• The contract was on the back of a paycheck, and it predated the copyright act of 1976, which redefined work for hire. Also, look up Peggy Lee's lawsuit against Disney over Lady and the Tramp and video. It's relevant to this case, and she won. Educate yourself.

• oh gosh. you mean now Gary can't sell unauthorized prints of other people's art and line his own pockets with it anymore? how awful. (I guess because he's sick it's somehow ok for him to illegally profit off Mike Ploog and others' work?)

• I'm as liberal as the next guy, but I think we have to see this from the companies standpoint.  The countersuit is more a warning to other people who might intend to go after Disney corps character rights. After all those character and story rights are essentially the bread and butter of that company. Marvel doesn't want hundreds of nutcases filing lawsuits claiming they originally created Kermit the Frog, Iron Man, or Mickey Mouse.

• I met Gary Frederich at a local con (TippCon in Lafayette, IN) 2 years ago. He signed my Ghost Rider #1. His physical contition is, to put it mildly, poor. He could barely sign his name let alone write a comic book today. I am all for copyright holder rights, but there is a limit. I think this crosses it. I posted to Marvel's Facebook page, my local comic stores page, and my own page.  This is sad.

• Well that would certainly be a sensible approach.

• I'd think <em>Princess and the Frog</em> and <em>Tangled</em> would at least untarnish the animation division - oh, wait, Pixar went and tarnished their name with <em>Cars 2</em>.

•  Naw, it's Avi Arad's doing on how he likes fucking people over. Marvel's parent company, Disney followed suit with the lawsuit since they didn't want the name of any of their films tarnished despite the fact they are tarnishing it themselves.

• Huh. Ty Templeton has a comic that illustrates that this whole Marvel v Friedrich case isn't black and white or cut and dry. http://tytempletonart.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/more-angry-fans-bun-toons-yay/ Aside from other creators, who also got screwed by Marvel, there's also the bit where it seems that Friedrich was selling Ghost Rider prints of art that wasn't even his own and not paying the artist. Yeah. Not so much on his side now with that detail.. Though Marvel could have just dropped that damn thing and not be trying to get blood from a stone. That's still an asshole move.

• Welcome to the American Way.

• See, I think I probably would, but after hearing all these horror stories about how some of these creators get treated, there's absolutely, positively no way I would create any new characters for either of these two. What I would try to do is use them for all they're worth as I'm sure they're using me. Gain a rep, get some cash, then I'm out to do my own thing, a la Moore, Miller, Millar, whoever, making sure whatever characters I create that are near and dear to my heart I retain complete and total control over. One would have to assume that I had any sort of talent in the field, first, of course, sure, but still...

• If I'm reading this right, he signed a contract that said Marvel would own his work, created Ghost Rider, then tried to claim money for it after he was long gone. How is that a bullshit system? The contract he signed in the first place meant he should have known better.

• This is fucking shitty. Marvel can go fuck itself. Over the last couple of years, my buy pile for Marvel has dwindled down to about two books and after reading this, I'm thinking about dropping those because this is such a douche bag move. Seriously, Marvel, a move like this makes you worse than every super villain you've ever published. Again, go fuck yourself.

• Writers and artists sign the exact same contract with DC, yet DC makes sure the creators of a character or story receive money when one of their ideas hits the big (or small screen). So why can't Marvel do this? Oh, and go fuck yourself over the "he signed a contract." If I were to help the company I work for, makes tens of millions of dollars, I would get a bonus or a finders fee. Despite the fact, my company isn't legally required to do so. The delivery guy who came up with some pizza bites gets recognized by Dominos and one of the creators of Ghost Rider gets nothing?

• Boycotting Ghost Rider 2 officially now :)

• Abortion the musical?  eww creepy. Starts off with Going through the motions,  I've got a a Donkey, I'm under your Opiate induced spell. This isn't going any where good 

• Kirkman and Moore are at it again? I still remember reading the first Battle Pope trade, with its glowing love letter from Kirkman to Moore; and then reading the second trade, where the letter started with "TONY MOORE IS A ROTTEN PIECE OF SHIT" and went downhill from there.

