So, did Gary wait until he was sure the film made money?
(Okay, so that's likely a rude header...)
Someone passed along to me that Gary Friedrich is suing Marvel & Sony over copyright infringement for Ghost Rider, a property he claims reverted to his ownership in 2001. The papers were filed April 4th.
Here's the full text of the story as Yahoo News was carrying it today (in case it becomes unavailable via the above link):
"Ghost Rider" creator sues over copyright
By Leslie Simmons Tue Apr 10, 5:49 AM ET
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter, ESQ.) - The creator of Ghost Rider has sued Marvel Enterprises, Sony Pictures Entertainment and several entities over what he claims is an unauthorized "joint venture and conspiracy to exploit, profit from and utilize" his copyrights to the comic book character.
ADVERTISEMENT
Gary Friedrich and his company filed the 61-page complaint April 4 in federal court in Illinois claiming 21 violations based on the production and marketing of Sony's recent "Ghost Rider," starring Nicolas Cage and Eva Mendes. Friedrich claims the copyrights used in the film and in related products reverted from Marvel to him in 2001.
The defendants include Sony's Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group, producers Relativity Media, Crystal Sky Pictures and Michael De Luca Prods. as well as Hasbro Inc. and Take-Two Interactive.
Friedrich alleges copyright infringement, and accuses Marvel of waste for failing "to properly utilize and capitalize" on the Ghost Rider character. Marvel's attempts to do so, Friedrich claims, have only damaged the value of his work by failing to properly promote and protect the characters and by accepting inadequate royalties from co-defendants. Friedrich also claims that toymaker Hasbro and videogame firm Take-Two have improperly created merchandise based on the characters.
Friedrich created the character of Johnny Blaze and his alter ego Ghost Rider in 1968. Three years later, he agreed to publish the character in comic books through Stan Lee's Magazine Management, which eventually became Marvel Entertainment.
Under the agreement, Magazine Management became holder of the copyright for the first issue, which explains the origin story of Ghost Rider. Lee's company also held the copyrights to subsequent Ghost Rider works.
However, Magazine Management allegedly never registered the work with the Copyright Office and, pursuant to federal law, Friedrich regained the copyrights to Ghost Rider in 2001.
"Nonetheless, without any compensation to and without any agreement, consent or participation of plaintiff ... in late 2006 or early 2007, the defendants herein wrongfully embarked upon a high-profile campaign, arrangement, joint venture and conspiracy to exploit, profit from and utilize plaintiff's copyrights, the Johnny Blaze character and persona, the origin story and the related characters and personas created by plaintiff, in various endeavors, including, but not limited to, the use of the same in movie theater presentations and promotions, commercials, action-figure toys, video games, clothing and novels," the lawsuit states.
The "Ghost Rider" film opened February 16 in North America and has grossed an estimated $214.6 million in worldwide box office, according to boxofficemojo.com.
Friedrich seeks unspecified damages for claims of copyright infringement, violations of federal and Illinois state unfair competition laws, negligence, waste, tortuous interference with prospective business expectancy, misappropriation of characters, unauthorized use of the characters and false advertising and endorsement.
A Sony spokesman said the studio had no comment on the suit and had not been served with the complaint.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
I see that the movie's been reasonably profitable, as noted in the article, with more money coming down the pike once it reaches DVD and cable broadcasts. I'd presumed the lawsuit would include such comics as Marvel's been running using the character for the past six years, though the legalese in the suit leaves me unsure as to how broadly the net of this action is cast; everything appears to be centered on promotions connected to the movie.
At its core, it appears someone at the publishing level neglected to file all of the necessary paperwork, so the copyright reverted to Friedrich while no one was looking.
Looking for more information I checked Newsarama, where I found this piece, mostly re-stating what the earlier one did, along with an expanded list of co-defendants.
Far more interesting than the piece was someone in the comments pulling up quotes from the Wikipedia entry for Ghost Rider concerning disputes over the creator credits for the character:
Thomas, Marvel's editor-in-chief at the time, described the character's genesis:
"I had made up a character as a villain in Daredevil — a very lackluster character — called Stunt-Master... a motorcyclist. Anyway, when Gary Friedrich started writing Daredevil, he said, "Instead of Stunt-Master, I'd like to make the villain a really weird motorcycle-riding character called Ghost Rider." He didn't describe him. I said, "Yeah, Gary, there's only one thing wrong with it," and he kind of looked at me weird, because we were old friends from Missouri, and I said, "That's too good an idea to be just a villain in Daredevil. He should start out right away in his own book." When Gary wasn't there the day we were going to design it, Mike Ploog, who was going to be the artist, and I designed the character. I had this idea for the skull-head, something like Elvis' 1968 Special jumpsuit, and so forth, and Ploog put the fire on the head, just because he thought it looked nice. Gary liked it, so they went off and did it."
