Support Ghost Rider Creator Gary Friedrich

[samurainoir]

DC gave substantial monies to Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams upon the release of Batman Begins, due to their creation of Ra's Al Ghul. Both came out and said it was a nice gesture, and something DC didn't have to do. Even Adams, who fought hard and long to get Siegel and Shuster SOME compensation and credit for Superman. DC then gave Jerry Robinson a salaried position before DKR came out, due to his contribution to the Joker's creation.

Marvel COULD do the same thing, and probably they should. It would go along way to helping their image. But then, Marvel was the last company to start returning artists artwork too, and drug Jack Kirby's legal woes out for decades over the matter.

Chris

And given that many of Marvel's current a-list talent are being rewarded with consulting and design gigs on these movies, it shouldn't be such a big deal to go back and give the actual creators similar gigs... Even if you look at it from a purely PR stance within the comic book community. (unless it's Alan Moore, I don't think any other creator would turn down $$ coming their way so unexpectedly).

[Earth 2 Chris]

Oddly enough, beginning in the 80s, DC started giving creators participation profits on characters they created. Marv Wolfman and George Perez benefitted from the Teen Titans cartoon. Chuck Dixon bought a house with the money he get from "Batman and Robin" (I know, he told me and a table full of friends personally).

I find this odd, because in the past 30 years, creators have seemed less and less inclined to give their best creations to DC and Marvel, even though now they WILL get something out of it if a movie, TV series or toy is made. They want the Image deal though. All or nothing. Just kind of ironic.

Chris

[madmarva]

www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=37017

In an interview with CBR published Wednesday, Quesada and Buckley clarified some misinformation about the judgment in the suits between the company and Friedrich concerning Ghost Rider. The link is above.

* Friedrich can promote himself as one of the creators of Ghost Rider.

* The $17,000 judgment against Friedrich was not something Marvel pursued but rather an outcome of court deciding against Friedrich in the case. It wasn't a punitive judgment but a remunerative one. Since Marvel had the rights to the character, the court ruled he needed to pay Marvel the amount he grossed on selling material using the company's character.

* Buckley said the outcome of the suit does not change Marvel's stance on convention sketches.

Buckley: "We in no way want to interfere with creators at conventions who are providing a positive Marvel experience for our fans. We want fans to speak and interact with the creators who wrote, penciled, inked, lettered, colored or edited their favorite stories. Part of that positive interaction is that a fan can walk away with a signed memento or personalized sketch from an artist."

Now, none of this helps Friedrich. Based on the decision, he still owes Marvel $17,000 as an outcome of him suing Marvel. I think it's a kind and noble gesture for anyone who has the means or inclination to donate to his cause.

But, just because this judgment came down against Friedrich doesn't mean Marvel is on a witch hunt against creators who are selling sketches at Cons. Just like it has been for 40 years, artists selling sketches of Marvel characters at cons is fantastic PR and advertising for the Marvel brand at a relatively low cost.

However, I'm sure the judgment will put a chilling effect on creators filing suits for rights to characters they created or co-created under work-for-hire contracts.

And, it still sucks that over the years creators have not gotten a better share of the profits their creations or co-creations generated.

[Earth 2 Chris]

DC gave substantial monies to Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams upon the release of Batman Begins, due to their creation of Ra's Al Ghul. Both came out and said it was a nice gesture, and something DC didn't have to do. Even Adams, who fought hard and long to get Siegel and Shuster SOME compensation and credit for Superman. DC then gave Jerry Robinson a salaried position before DKR came out, due to his contribution to the Joker's creation.

Marvel COULD do the same thing, and probably they should. It would go along way to helping their image. But then, Marvel was the last company to start returning artists artwork too, and drug Jack Kirby's legal woes out for decades over the matter.

Chris

[Brazoo]

I take exception to the explanation that it's impossible for Marvel to offer some kind of bonus for an ex-employee who was responsible for co-creating a work that's going to earn millions of dollars in revenue (for a second time). It's not impossible for companies to do this - particularly when PR is involved.

It's not even an issue of ownership - they could offer payment as a creative consultant or something. There are probably a handful of people getting thousands of dollars for this movie that won't even end up with any contributions in the final product - they can't toss a few bucks to the guys who helped create the thing?

[Brazoo]

Yeah - that was Bono as a congressman involved in making that law - not acting as a singer/songwriter - just in case there's any confusion about that.

It's also know as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" because Disney Corp. was one of the biggest lobbyers for the law.