• Issit' ok to play REM's "Losing My Religion" followed by "It's The End Of The World As We Know It" with the volume on 13? If so, I'm there...walking over you, for a front row seat

• Marvel stopped getting my money back in 1981. The End.

• I thought that was the generic C&P motto for all corporations.

• I'm not a writer or an artist, even if I were, I  wouldn't work for them.

• Clearly there's a typo in this article. You meant Friedrich was suing to have his credit taken OFF of fuckin' Ghost Rider, right? I mean, this is Ghost Rider we're talking about. I mean, I'm not about to admit to creating Ass Chaps - Chapped Asses. I just quietly draw pinups of them in my tent of shame at conventions.

• Uhmmm, actually, that's kinda why the economy is fuct. There are people doing most of the work we take for granted, for a dollar a day. In my not so humble opinion...greed is a mental illness.

• Would any immortal vampire give a flying fuck?

• As an immortal vampire, you'd think Cage would have the smarts to invest some money. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2011/09/is-nicolas-cage-a-vampire-from-the-civil-war-era/

• I always thought that was evident after One More Day...

• Why should there be consequences? Marvel didn't have to go after him after they already won. It comes across as petty and vindictive.

• honestly, are you just trying to be dim witted? Marvel sends out threatening lawyers letters to intimidate people into submission all the time. I have no connection to the industry and I've still heard of at least 5 people in the past 2 years who have received letters from the Marvel Legal team, for things as benign as fan art! Yes I believe Marvel to be a Litigious and vindictive company.  

• Did not know that.  Oh well.  Was a thought...

• The PayPal Donation Site is up now. http://www.steveniles.com/gary.html

• The PayPal Donation Site is up now as well. http://www.steveniles.com/gary.html

• UPDATE: Steven Niles has set up a PayPal account to raise money for Gary Friedrich. http://www.steveniles.com/gary.html If you can give, do so.  If you cannot, please share this information. 

• That's DOCTOR Coat-Hangery to you sweetie. Dr. Coat-Hangery M.D. His specialist field? Gynecology: Tijuana style.

•  Here are the details to that on Gary's wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Friedrich

• Definitely.

•  Moral over legal. Morally fuck Marvel. Were they technically legally right. Yup. Unfortunately. Still doesn't raise my respect for a company built on others ideas yet so ashamed of giving those creators even a moments credit. So. Fuck Marvel. Period.

• He sued. He lost. He paid the consequences as a result. Why is this so hard for people to understand?  If you're going to complain about anyone, complain about the person who convinced him that he had a case when he very obviously didn't.

• Cage has money / legal / tax troubles of his own these days.

• The suit was likely filed against Marvel before the Disney merger.  Not sure why they didn't amend it to include Disney as a co-defendant after the fact.

• This doesn't force them out of the equation, though. They just aren't in this fight. It's a typical story of early Marvel - early on they had a very dynamic creation process. Just look to the Kirby/Lee stories. They both have had a part in those characters, they both deserve credit. The difference between Kirby and Lee, however, is a ten million dollar settlement.

• Isn't there some controversy with him, Roy Thomas, and Mike Ploog over who created what, though?

• trades in mr.pointy for mr.coat-hangery?

• "I got a feeling..it could be donkeys. Tijuana donkeys, no, something isnt right there."

• WTF? If he is at our con this year I am slipping him a $100. I hope he is getting in contact with the CBLDF. Fuckin corporate cocksucker nonsense is what that is.

• I was so confused when I read the words "Buffy the Vampire Season 9 comic." My first thoughts were, "Wait, she's a vampire now? And they can get pregnant? I mean, I guess there was that thing with Darla..." But then I realized that this was just a typo.

• Moral rights in the United States have a short, and rather weak adoption. It's extremely plausible that they can not only wipe his name from any association with Ghost Rider, they can also sue him for making any claim regarding his creation of the character. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29#Moral_rights_in_the_United_States

• Beating a dead horse, but legal does not equal ethical. When a law is unethical, you don't defend it. Period. When a creator has lost out on money and legacy simply because of when he was working in the industry, it's our job as fans to change that, somehow. We can pressure Marvel into changing the way they treat their veterans. Then these lawsuits against them might just stop.

