiser
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Reality, and The Fundraiser
You can talk about the principle of the thing, a corporation trying to protect what's apparently theirs, but under all of those circumstances it's even clearer how unnecessary the countersuit was. That kind of greed just seems unnecessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Reality, and The Fundraiser
How exactly was this his own original art when he was the writer, not the graphic artist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Reality, and The Fundraiser
Because all the original art for each story was split up among the writer and artists (penciler and inker).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Reality, and The Fundraiser
Sorry -- I was mistaken. It wasn't art, it was income from paid autographs and convention appearances (source: http://www.movies.com/movie-news/comic-creator-lawsuits/6611 ).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Reality, and The Fundraiser
Never mind that anyone with more than three brain cells would know that if you want to stay in business, DO NOT PISS OFF YOUR CUSTOMER BASE! Such a shame that certain companies (Disney, Gaia Interactive, Microsoft, etc.) have yet to learn that simple lesson in Business Management 99...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charity Auction For Mr Friedrich
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fairness...
In fairness, Mike didn't say this particular case said "it's for the artists"... he simple pointed out that copyright law very rarely benefits the actual copyright holders and VERY frequently benefit the large content brokers (like Disney) who wield it in an unconstitutional, immoral way to make more money. And everytime they want MORE power of content... they say... oh... but the artists... but the musicians... etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In fairness...
Mike rarely mentions that "it's for the artists" when the artists sign a contract and get a nice fat check. He doesn't want you to think about that part of the deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In fairness...
I believe he was simply on the pay roll as a writer at the time. He envisioned and created what was to become an iconic character, and then never saw any benefit from it.
Yes, he was working under work for hire status and can not claim he ever owned the character. The issue is much bigger, and similar to sports organizations. The players/artist should be taken care of financially into retirement. Even more so based off of a success and brilliant creation like Ghost Rider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In fairness...
Plain and simple it was petty and IMHO uncalled for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In fairness...
It was hardly a "fat check" (especially back in the 1960s).
With the page rate Marvel (and other comic companies) paid until the 1980s, writers had to turn out a complete 20-page comic (or the equivalent page count in short stories) every week to make the same money as a typical office worker, without the medical or retirement/pension benefits!
(They were independent contractors!)
Plus, at that time there were NO reprint royalties (another 1980s innovation), so no matter how many times the stories were re-printed, the actual creators (writers AND artists) didn't get a penny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In fairness...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In fairness...
You and your ilk rarely mention that "it's for the money grabbing corporates" when they get a contract, pay a nominal cheque and then screw the artists. You don't want anyone to know about that part of the ripoff.
There all fixed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Termination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being a big movie buff I had planned to see this movie (pretty much see every comic movie) but because of the line above I think I will wait till Netflix gets it. Didn't look that good anyways.
I'm not asking for a boycott or anything, this is just my plans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Needless to say, I won't be seeing it myself, but that was decided long before this case came about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selling Content Others Create And Keeping The Profits Is Their Business!
If you are paid to create content for a company like Marvel or Disney or any of the other large media corporations, it's likely your contract will stipulate anything you create while in their employment belongs to them. I had to agree to such a clause when I worked for IBM testing LCD displays and that didn't even involve "creating" anything beyond mundane test reports. It seems obvious Marvel or Disney would expect the same.
Granted writers and artists will often work freelance or in some sort of partnership/financing/publishing deal. However the same rules apply. You have to keep your wits about you and make sure you know exactly what you are signing over. Clearly this guy didn't understand what he had signed over or just didn't care.
The harsh outcome Marvel and Disney have perused is clearly a tactic to kill this guys claim dead. And indeed that's no different to the tactics being used the mobile patent wars. This is sadly how IP is fought over. If you push your luck too far it's an all or nothing game.
I would however agree that large companies shouldn't make false claims with regard to their motives. Copyright minimalists are clearly not interested in the artists and content creators. The only thing that drives them is pure profit. But then again I don't see many people refusing to buy what they're selling.
More of us will still consume mainstream Hollywood backed content than those who will go without or choose to only support independent film makers and musicians even though we know where the money really goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selling Content Others Create And Keeping The Profits Is Their Business!
Content companies want you to believe this is just how business is done. So they offer you (the talent) a job and they will pay you well for it, but the cost is that your IP becomes theirs. So the artist has to choose between employment or his protecting his IP. Look at the case of the creators of Superman. When you are faced with starvation and the people that control the distribution tell you that you can give up or rights and eat, or keep your ideas to yourself; that hardly seems like you have the choice to keep your wits about you.
Things have changed now and its far easier for artists to get their work out and many of them will absolutely not give up the rights to their own creations. Image comics appeared on the scene when a bunch of Marvel artists and writers simply would not give up the rights to their creations.
The point is that these companies spend a lot of time and effort telling everyone how copyright laws and enforcement are to protect the artists and to keep all those hard working people employed. If you want to know what content theft really looks like, ask the creator of Ghost Rider or Superman.
I may be wrong, but doesn't copyright extend to the life of the content owner + another 30 years or so? And aren't corporations considered to be "people" now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selling Content Others Create And Keeping The Profits Is Their Business!
Copyright maximalists (content brokers) are clearly not interested in the artists and content creators. The only thing that drives them to lobby for stronger and longer copyright laws that they can use to beat others into submission is pure profit, and their unabashed and unfettered need to sacrifice human souls upon the alter of greed to the god of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lesson:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The point of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, this isn't the point of the article. As many commenters have said above, copyright law is usually justified by its lobbyists as necessary for artists to get paid for their creations, especially so if they're very successful. We invoke the image of an artist who doesn't see a penny while millions of people enjoy his work to promote copyright/fight piracy, and yet this is exactly what happens once we have copyright laws installed. While it is true that the artist in question might have acted greedy under the current copyright law, it makes you wonder whether it should be there in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Iger
Truth is stranger than fiction!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disney...
Disney has so gone downhill since his death.
Too bad, Walt created something wonderful.
The suits are doing their best to destroy what little vestige of Walt is left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone earlier said...
QFT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]