Parting Shot: Ty Templeton's Counterpoint to the Ghost Rider Creator Controversy

How about this: Friedrich's lawyers advised him he had a case and sued Marvel to see if he retained any rights to the character. He asked a question in court and lost. Fine.

The problem is, Marvel/Disney Inc. countersued a relatively poor man for $17K for making a few side dollars over the years at conventions doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DIFFERENT than most artists and writers do at any given Artist's Alley. Selling "unlicensed merchandise," including sketches, has been an accepted practice for decades that the companies have allowed, making it, arguably, a de facto legal activity -- if you don't assert your copyright constantly and allow others to use your characters with your knowledge for years for minor grey market resale, you implicitly approve of the practice...

Except, suddenly, in this one case when the publishing behemoth decides to punish Gary Friedrich for daring to ask that impertinent question: "Am I owed anything for playing a role in earning you multi-millions?" And, of course, to send a message to any other creator who might have ideas similar to Friedrich: "You don't have enough cash to mess with us, whether we're wrong or not. Take your pittance and get lost or we'll ruin you." It's this latter mess, the counter-suit and the vengeful nature of it that many of us are angry with. Ty Templeton's "argument" here is a straw man. But he might pick up some work for Marvel as a propagandist.

And word on the CBDLF in this case? Is this something they would get involved in, were they involved, or do they plan to get involved?

But do you know what I mean? Trademarks may have been at issue, but no one is required to countersue to keep them. All they have to do is successfully defend the initial challenging suit. And then make sure their registrations are current, of course. The countersuit was optional and punitive. And thqt, of course, is a legitimate thing to defend if commenters choose to, but most are instead trying to pretend there was no choice in the matter.

In 1974 my older brother took me to the local comic shop. As he made his purchases I pulled Amazing Spider-Man #129 off the rack and plopped down twenty cents for it. I read it, put it in a bag and put it in the box right after issue 128. Now it's 38 years later. I never had it CGC'd but I'm confident it would be at least a 9 if I did. In that condition it routinely sells for $600, which would be a return on my investment of 3000% (outperforming the stock market during the same period by more than 1200%).

So if I sell it tomorrow should Marvel be able to send me a bill for $300? Should the comic shop owner be able to bill me? If not, why not? I mean, they sold me an item for an absurdly small amount of money relative to its present value. Based on the nearly unanimous opinion expressed here the ethical thing for me to do would be to cut them in for a fair slice of the profits realized from the investment. And maybe that doesn't make me a bad person.

Marvel could have just forced Friedrich to stop selling copyrighted material but not actually counter-sued an old man with no money and medical bills for $17K. That way, they prove their point and send a message that people cannot sell their property, yet they don't look evil for milking an old guy who has no money left to give. It's excessive and vile.

I know comic companies aren't doing well, though they have parent companies above them, but there is no possible way to make Marvel Comics look more desperate or sympathetic than a broke elderly man with medical debt. Won't happen.

Also, I think that certain moments just become "line in the sand" moments, wherein a person or a group of people with common interests will stand up and say, "this is where we make a statement about the poor way we've been treated in the past." Maybe Gary's case isn't airtight, but comics creators have been given the short end of the stick on work for hire contracts for years and for many of the people up in arms about this and willing to help out, I believe it's more about helping a man who was an unwitting victim of a bad business model. It's about creators now, who benefit to an extent from the road paved for them by creators like Gary, helping a creator who isn't afforded the same luxuries they are.

What about the precedent set by the famous Peggy Lee lawsuit, in which she sued Disney for revenue shares from the sell of Lady and the Tramp on Video because, at the time she'd sold her songs to Disney, the format didn't exist. The court ruled in her favor, stating that Disney owed her a part of the profit made from video sales. It's my understanding that what Gary is arguing about isn't that he retain ownership of the property, but that he be fairly compensated for his contribution to its creation in light of the exploitation of said property in new media that did not exist at the time he signed the original contract. Yes, of course film existed, but nobody was making big budge comic book action films at the time, and certainly DVD and digital download (where a movie as abysmal as Ghost Rider makes most of the money it will actually make) didn't exist. The point, as I interpret it, is that Gary feels (and I agree with him) that he (and I believe Ploog as well) is entitled to a portion of the money made off his creation in media that did not exist prior to his signature.

That Peggy Lee case was in the 80s, after Gary's initial Marvel contract was drawn. Post-Peggy Lee, contracts of this type typically include language about "future technologies."

It seems a lot of folks haven't actually read any of the legal filings involved and assume a lot of things that either aren't true or don't play to the narrative they want to construct about the case.

Freidrich was not a wide-eyed naif. He was not tricked or robbed. And most importantly, he is not Alan Moore, Bill Finger, Jack Kirby or anyone else.

From the judgement: Friedrich testified at his deposition that when he discussed the Ghost Rider idea with the two senior editorial employees, Roy Thomas and Stan Lee, he understood that Marvel would own the rights to the Character and the Work for comic books–but, without any articulation on his part, let alone acknowledgment on the part of Marvel management, he asserts that he assumed that he would personally retain rights to exploit the Character and the Work in other, non-comic mediums. [Friedrich Dep. at 77:14-77:23; 79:9-79:22.]
At the time, he was considering the possibility of a television show, but there is no evidence in the record that raises any issue of fact that he discussed this or obtained any agreement from Marvel that even television rights would be left out of the bundle of rights that Marvel would own.”

Also: Friedrich concedes that he had read the 1978 Agreement when he signed it, that he discussed it with other freelancers–in particular, the topic of relinquishing rights which they may have had in exchange for the possibility of additional work–and that he understood its import. Friedrich also testified that following execution of the 1978 Agreement, he essentially disappeared for a year–he was an alcoholic and was riding in a truck with a friend for a period of time.”

“SUPPLIER [i.e., Friedrich] expressly grants to MARVEL forever all rights of any kind and nature in and to the Work, the rights to use SUPPLIER’s name in connection therewith and agrees that MARVEL is the sole and exclusive copyright proprietor thereof having all rights of ownership therein.”

... It cost $100,000 for Marvel to defend itself?!

corporate comics