• Sorry, writer and drawing went together in my head for some reason - I'm fully aware of Ploog and Thomas' contributions to the creation of Ghost Rider. Regardless, what you call the law, I call bullshit and corporate protectionism. Copyright wasn't set up to protect corporations, it was set up to allow a period of time for the creators of a work to benefit, after which time the culture would benefit via the public domain. That's been twisted by - guess who - Disney ever since they were in danger of losing their own copyrighted characters.

• Too true.  You hate to see great creators like Kirby, Siegel, and Shuster not get their due.  So Image was created as an answer to "corporate greed".  But if Image in the 90's is the starting point, Marvel in the 2010's is the finish line.  See how easily we can lose our way when a few dollars are involved.

•  That part, I am curious about. I don't know if Marvel can do that. I would need to see the whole legal argument. Maybe he can't charge autographs for saying that because that's like making money of Marvel property or something. I don't know.

• Even though I think you're right, it would be awesome if Kirkman just said, "Here's a burlap sack full of gold coins.  Thanks for your work, now we're even."  

•  I do agree that in terms of morality, it would be nice if companies treated employees much better. I would love to see all creators be able to comfortably live off their work. But rationally speaking, I can't get too worked up over people who take the checks and then years later start crying fowl. I wouldn't want someone I paid for a job coming back over and over saying I owe him more money because I'm doing well. If Ghost Rider had flopped way back then, would he owe Marvel money? I just know too many perfectly qualified people who are just looking for work, any work. I feel sorry for anyone who is unhappy but when I have to prioritize my pity I can't feel to bad for someone who is now just in the same boat as me.

• Wait, denying him the right to promote himself as the creator? How is that even a thing that can be denied? It's a fact!

•  Your opinion is horrible and if everyone thought the way you did we would all be working for $1 a day right now. The way that workers get rights is by fighting for them. No corporation will ever chose to do the right or moral thing. So, Im glad there are people like Friedrich out there who will fight for whats right. And I hope people who share your opinions will just keep it to themselves and not make things worse for the rest of us.

• thank you goodnight

• It's all in the context of the situation. If we started saying "Oh, Disney has too much money" before we rob Disneyland, or just decide to sneak in, then it's just a pathetic excuse. But here, it's not about an excuse, it's about a general level of morality. A large, multi-billion dollar company is demanding 17k from an elderly man who is poor for the apparent crime of attributing his name to a popular character that he indeed created. The man stole nothing and his life work is what keeps him afloat these days. Marvel should look at one of their popular slogans here for advice on what to do in this matter: "With great power, comes great responsibility."

• thank you goodnight

• Hahaha! Nice! :)

• It's also how it is for the rest of the working world too, Only in the creative industries do people even think of trying this stuff. I would love to go to my bosses and say. The company is swimming in money, in addition to my paycheck, I think I deserve rights to your property even after I quit. I also don't like "they have too much money" philosophy, I guarantee there are people out there that think every one of us has too much money. Of course, none of us would ever say WE have too much money. I get scared whenever the notion of one person deciding another person has "too much" comes up.

• now all they need to do is thaw up cthutlu and we've got the end of the world baby! i knew i loved the MARVEL + DISNEY carnal union for a reason

• That Marvel maneuver is ripped straight from the Disney playbook. It makes for a great union... of cold, heartless, greedy EVIL!

• He didn't draw him. He reproduced official Marvel artwork and sold it. Copyright infringement in its most basic sense. What you call "excuses", I'm calling "the law".

• The Kirby situation is very different. That involved founding characters when the company was starting up, before contracts and rights acquisition were part of the gameplan. Anything after that era is known to be a work-for-hire situation. If you work for Marvel, you are employed for the purpose of creating ideas, characters and stories <i>for them</i>. You don't get to hang onto the rights to these things. If you play nice, you get creator credit and maybe a bonus. If you pitch a fit, they sic their lawyers on you and you end up having a tough time. 

