Aren't most of these guys.......especially back then "works 4 hire"?

welcome to america, where legal=right...

boycott marvel.

They were freelancers who neglected to read the important information buried in the fine print relating to intellectual property ownership, namely the publisher retains exclusive rights to all character creations.

peedub said:

welcome to america, where legal=right...

boycott marvel.

As we talked about in the other thread, I agree--but ultimately, shouldn't we boycott Disney? Isn't this just an extension what Disney has been doing for decades to protect its other copyrights?

Identity said:

They were freelancers who neglected to read the important information buried in the fine print relating to intellectual property ownership, namely the publisher retains exclusive rights to all character creations.

Or they were forced to sign the contract even when they didn't want to (as was mentioned in the Stephen Bissette link that peedub shared yesterday on the Avengers movie thread).

It's tough for me to cleanly pick a side on this issue. Friedrich may have created Ghost Rider, but without Marvel, chances are no one would have ever heard of the character and there wouldn't be a movie, let alone a sequel.

But Marvel/Disney's actions in this are pretty despicable. Is it really that hard to develop a monetary reimbursement policy that rewards creators for their creations yet still keeps all copyrights firmly in the hands of the parent companies? In the end, they did sign a contract, so it's too bad but that's that. Still, when properties they created are generating millions, some kind of profit-sharing plan could be implemented to reward creative vision.

Unfortunately for the freelancers, the legal system sides with publishers in these cases, despite the draconian nature of the contracts.

the absolutely morally reprehensible act of countersuing for $17k, rather than a simple cease and desist, is what really sticks in my teeth...

17k likely doesn't even cover the hourly rate these bloodsucking lawyers are earning. of the millions of dollars that these creators have generated for marvel (an entity that would not even exist had jack kirby not been the man he was), you'd think disney could throw out a couple of bones and be thankful for the positive publicity.

peedub said:

the absolutely morally reprehensible act of countersuing for $17k, rather than a simple cease and desist, is what really sticks in my teeth...

They do this 2 send a message................

The Disney/Marvel countersuit against Friedrich for "damages" is truly disgusting, but asking him to renonuce his creator credit adds insult to injury. Heartless bastards.

Graycap23 said:

peedub said:

the absolutely morally reprehensible act of countersuing for $17k, rather than a simple cease and desist, is what really sticks in my teeth...

They do this 2 send a message................

message received, to the effect of losing my dime.

in the record industry

you give advances to up and commers

because you expect more from them,

then they spend the money and fold.

just sayin

Graycap23 said:

peedub said:

the absolutely morally reprehensible act of countersuing for $17k, rather than a simple cease and desist, is what really sticks in my teeth...

They do this 2 send a message................

It was received , loud and clear: " Challenging our ownership of intellectual property or other exclusive rights will result in public disgrace and finanicial ruin."

This is slightly off-topic, but I figured we didn't need another comic-book-lawsuit thread.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/walking-dead-war-creator-robert-288671

'Walking Dead' War: Creator Robert Kirkman Sued By Collaborator (Exclusive)

Robert Kirkman, the famed comic book writer who helped create AMC's hit zombie series The Walking Dead, has been sued by a childhood friend and collaborator who claims he is entitled to as much as half the proceeds from the lucrative franchise.

Michael Anthony ("Tony") Moore, a fellow comic book artist, filed suit Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court. In the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by THR, Moore says he was duped into assigning his interest in the material over to Kirkman, who has since gone on to fame and fortune. Moore, on the other hand, has received very little compensation and has not be able to access profit statements from properties including Walking Dead, he says.
"Each of these works was prepared by [Moore] and Kirkman with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or independent parts of a unitary whole," the complaint states. "[Moore] and Kirkman were thus joint authors and co-owners of the copyrights in these works."

Kirkman and Moore were apparently good friends and collaborators for many years before Kirkman became a big-time name as a creator and writer of Walking Dead, which has become the highest-rated series on cable TV.
Moore claims that in 2005, Kirkman and his agents devised a scheme to fraudulently induce him to assign his copyright interests over to Kirkman's company. Moore, who grew up with Kirkman and worked together on several projects, claims he signed a deal granting him 60 percent of "Comic Publishing Net Proceeds" in connection with Walking Dead and another project called Brit; 20 percent of "motion picture net proceeds" in connection with Walking Dead and Brit; and 50 percent of "motion picture net proceeds" from another project called Battle Pope.
But Moore says he hasn't received much revenue nor any profit statements from Kirkman or his company, despite the success of his projects. "Indeed, they have not issued a single statement or allowed access to their books and records in accordance with the reporting obligations of the agreement," the complaint alleges.
Moore claims he was told in 2005 by Kirkman that a big TV deal was on the table but "that Kirkman would not be able to complete the deal unless [Moore] assigned all of his interest in the Walking Dead and other works to Kirkman," according to the complaint. Thinking the deal would fall apart, Moore signed the contract, he says, allowing Kirkman to "swindle" him out of his 50 percent interest in the copyright and never intending to pay him his share of royalties.
Walking Dead premiered on AMC on Halloween 2010 and has since become basic cable's highest-rated series, drawing as many as 7.3 million viewers.
The suit, filed by Devin McRae, William Wright and Mary Gordon at LA's Early Sullivan Wright Gizer McRae firm, alleges causes of action for promissory fraud, breach of written contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, money had an received and accounting.
Kirkman's attorney Allen Grodzky tells THR that the case is "totally frivolous. Mr. Moore is owed no money at all. And Mr. Moore's contract has an attorneys' fees clause in it so we will be going after him to collect attorneys' fees. We are taking this matter very seriously."