[samurainoir]

If not for the Sonny Bono law, all the copyrights of major icons of the early twentieth century such as Mickey Mouse, Superman etc would have fallen into the public domain in the next decade or so. Even if the corporations hold the TM's still, there would have been a great deal or wriggle room beyond the trademark logo and images. But that was the point of copyright expiry in the first place... to ensure the life of a work beyond the life of an author and immediate heirs. It didn't anticipate the corporate entity that outlives human lifetimes having ownership of these kind of properties.

[Brazoo]

Disney is no-holds-barred when it comes to illegal use of their characters. They've changed the way copyright rulings have been laid out and how works fall into the public domain by throwing millions of dollars at it.

The irony being that Disney was founded on using characters that were in the public domain.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I recall way back in the 80s news stories about Disney demanding their characters be removed from murals in daycare centers. It got them quite a bit of bad press as I recall.

Chris

[samurainoir]

Essentially, given the amount of text that can be printed out on the back of a cheque, I'm not quite sure it can be as airtight as the contemporary contracts you see now that everyone is all lawyered up. Throw into the mix that these properties are being exploited in avenues that were not even imagined or maybe didn't even exist in decades past (home video, dvd, video games, digital downloads, Apps, etc), it does get tricky. Although it appears that Friedrich signed a more detailed contract in 1978 in addition to the back-of-cheque release.

[MegoGeek]

There isn't even the slightest possibility that Marvel/Disney is going to do this.

[Brazoo]

You know those talented guys sold their souls to the Devil(MARVEL DC) to feed their kids, pay their Mortgages,cars etc......

Back then it was a job, comics were throw away disposable art. if those guys had a crystal ball they would have taken them to the bank.

Those artist and writers were just happy to have a job doing something creative till something in advertising or maybe the syndicates came along.

Marvel just protects itself and doesn't care when it comes to business with characters they own......and they will fight tooth and nail and win all the time.

They just don't give two ****s about anyones feelings, they have to put out a product to make money for the shareholders that's the bottom line......

Their mentality is Don't like the new stuff freek you...we'll find people who do.....like the old stuff okay we collected for you now go out and buy it......

So the vague legality of Marvel's contract method is to be blamed solely on one side and not the other? In my view Marvel is just as responsible - if not more responsible, because they had more to protect and were in a better position to make their stakes clear.

I agree that the corporation doesn't care about people's feelings - but it does care about a bottom line. Negative publicity can hurt their bottom line - and that they do care about. That's how Siegel and Shuster got their names in the credits of Superman - as far as I know DC didn't legally have to do that - they were shamed into it.

Jean Marc L'officier's response...
Jean-Marc Lofficier On The Consequences Of The Gary Friedrich Decision | Bleeding Cool Comic Book, Movies and TV News and Rumors

Yeah - Templeton is overstating the simplicity of these issues. There are lots of things to consider. The key being that what Marvel artists were agreeing to wasn't spelled out in full, and the benefit of future knowledge of how these characters were going to be used was not known by the artists OR Marvel.

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth to see Marvel/Disney spending "over a hundred thousand dollars to defend themselves" (as Templeton claims in his strip) then to just see Marvel/Disney head these problems off before they start by offering bonuses or extra compensation to artists who were key contributors to creating characters from the start when movie deals like this arise.

It's small change to the corporation to compensate a fair wage for the work that contributed to MILLIONS in revenue - but it would make a HUGE difference to the artists involved - so to hear comic fans saying "the artists should have known better", it irks me.

[Figuremod73]

I believe (other than most new talent not being as good these days) that nobody really wants to give their best work at the big two anymore.

[samurainoir]

Disney is notoriously litigious and obsessive about protecting their trademarks. I'm suspecting that this is just the first of the hammers to fall for the Disney era Marvel. Check out L'officier's description here...

Disney, if not Marvel, does have a full office staffed with para legals of young lawyers whose only job is to look for copyright/tm infringements and send C&D (cease & desist) letters. I have seen them. They don’t do it for the money or to be a pain the the ***, they do it based on the legal theory that if you don’t actively protect your (c)/tm, you run the risk of it being used against you as an affirmative defense in an infringement case.

[Brazoo]

and some day Marvel and DC may crack down on it.....if the artist don't have it in their contracts that they can sell con sketches.

True - I'm just pointing out that legally what he was doing was the same thing as what DC and Marvel has been turning a blind-eye to for decades. The only difference is that he doesn't draw - so he uses prints - but legally there's not much difference.