• Some people will say whatever they have to to ease their conscience so they can continue buying X-Men every week.

• Given some of Quesada's comments about how DC treated Alan Moore over Watchmen and how Marvel never did that at all?  You can loathe him for the hypocrisy but I'm not sure you can hate him for this since we don't have any proof he was the one who sent the lawyers after Friedrich like so many flying monkeys.

• Well, as a writer and artist, I think we have to look at the reason why The Walking Dead is such a success. Is it the artwork? Partially. Is it the writing? Definitely. Can the artwork get by without the writing? Probably not. Can the writing get by with another artist? Yes, and it has since the early issues. He signed away his rights. He left early on. He was not integral to the success of the comic book or the television show. It sucks, but he didn't secure co-creator credit or hang onto his rights, so he's out the big bucks. At this point, legally-speaking, he's just a guy who worked for Kirkman for a few issues in the beginning.

• Marvel won't............but Disney will

• The original talent was working under contract, and therefore was acting illegally when selling merchandise related to a character he did not own the rights to, having given them up as a work-for-hire.  This is simple stuff. As I said above in another post, every artist should probably know by now that if you work under contract for a large company, your creations don't belong to you unless it's specifically stipulated in your contract that you retain ownership or part-ownership of anything you create. And Marvel/DC aren't likely to allow that, these days.  It sucks, but it's the way the industry is arranged and he should know this. I feel for him, but he went out there and committed copyright infringement even though he knew he didn't own the rights to Ghost Rider. 

• Once again, as with every other large comic book company's contracts, characters are created as work for hire. If you work for Marvel and create "AwesomeMan", and then stop working for Marvel, you do not own any rights to AwesomeMan. You cannot sell AwesomeMan merch. You cannot promote yourself as the owner of AwesomeMan, because you gave up the right to the character as part of your employment agreement. You were already compensated for the creation of AwesomeMan when you collected your salary from Marvel Comics. Every artist and creator knows this-- or should. It's why it's so tough to be an artist or creator and make a decent living while retaining the rights to your creations. If you don't market your creation yourself, then <i>someone else probably owns it</i> in some capacity. This happens to recording artists, to screenwriters, to comic book creators, to songwriters, to costume designers, and even to actors, sometimes.  When you create something as a work-for-hire or contract artist, you are generally not allowed to maintain ownership of the creation. You sign over ownership to your employer. It sucks. It's annoying. But that's the way it works most of the time. If you want to create AwesomeMan and retain all the rights to him, you need to publish his adventures yourself, or find a publisher that has a hands-off policy when it comes to creators' rights to their creations. Marvel and DC, though?  Anything you make while working for them is theirs. That's the way it has been for many, many decades now.  

• ... personally, I'd rather read Peanuts than any Ghost Rider comic ever written, but to each their own.

• As I understand it, that was all Friedrich asked for originally, plus whatever money he might normally be owed as creator.  Which wouldn't be much, relatively speaking. To put this in perspective, Stan Lee wasn't making anything off of any of the movies based on characters he created until he took Marvel to court.  In fact, I seem to recall Lee saying, back when the first Spider-Man movie came out in 2002, that he had made more money off his movie cameos than he had gotten for Marvel for creating the characters! Originally he was granted 10% of the profits for any movie based on a character he created.  Marvel appealed and was ready to drag it out into a battle Stan couldn't afford.  Stan agreed to settle for a 10 million dollar flat fee in exchange for a legal agreement where he signed away any future claim to the use of the characters he created in anything ever. 

• Yes, Marvel, the company that had the suit filed against them, is the litigious one. Gotcha.

• now that's a donkey show!

• " Simply due to his expressed views on creator's rights, which was the philosophy that Image was founded upon" As long as it doesn't take anything out of their pockets. before they didn't have any in their pockets so it was easy to be Idealistic, Now..... not so much.....

• You know if she goes down to Tijuana she can get a volume discount.

