Support Ghost Rider Creator Gary Friedrich

[imp]

I really don't want to get sued myself. I am fighting against a future I do not want, and as a Creator, I cannot afford.

Consider: I sell signed copies of an out-of-print book that is filled with the imagery of Marvel IP. Sound familiar? If you've read anything about this case, it will be very familiar.

Marvel's vindictive, retaliatory counter-suit against Ghost Rider's Creator sets a precedent that, in effect, they could sue me for the same reasons - and the same outcome – as the man about whom I am raising awareness. I'd like to think they won't come after me, but I sure won't stand by and watch them do it to another soul.

This corporate behemoth is curb-stomping a destitute senior citizen, one whose hard work and creativity lined their pockets. I don't want them coming after me next.

(p.s. I appreciate the kind words from Chris, and I welcome all constructive discourse.)

-b

[samurainoir]

The shame about all of this is that it appears that Ghost Rider is one of those characters that falls on the far side of the arbitrary line they drew at a particular date in the seventies that creators would be entitled to royalties/participation/credit, when Marvel started up their profit sharing program in the eighties under Jim Shooter. (or perhaps the date isn't so arbitrary given that Marvel legal was in discussions with Kirby at that time).

I'd imagine the same with Blade, maybe Man Thing as well? Punisher.

That is not to say that there is not a precedence for profit sharing for these kind of movie windfalls even when it s not legally owed by the letter of the law. The corporations ( by their very nature, designed to be socioathic entities) have been moved to behave in a moral fashion when it's been presented as being in their best interests to share the smallest relative decimals with their creators. Particularly after the seigel and shuster thing on the eve of the first Superman film, Warners seems much mre generous. Wrightson and Wein getting a piece of the Swamp Thing action. I'm pretty sure Denny O'Neil got some money when ?batman Begins came out for creating Ras Al Ghul. These are examples of above and beyond given what a catering budget comes in at fr one f these movies, and the fact that Warner/DC by letter f their original contracts don't have to share with these older creators (DC's royalty program kicked in during the eighties as well).

of course this is a gentleman who sued Marvel... Seems like quite an act of desperation if he s destitute. Too often as well though, we've seen creators can be their own worst enemies. As with Friedrich signing the contract in '78, Kirby siding with Marvel against Simon Over Captain America in the seventies, and most recently, Tony Moore signing away hs interest in Walking Dead because he trusted his childhood friend.

Perhaps Marvel in the future can save themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyers fees by writing smaller cheques to Gary Fredrich, Mike Ploog and Roy Thomas to begin with when they know they have a windfall move coming. And cut cheques to Howard Mackie, Javier Saltiers and Mark texiera at the same time given their contributions to what ended up onscreen. (part of me s even thinking that JR Jr must ave gotten Paid for Bkackheart). Even if they have to create some consultant credits and build it into the budget.

Even if Elektra was a bomb, Frank Miller still likely got a cheque after all.

If there is any gray area or dispute about who created what... Something to think about s that Neil Gaiman shares his Sandman creator credit and royalties equally with Sam Keith and Mike Dringenberg. Because comics is a collaborative medium of words and pictures. Proof of Concept in comics is the amalgamation of words and pictures equally.

Marv Wofman might not have sued either if he got a cheque for Blade like he does from the Teen Titans animated series.

[samurainoir]

It should be noted as well, Marvel Has an artist convention print program that I believe they partially subsidize for Marvel artists wanting sell prints of their Marvel work that they can sign and sell. They are easily identifiable by the Marvel logo at the bottom, and all the other legal t's and i's dotted on them.

J. Scott Campbell Amazing Spider-Man Print 11x17 SIGNED | eBay

FRANK CHO SHANNA 2010 SDCC SIGNED PRINT #1 | eBay

J SCOTT CAMPBELL SIGNED MARY JANE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 601 SDCC 09 PRINT SOLD OUT! | eBay

eBay - New & used electronics, cars, apparel, collectibles, sporting goods & more at low prices

eBay - New & used electronics, cars, apparel, collectibles, sporting goods & more at low prices

[ctc]

>neither MARVEL nor DISNEY stand to gain a thing by pursuing Mr. Freidrich

No, but they stand to not lose anything. If you hold copyright on something you HAVE to fight any infringement. Not doing so can be claimed as condoning someone elses' use of your stuff. (I can't for the life of me remeber the actual term....) Freidrich was producing actual product, so they had to come down on him. The amount they sued for is commensurate to the sales they lost; that is, the amount he made off the merchandaise- the law considering that anyone buying his bootlegs would have bought a legit print. I don't know if they COULD sue for less without it looking like they support his efforts.

