so without referencing all the legalese BS, what's the real story here? And please refrain from the default 'Evil corporation is evil and wants blood from innocent' because I'm sure there's more to it than that.

It sucks that Marvel made many artists sign away the rights to their characters in 1978. But, legally, those artists don't have a leg to stand on. The fact that they signed that statement is pretty much the end of it.

Coming back later and saying, "But I had the idea before I started working for Marvel so therefore that agreement I signed is meaningless" just won't hold up in a court of law. Friedrich's lawyers should have known that, and they never should have tried to sue Marvel to get the rights back, and never exposed themselves to the counterclaims suit that Marvel filed - and won. It was a bad legal strategy from beginning to end.

It does suck that Marvel filed the counterclaim. The classy thing to do would have been to leave him alone after they'd won their lawsuit. Probably, though, Marvel is sending a message to anyone else who tries to file a dubious lawsuit against them - it will cost you.

Don't think I'm on Marvel's side on this; I'm not. How they took advantage of their artists is despicable. Stan Lee really put the screws to a lot of good writers back in the day.

Basically, Marvel are claiming that anything Gary Friedrich sold at conventions is their property and he owes them money for it. Also, they are saying he is never allowed to say that he was the one who created Ghost Rider. This move could possibly affect just about every artist, writer and comic convention.

Jethro74: Basically, Marvel are claiming that anything Gary Friedrich sold at conventions is their property and he owes them money for it. Also, they are saying he is never allowed to say that he was the one who created Ghost Rider. This move could possibly affect just about every artist, writer and comic convention.

Marvel would never have gone after Friedrich like that if he hadn't sued them to get the rights to Ghost Rider back. If he'd just left them alone and quietly done his convention appearances, it's likely Marvel wouldn't've cared.

Marvel didn't "make people sign their rights away" in 1978, they never had rights to the characters. If anything, they were signing an agreement to never claim rights that it was understood they never had.

Also, since around that time, many of the artists "taken advantage of" made hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties from sales.

As for Stan Lee "putting the screws to writers" well, then he screwed nobody more than he screwed himself -- if he had rights to all his characters, he would be a multi-billionaire today.

Monual: Jethro74: Basically, Marvel are claiming that anything Gary Friedrich sold at conventions is their property and he owes them money for it. Also, they are saying he is never allowed to say that he was the one who created Ghost Rider. This move could possibly affect just about every artist, writer and comic convention.

Marvel would never have gone after Friedrich like that if he hadn't sued them to get the rights to Ghost Rider back. If he'd just left them alone and quietly done his convention appearances, it's likely Marvel wouldn't've cared.

That's very true. The problem, however, with how litigious and IP greedy/hungry Disney is, I can see them using this case a precedence to try and screw more people over. I'm not saying they will, I wouldn't put it past them.

These agreements are a really good object lesson in understanding what you're signing before you put pen to paper. The document clearly says you're giving all rights to your character to Marvel, period.
But remember the comic book atmosphere in the mid to late seventies. There were few to no money-making movies (Superman did come out in '78 to start the comic book movie trend) and a few animated and live TV shows but no real ratings monsters. So some artists may have thought here's a way to make money now as opposed to gambling on a future that, at the time, may not have seemed to be a profitable route. It's sad, foresight can be cloudy and hindsight is always 20/20.

Monual: Marvel would never have gone after Friedrich like that if he hadn't sued them to get the rights to Ghost Rider back. If he'd just left them alone and quietly done his convention appearances, it's likely Marvel wouldn't've cared.

It feels disgusting to say anything remotely positive about Goliath when he squashes David, but THIS. Friedrich was the plaintiff in this case, it's not like he was going about his business and Marvel suddenly ambushed him.

And here I was NOT going to see that movie because of Nic Cage. Now I have another good reason.

ozone: TFA As Friedrich himself has stated, he is unemployed, has no real assets and is, for all intensive purposes, destitute.

Did Nicolas Cage's hair write and edit that article?

Wow. That may be the most atrocious error ever committed in the history of the English language.