• Yeah.  I get the feeling this may be Joss's big FU at Breaking Dawn, which managed to turn Bela's nearly getting killed by her half-vampire baby into a big statement about the evils of abortion and how a woman's only purpose is to have babies.

• Sometimes I wonder what it must be like to be as evil as Marvel/Disney in this situation. I mean, is there ever a moment of self-awareness? After waking up in their mansions built by illegal immigrants who they subsequently had deported, on a bed of former honor students that they corrupted into heroin-addicted porn stars and having a breakfast made entirely of endangered species and then ruining old, broke men who helped make them money, and adding every insult on top of every injury, think, "Holy fuck, I am actually evil!" I suppose not, but it strikes me as rather hard to miss.

• And we wouldn't be outraged by it, either. Marvel needs to change the way it treats it's legacy creators. This is the ONLY way to get that to happen. And it's just goddam sad that he can be screwed over by drawing a character that he created. The fact that you make excuses for actions that Marvel didn't have to take against him is mystifying to me.

• In theory, yes.  But they usually don't go after them at conventions simply because it's not worth the money to send lawyers out to every little convention or to go after artists who are creating original works of copyrighted characters privately as the money involved is chump change compared to what it costs to pay/fly around lawyers. The one exception to this is Disney, as I remember one con in Dallas where word got out that there were Disney lawyers in the house and there was a hurried rush as several artists who did adult works of  various Disney princesses began rushing product off the floor and out the back. :)

• This is a perfect example of "if you come at the king, you best not miss."  As best as I can tell, Friedrich's argument was a long shot at best and he should have expected Marvel to counterclaim against him.  So he certainly should have known what he was doing when he started poking the hornet's nest. But, then again, would you risk $17,000 for a shot a piece of a multi-million dollar pie?  I probably would.

• This all happened at a time when screwing creators over was standard practice and Marvel Comics was one of two games in town.  If you wanted to work in comics, you had to agree to whatever was on your pay stub, no negotations.  So it's not fair to say "Well, he should have known what he was getting into..."  Even experienced creators like Jack Kirby, who had been screwed over by their bosses before, fell prety to this sort of legalese because the alternative was to leave the business entirely.  And all of this is exactly why groups like the Hero Initiative were created.  http://www.heroinitiative.org/

• I was with Moore until I read "Thinking the deal would fall apart, Moore signed the contract".    Really, did Moore not get his own legal representation?  I can't sympathize with stupidity.  But IF Moore is owed money, they he should be paid.   

• And using mercenary as an adjective is why I love you, Rob.

• Sorry about that little rant there. but actions like thing really get under my skin, it is just another example of Might making Right. I don't understand why artist still want to work for this company, when they do so it's at the expense of all their predecessors. Artist might be a lot smarter "legally" today so far better contract are written up. However there is no apparent unity among Creators, writers and artist which allows the company to keep acting in bad faith with the original talent.

• how buffy discovered her abortion fetish

• There is one now. http://www.steveniles.com/gary.html

• The same Image that was home to a creator's rights dispute between Todd McFarlane and Neil Gaiman for years?

• But... it IS his own fault, precisely BECAUSE he fought the bullshit system. I'm not disputing ethics, or the fact I'd like to see the system change. I'm simply saying that this would not have happened to Friedrich if he hadn't done what he did. He caused his current circumstances by fighting a battle he had no chance of winning. He wouldn't have won, but he wouldn't be paying anything either if he hadn't committed copyright infringement himself.

• It breaks my little nerd heart to read what Marvel is doing to Friedrich.  The Avengers vs Xmen thing sort of got me excited, and for a brief moment I found myself considering purchasing some comics...but, not so much now.  I'd rather send Friedrich that money. F*ck the new GR movie.  F*ck Nic Cage.  And seriously, F*ck you Marvel. More and more lately, you see the little man making a difference.  Time for the fan boys to give back to those that made our childhoods a bit more colorful.  If it wasn't for guys like Friedrich, we'd all be reading Peanuts and Garfield mags. Contact Disney!  Contact Marvel! Make the rage known!  Boycott the shit out of the new GR flick!