Identity said:

Graycap23 said:

They do this 2 send a message................

It was received , loud and clear: " Challenging our ownership of intellectual property or other exclusive rights will result in public disgrace and finanicial ruin."

Yep..............

Identity said:

Graycap23 said:

They do this 2 send a message................

It was received , loud and clear: " Challenging our ownership of intellectual property or other exclusive rights will result in public disgrace and finanicial ruin."

Financial ruin, yes. I don't know about the public disgrace, though. I would be surprised if comics fans didn't rally to help him raise that $17k.

If he agreed to something, then it's on him. Unfortunately, you can't fall back on the "I didn't read the fine print" defense. If you could, no contract would ever be worth the paper it's written on.

Marvel probably filed the counterclaim because Friedrich's attorney is working on a contingency. In those cases, contingency lawyers will work on their dime when they are the plaintiff, but will not generally defend counterclaims unless paid to do so.

contracts are the art of screwing someone with their consent. which is oversimplified. but, anyone entering into a contract for intellectual property needs to retain an attorney to review the thing before signing. just saying.

http://www.facebook.com/S...1889369118

lots of links to various media outlets on the 'take action' page...

[Edited 2/10/12 14:38pm]

Thanks. I sent a donation through Paypal because I'm outraged over the mistreatment of creators by the Disney/Marvel corporate machine.

I didn't read the story (mainly becuz i don't give a shit) but, that Tee looks eerily similar to the Purple Rain Tee

Another "Creator" Faces Ruin

Feb 10, 2012

Much heat and light has been generated in the last week over the announcement by DC Comics that they would be publishing a series of prequels to the classic ‘Watchmen’comic books – a series half of which which its co-creator, Alan Moore, argues should be his intellectual property, and which should have no prequels at all.

The rights and wrongs of this argument – complicated to some degree by Moore’s use of characters in the public domain and parodies of or allusions to in-copyright characters in his own work, and also the indecipherability of his Northamptonshire deadpan to American audiences – have been debated extensively.

However, the argument over ‘Watchmen‘ is essentially an argument over philosophy and morality. It is of course also over money, but neither Time Warner, DC’s ultimate parent, nor Alan Moore are in immediate danger of penury, and Moore has historically taken a principled stance on refusing compensation for the use of properties he feels should be his by right.

In contrast, a former Marvel Comics employee has just found himself on the receiving end of a judgement by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, saying that he not only has no rights to a character he created, but that he can no longer identify himself as the creator of that character for financial gain, and is facing bankruptcy as a result.

The character is Ghost Rider, a flame-headed biker from beyond the grave currently being played by Nicholas Cage for the second time in ‘Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance’.

Its erstwhile creator, Gary Friedrich, started the ball rolling when the first film was in production by suing Marvel Characters Inc, along with a range of other companies involved in the movie includingColumbia Pictures and Hasbro. He claimed that ownership of the Ghost Rider character reverted to him in 2001, and therefore that he was entitled to remuneration from the film’s aesthetically inexplicable existence.

His suit was unsuccessful, as it was established that that by banking the cheques for his work he was surrendering his rights of ownership to the property. Marvel countersued in 2010, demanding $17,000 in compensation for his sale of non-licensed merchandise at conventions. To provide some context, ‘Ghost Rider’grossed $228m at the box office.

Marvel has now agreed to drop its countersuit, thus ending a series of legal and travel expenses which Friedrich can ill afford, if he pays this sum and undertakes no longer to profit from selling unlicensed Ghost Rider paraphernalia or his status as the character’s creator. He can still sign autographs, but only on approved merchandise.

Art and litigation

This is an awkward situation. Marvel clearly has to protect its entitlement to use these characters, as their deep well of intellectual property is their most valuable asset. ‘The Avengers‘, this year’s stand-out blockbuster action picture, stars characters largely created by Jack Kirby. As recently as last year, the estate of Kirby, who died in 1994, had a claim to entitlement to characters such as Captain America and The Hulk rejected, also in a New York court. Again, the status of the work as work for hire under the 1909 copyright act was the clinching argument.

The question of creative rights is a sensitive one, with compelling arguments on both sides. Emotionally, it seems unjust that the architects of so much of a company’s success, often paid little at the time, should be cut out of the big money generated by the transformation of their characters into full-fledged media properties.

However, the companies have a duty to protect their profits, and if it can be proved that work done was work for hire, then that constitutes protection. In a way, this is almost the inverse of the story of David Choe, the graffiti artist who stands to be massively enriched by the Facebook shares he received in lieu of payment for his work.

Nonetheless, this seems to be a harsh example of the form. Hopefully other creators will rally around to help him with this immediate financial embarrassment. Of potentially further-reaching consequence is the suggestion that creators are also forbidden from profiting from non-approved merchandise sold at conventions.

Many workers in the comic book industry supplement their wages either by selling home-produced merchandise or by producing art on demand for fans at conventions and through private commissions – a thriving grey market which often involves the tacitly approved – or at least ignored – use of copyright characters. If the owners of the properties feel bound to begin to restrict this activity, it may have an impact on the earning power of their current creators.

http://www.forbes.com/sit...lawsuit/2/

http://www.lifehealthpro....s.facebook

bill mantlo's story...

Revolution said:

I didn't read the story (mainly becuz i don't give a shit) but, that Tee looks eerily similar to the Purple Rain Tee

It's true... nobody ever thought to sit on a motorcycle like that until Prince did it.

"With great power comes great responsibility".

- Voltaire