Decillion: ozone: TFA As Friedrich himself has stated, he is unemployed, has no real assets and is, for all intensive purposes, destitute.

Did Nicolas Cage's hair write and edit that article?

Wow. That may be the most atrocious error ever committed in the history of the English language.

It's also a very common one though. Say it with me people: Intents. And. Purposes. Try saying it both ways. The difference is that one of them makes sense.

Jethro74: Basically, Marvel are claiming that anything Gary Friedrich sold at conventions is their property and he owes them money for it. Also, they are saying he is never allowed to say that he was the one who created Ghost Rider. This move could possibly affect just about every artist, writer and comic convention.

They royally screwed Jack Kirby and they literally left Bill Mantlo to rot away in a nursing home, and now everyone is shocked, SHOCKED to find out how Marvel gyps it's employees below the editor level?

tarnok: Decillion: ozone: TFA As Friedrich himself has stated, he is unemployed, has no real assets and is, for all intensive purposes, destitute.

Did Nicolas Cage's hair write and edit that article?

Wow. That may be the most atrocious error ever committed in the history of the English language.

It's also a very common one though. Say it with me people: Intents. And. Purposes. Try saying it both ways. The difference is that one of them makes sense.

Seeing "could of..." in articles still makes me want to punch myself in the throat.

ozone: TFA As Friedrich himself has stated, he is unemployed, has no real assets and is, for all intensive purposes, destitute.

Did Nicolas Cage's hair write and edit that article?

Came here to point that out.

Do your job well, folks. If you're paid to write articles, then don't garble the language.

As Friedrich himself has stated, he is unemployed, has no real assets and is, for all intensive purposes, destitute.

thats so embarrassing i'm feeling sympathy cringes for the author.

Monual:
Don't think I'm on Marvel's side on this; I'm not. How they took advantage of their artists is despicable. Stan Lee really put the screws to a lot of good writers back in the day.

I wonder if the guy was trying to do a George Michael?

TV's Vinnie: they literally left Bill Mantlo to rot away in a nursing home

where do you keep your vegetables when they've outgrown the crisper?

Mrbogey: ozone: TFA As Friedrich himself has stated, he is unemployed, has no real assets and is, for all intensive purposes, destitute.

Did Nicolas Cage's hair write and edit that article?

Came here to point that out.

Do your job well, folks. If you're paid to write articles, then don't garble the language.

Also came here to point it out. Now, what makes you think some random guy at blogspot is getting paid to write about a comic art legal dispute?

/not being paid still doesn't excuse that bit of linguistic sputum

unlikely: Wow, Marvel is as dickish as DC.

Please... Marvel is even MORE dickish than DC.

And you think this is new?

They left Jack Kirby to rot in hell.

JACK...farkING...KIRBY!!!

FirstNationalBastard: For example, Roy Thomas has said he would only revamp old characters back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, because he would have hated to see something brand new he created baby signed over to Marvel or DC and used in a movie, as has happened with Friedrich and Ghost Rider.



/name only, but still

unlikely: Wow, Marvel is as dickish as DC.

It depends on the creator. Sure, DC farked Siegel and Shuster over hard, fast, and repeatedly, but supposedly one of the reasons that the New Gods were in the Super Friends cartoon was so Kirby could get some residuals.

So, if a writer can sue for more money when an character he came up with one day ends up being worth a lot of money, is the reverse true? Can Marvel sue him for the good money they paid him for characters that flopped? Could say that all of his characters should be worth as much as Ghost Rider, and that he knowingly gave them inferior product?

Seriously, they paid him a salary to churn out comics. They accepted all the financial risks of failure (his salary, production costs, marketing, etc.), and they get slammed for accepting the rewards of success? Without Marvel's risks, would Ghost Rider just be a doodle in some unknown artist's sketch book? Should they have given him a bonus for making them millions? Sure, I would have, but they don't have to do it (he quit working for them, after all. Hey, maybe I can sue the companies I've worked at for bonuses I would have earned if I hadn't quit.). He created it for them to use as they see fit. Now he see's the money rolling in, and he wants a piece. Who's greedy here?