Friedrich on the above, in 2001:
"Well, there's some disagreement between Roy, Mike and I (sic) over that. I threatened on more than one occasion that if Marvel gets in a position where they are gonna make a movie or make a lot of money off of it, I'm gonna sue them, and I probably will. ...It was my idea. It was always my idea from the first time we talked about it, it turned out to be a guy with a flaming skull and rode a motorcycle. Ploog seems to think the flaming skull was his idea. But, to tell you the truth, it was my idea."
Could be some interesting times ahead in court.
Meanwhile, I'm sure a new round of scrambling is going on among any creators -- and in-house at the Big Two - to see if any other lapsed paperwork may be out there.
.png)
Comments
MARVEL SPOTLIGHT #5 (Aug 72) co-creator of Ghost Rider**
This is a point where I have to stop and note my astonished double-take. In all my decades as a somewhat wired-in fanboy, I have never even remotely heard the slightest hint that Englehart had anything to do with the creation of the Ghost Rider. However, at the same time, it hardly seems like something you'd lie about, and in fact, I've yet to catch Steve E. in any sort of lie, so I have to assume that there's something valid behind this. I wish Steve had gone into more details here, as I'm sure there has to be a fascinating story behind this annotation.
***STEVE E. SEZ:
Fascinating? From a fan-boy perspective, maybe.***
Ouch! I think that one drew blood. ::grin:: Nah, not really. I'm a fanboy, I admit it.
***STEVE E. continues:
No, I meant that *I* was still basically a fan-boy at the time, so it was fascinating to me because it was one of my earliest times of contributing to Marvel.
Gary Friedrich and Mike Ploog (I think; am I right? I haven't thought about this since 1972)***
I have no idea. GHOST RIDER wasn't one of my faves. I do dimly recall Mike Ploog being associated with the book early on.
***STEVE E. continues:
and Roy were in the Bullpen's one office (it had been Stan's, and probably still was, but it might have been Roy's by then). They were trying to make the new character work, but there were problems. I was either called in for a fresh perspective or wandered in on my own, and joined the discussion. We ran things up, down, and backwards, and I was able to contribute--which is why, since I was still new, I see it more as a fan-boy's dream date than anything else, and why it's part of the Beginnings section, on a par with that early art and co-scripting.
Let me add that the events happened like this, but I can't swear that it was Gary and Mike and Roy in the room. Mike's the dimmest in my mind, and it could have been Stan instead of Roy, though I don't think so.***
So, if Gary Friedrich wins his lawsuit, does that mean Steve E. and Mike Ploog get a taste?
I wonder how much Roy's attitudes at the time and subsequent memory is slanted by being Stan's anointed one? Coming up through the Marvel house style approach where writer credits were fairly exclusive despite often extremely heavy artist input in the creative and storytelling process. (All of which you know.) What made me think of this again is in seeing how Roy seemed to casually reference Ploog's work -- attributing only the shroud of flame to him.
Anyway, those who were around as part of the process could easily tend to disappear in the mists as if they were just unnamed parts of the inspirational zeitgeist from Roy's perspective. I don't mean any disrespect to Roy; it's just a deeply-rooted part of the way Marvel operated, and by that point Roy had been at it in that environment for years. It very likely was just SOP.
However it goes, it could be an interesting case to casually follow. I doubt it will be in Marvel's best interests to just quietly settle - the precedent alone would only encourage more challenges - but it's impossible to guess from the outside and at this remove. If they determine it's both not going to go in their favor and is an isolated case, they might just want to bury it and ignore it. It isn't as if DC's been talking much about last year's federal court decision that affirmed their lack of ownership of Superboy.
I was mainly surprised that anything as deep in the thick of the work for hire era as Ghost Rider would even be an issue, especially since Wolfman had tried prying their fingers of Blade several years back. All it apparently took was a lapse in paperwork, though, if the suit's correct.
I can't imagine why he wasn't going legal in the 90's, though, when GR was having its initial comeback success, even having appeared on one of the first ten covers of Wizard Magazine.
I think that fact alone weakens his case.
Mike
Obviously, we're seeing all this from the outside and discerning the truth behind statements of creator credits is going to be next to impossible. In the end it's likely to hinge mostly on paperwork in the chain, though each side's going to want anything that supports their case to be part of it and people who claim to have been part of it are likely to be contacted to testify by one side or the other.
You've inspired a blog entry. Yup, it's my blog, and a shameless plug at that, but you instigated it, Hester! (You'll get the reference to the reference when you read the blog.)
Mike