•  Thank you!

• I really can't stand the head office at Marvel. There all just a bunch of petty money grubbing wankers. Pathetic litigious arrogant cock-knockers who require some Prozac to mellow out. Their attitude sucks Donkey balls,  and has for a long time now. "Give us your money and shut the fuck up." should be there Corporate motto.

• That would be 20th Century Danny Boy, who originally broke the story. http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/2012/02/gary-friedrich-enterprises-llc-et-al-v.html

• Tracking him down will be easy enough.  Just check the convention listings for his name and send a lawyer there. Will Marvel think it's worth the investment to continue to strike out against the Oliver Twist who dared to say "Please sir, might I have some more?"  Given that they've gone through this much trouble so far, I'd say it's a fair bet.

• I'm not supporting Marvel's stance on creator's rights at all, because it's wrong.  HOWEVER: I am amused that there were two near identical stories contained here, but they were treated completely differently. Robert Kirkman cheats Tony Moore out of what he's owed for Walking Dead Marvel cheats Friedrich out of his creator credit on Ghost Rider. The headline?  "MARVEL KICKS BABIES...also, Walking Dead news" I know TR is not the Washington Post, but let's call a spade a spade. In fact, I'm far more disappointed in Kirkman.  Simply due to his expressed views on creator's rights, which was the philosophy that Image was founded upon.

• Really? So I can't blindly blame Quesada like I wanted to? Because I wanted to.

• Smoking Gun?

• And even recognition is tough - Marv Wolfman sued Marvel for an insane amount of money over the Blade movies. Guess what he won? A creator's credit in the first and third movies. That's it.

• In theory they could yes.  The other issue is the freelance artists on every "artist alley" at cons. Most of those are just artists that have done no comic book work selling their prints of characters they have no stake in.   All companies know about this and have no issue with it (if they have to give a % of sales I don't know but I doubt it), the thing is Marvel/DC/Image etc don't do anything because no one rocks the boat with this.  I feel bad for Gary Friedrich honestly but he should have known better, Disney will come down hard on people that come after them, that isn't anything new.  Right or wrong doesn't come into it. 

• I'm pretty sure that if Cthulhu rises in the near future, we can blame Before Watchmen and this.

•  I would go a step further and say that Marvel retained power but it's like bringing your 220 lb, football star brother to a high school fight for "protection". Having access to Disney's legal must be like winning the lottery for assholes with mean spirited counterclaims.

• Yesterday I sent a link to the Ghost Rider story to a friend who's an intellectual property lawyer (and former Marvel Bullpen colleague, so he's aware of what Marvel can get up to) and here was his take on it: "If you want to sue for recognition (i.e., getting your name on stuff), do so. If you want to sue for OWNERSHIP of what has been held as a Marvel property for over 30 years, get ready for a fight. Moreover, if you want to make that case, understand the law. The failure to file a Copyright in a Copyright Office does NOT negate the rights of the owner, it only makes it harder to prove. People still think there are are common-law copyrights and reversion and blah, blah blah. NO! Ownership reverts if there is a contract saying that copyright ownership reverts, as it is a transferable property. However, if the copyright was not challenged back in '72, then the publishing of the book secured rights for the publisher/owner regardless of the filing. He'd have been better off to argue that he never signed the pay stub, never had a discussion about ownership, and fully believed that it was his character, an argument that would have been supported only if he was also receiving a royalty check for all these years. "The lesson learned is that if you're making money at the conventions, just keep making that money. They backhanded him because he tried to backhand them. THIRTY YEARS and NOW you want to make a stink? Even if you go with old wives tales his actions made no sense: 'Possession is nine tenths of the law,' Marvel possessed the rights and trying to rip it from their hands (which would have cost MILLIONS in back royalties, invalidated movie agreements, and voided merchandising contracts) was going to make them fight tooth and nail. Secure those rights up front, just like in the music business or any other art-based business. Get yours FIRST, grip tight, kick and scream if someone wants a piece of the action and demand contracts laying out who owns what

TotalComments: 100