Don't like it? Go start you own publishing company/artist collective, and it'll be sunshine and unicorns for all.

overzealous: So, if a writer can sue for more money when an character he came up with one day ends up being worth a lot of money, is the reverse true? Can Marvel sue him for the good money they paid him for characters that flopped? Could say that all of his characters should be worth as much as Ghost Rider, and that he knowingly gave them inferior product?

Seriously, they paid him a salary to churn out comics. They accepted all the financial risks of failure (his salary, production costs, marketing, etc.), and they get slammed for accepting the rewards of success? Without Marvel's risks, would Ghost Rider just be a doodle in some unknown artist's sketch book? Should they have given him a bonus for making them millions? Sure, I would have, but they don't have to do it (he quit working for them, after all. Hey, maybe I can sue the companies I've worked at for bonuses I would have earned if I hadn't quit.). He created it for them to use as they see fit. Now he see's the money rolling in, and he wants a piece. Who's greedy here?

Don't like it? Go start you own publishing company/artist collective, and it'll be sunshine and unicorns for all.

honestly, it would be in the interests of "goodwill towards men" to give the man that created the character that is currently bringing in money (i mean come on it isn't like Ghost Rider is going to be a huge money maker, but it will make some dough) if nothing else acknowledgment and possibly even a "hey, thanks for that" small pile of money. It is pretty dickish not to. work for hire and all that, but come ON. there is telling someone "sorry, you signed off the rights" and then just being a cock.

/how come in so many cases biological parents can come back and take kids even after they have signed off on them? i mean, work for hire and all that.

Sounds like the pattern is full.

im told that doing a search with a name followed by sucks will give an indication of public dissatifaction. also informed that disney sets at the top of that for the shear number of hits.

I'm Ghost Rider and I approve of Marvel being a dick,


/because they're my dick

Slappy McCynical: These agreements are a really good object lesson in understanding what you're signing before you put pen to paper.

Sadly, this means that any time you sign a contract, you should probably run it by a lawyer. Shell out the few hundred bucks so that they explain to you what it means; it may pay for itself if you have room to negotiate. In my last two employment contracts I had lawyers look at them to make sure I understood everything.

I had a crappy, crappy non-compete clause in one: I wasn't allowed to work within 15 miles of the workplace in any form of competition for 2 years after termination.

Problem was, this was the STATE OF RHODE ISLAND. Any place to which I might have been interested in going was well within that radius, or so far outside I might have to move (e.g. Boston area).

I knew what I was signing, but the lawyer helped me shape my future when we discussed the non-compete in detail. I tell all my trainees to get a lawyer to look at the employment contract.

/Yes, I'm enjoying New York now.
//I used to think it was "intensive purposes" -- until 9th grade.
///But I was never ignorant enough to write "could of"

lake_huron: Slappy McCynical: These agreements are a really good object lesson in understanding what you're signing before you put pen to paper.

Sadly, this means that any time you sign a contract, you should probably run it by a lawyer. Shell out the few hundred bucks so that they explain to you what it means; it may pay for itself if you have room to negotiate. In my last two employment contracts I had lawyers look at them to make sure I understood everything.

I had a crappy, crappy non-compete clause in one: I wasn't allowed to work within 15 miles of the workplace in any form of competition for 2 years after termination.

Problem was, this was the STATE OF RHODE ISLAND. Any place to which I might have been interested in going was well within that radius, or so far outside I might have to move (e.g. Boston area).

I knew what I was signing, but the lawyer helped me shape my future when we discussed the non-compete in detail. I tell all my trainees to get a lawyer to look at the employment contract.

/Yes, I'm enjoying New York now.
//I used to think it was "intensive purposes" -- until 9th grade.
///But I was never ignorant enough to write "could of"

Yeah he definitely should of got a lawyer to read the contract before he signed it.

Ghost Ride The Whip.

Boo-farking-hoo. He signed the document & the checks. He was an adult, it was his decision.

Now the $17k is a shiatty move on Marvel's part, but that's just business.

Get over it.

Am I the only one who sees the irony of a guy being sued by Marvel over a character he created about a guy who made a pact with the Devil?