The convention sketches fall into the same category as the old garage kits; they can turn a blind eye to them so long as they don't become too prevalent. It's not worth policing every table for the sake of a $5 thumbnail.

....'course, if they wanted to they COULD bring the hammer down. They don't 'cos it'd be a lot of bad press, and not worth the expense. (For the garage kit guys, it was usually a C&D: cheap and effective.)

The sad thing is, apart from the undergrounds of the 60's the comic industry was always a horrible grinder. Creators very seldom had ANY say in their creations, and seldom saw any cash other than what they were paid for the work itself. (Which neccesated incredible amounts of output in many cases, so's to make a living wage.) And it was all legal. "Creator Owned" wasn't really a thing until the independents of the early 80's. (Well, WARP in the 70's....)

Don C.

[samurainoir]

Although it's also interesting to note that in the world of comic strips, there were creators who did manage to parlay the clout they had on a syndicate owned strip into their own lucrative creator owned strip. Or the ones who learned from them and always held at least a piece of their creations with the syndicate, particularly in the important arena of licensing.

[ctc]

>it's also interesting to note that in the world of comic strips, there were creators who did manage to parlay the clout they had on a syndicate owned strip into their own lucrative creator owned strip.

Comic strips have always had a weird split form comic books. The strip cartoonists seem to have fared better overall.... even though they didn't normally keep the rights to their stuff. Those were held by the syndicate. Even so, there were few instances of the syndicates trying to squeeze the cartoonists out of profits, or taking characters away from them.

Maybe it was the nature of the work: the strips required a lot less labour from the cartoonists, whereas the books were meat grinders and more likely to burn out the artists. The turnover rate might have required more changes. (Although a LOT of big strip cartoonists were ghosted too.)

Maybe it's some weird social underpinning: comic books have always been seen as the poor cousin of the strip, despite their common origins. (For example: Wertham's crusade focussed on the books, whereas the strips were left unscathed.) Could it be their inclusion with the daily paper made strips more respectable?

Don C.

[samurainoir]

Yeah, strips remained in "mass" culture for the most part whereas comic books were increasingly on a niche slide from the fifties post Wertham/television forward, down into the Undergrounds and comic stores. Strips front and center, with the number of eyeballs in the millions that could give them that clout right through to the pre internet heights of The Far Side and Calvin and Hobbes (notorious for using that clout to NOT cash in on merchandising).

Which is probably why so many comic book guys aspired to be strip guys... Stan Lee and Bob Kane were apparently both hugely enthusiastic about the Spider-man and Batman daily strips because to them, that was their generation's idea of "making it" in comics.

It's fascinating, the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" style spreads you found in fifties magazines about the big houses and fancy cars that Alex Raymond and Stan Drake had.

[samurainoir]

Apologies to Imp... we've gone rather far afield of Friedrich.

here's a highlight of things fans here might have enjoyed of his work if they were considering supporting him...









something interesting to note...

[Brazoo]

Yeah, I think comic books started as second-class citizens of comic strips - and that mentality never left. (Though, maybe recently it has.)

From what I understand (and remember) William Randolph Hearst was a huge proponent of comic strips and paid the artists well. That probably set the bar to some degree for competitors to try and woo new artists.

Also, I think comic strips were tied into bigger money from merchandising/licensing from their onset - Buster Brown being an early one that I can recall.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

Here's another take on the whole thing:

Parting Shot: Ty Templeton's Counterpoint to the Ghost Rider Creator Controversy - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Don C.

[The Toyroom]

^ That Templeton cartoon does bring up an interesting point about using the artwork of Ploog, et. al. to promote his (Friedrich's) autograph...

[Toyman_Chris]

I am suing Templeton for using my likeness......

[Earth 2 Chris]

Marvel will know sue Templeton for using Forbush Man without permission.

Chris

[johnnystorm]

Just a point here: Marvel already owned the Ghost Rider name & character, at least the western version (did they buy that from ME comics?).
And I'm pretty sure there were flaming skull motorcycle group emblems around during the 50s & 60s.
I'm fuzzy about just what was created?

[Earth 2 Chris]

The funny part about all of this is, I think Marvel just kind of took the Ghost Rider name. I think ME had let their copyright on the name lapse, and Roy Thomas advised Stan to scoop it up. I could be wrong here. This is perfectly legal, and it's why you have to protect your copyrighted interests.

I'd say the first use of the term "Ghost Rider" came from the famous country song (heard in the first movie as GR and ghostly Sam Elliott ride through the desert).

Chris