<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ghost Rider creator sues for ownership</title>
	<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/</link>
	<description>The News Blog of Comics Culture</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: matterconsumer</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124974</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:41:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124974</guid>
					<description>The cut and dried part of it is that Friedrich has successfully registered a copyright for Ghost Rider.  His sole authorship has been denied.  However, he was able to successfully (rightfully or wrongfully) register the copyright.

But the actual lawsuit is aimed toward the Ghost Rider movie and all the companies affiliated with the movie and related merchandising.

Now Columbia registered a copyright for the Ghost Rider movie.  This copyright predates Friedrich's.  The lawsuit argues that these companies knowingly infringed his copyright.  This seems unlikely because he hadn't registered the copyright.

Now I'm using the word &quot;register&quot;.  

Marvel registered a copyright for the Ghost Rider character in the late 60s.  This is not Friedrich's character.

For some reason(s) Marvel did not register the Ghost Rider character in '72.  In '78 the GhostRider comic is registered.  (Perhaps it was problematic to register two different characters by the same company with the same name.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The cut and dried part of it is that Friedrich has successfully registered a copyright for Ghost Rider.  His sole authorship has been denied.  However, he was able to successfully (rightfully or wrongfully) register the copyright.</p>
<p>But the actual lawsuit is aimed toward the Ghost Rider movie and all the companies affiliated with the movie and related merchandising.</p>
<p>Now Columbia registered a copyright for the Ghost Rider movie.  This copyright predates Friedrich&#8217;s.  The lawsuit argues that these companies knowingly infringed his copyright.  This seems unlikely because he hadn&#8217;t registered the copyright.</p>
<p>Now I&#8217;m using the word &#8220;register&#8221;.  </p>
<p>Marvel registered a copyright for the Ghost Rider character in the late 60s.  This is not Friedrich&#8217;s character.</p>
<p>For some reason(s) Marvel did not register the Ghost Rider character in &#8216;72.  In &#8216;78 the GhostRider comic is registered.  (Perhaps it was problematic to register two different characters by the same company with the same name.)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Rodrigo Baeza</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124713</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:42:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124713</guid>
					<description>&quot;The problem with the entire lawsuit is that it is NOT based on copyright law AT all. Must have the worst attorneys ever imo. Copyright did NOT have to be registered. It did NOT revert to the guy.&quot;

I've done some further checking. Friedrich is renewing the copyright based on Public Law 102-307. Check this link: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15.html

&quot;For works copyrighted between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977, an application for renewal of copyright can be made at any time during the renewed and extended term of 67 years.&quot;

Under the law, the &quot;author&quot; of the work can claim renewal of the work. Friedrich must now prove that he is indeed the sole author of the work: that he brought the character to Marvel, instead of writing a story based on Marvel's specifications for the character.

As you correctly state in another message, Marvel's copyright hasn't expired, it's just that Friedrich is using this law for renewing the copyright in his name.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The problem with the entire lawsuit is that it is NOT based on copyright law AT all. Must have the worst attorneys ever imo. Copyright did NOT have to be registered. It did NOT revert to the guy.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve done some further checking. Friedrich is renewing the copyright based on Public Law 102-307. Check this link: <a href='http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15.html' rel='nofollow'>http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15.html</a></p>
<p>&#8220;For works copyrighted between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977, an application for renewal of copyright can be made at any time during the renewed and extended term of 67 years.&#8221;</p>
<p>Under the law, the &#8220;author&#8221; of the work can claim renewal of the work. Friedrich must now prove that he is indeed the sole author of the work: that he brought the character to Marvel, instead of writing a story based on Marvel&#8217;s specifications for the character.</p>
<p>As you correctly state in another message, Marvel&#8217;s copyright hasn&#8217;t expired, it&#8217;s just that Friedrich is using this law for renewing the copyright in his name.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: matterconsumer</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124334</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 02:31:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124334</guid>
					<description>GAH, what's problematic is that Friedrich has registered Ghost Rider.  Columbia has also registered the Ghost Rider movie.

Now if Marvel had successfully renewed it the registration would show this.  All the ones I've seen indicate that they have expired.

Alan, the timing is suspect.  My guess is that he wanted Marvel to pay him for the movie.  Perhaps they didn't.  So he goes to a lawyer and the lawyer digs this up.  Just speculation.

As to my being a lad, that's funny :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>GAH, what&#8217;s problematic is that Friedrich has registered Ghost Rider.  Columbia has also registered the Ghost Rider movie.</p>
<p>Now if Marvel had successfully renewed it the registration would show this.  All the ones I&#8217;ve seen indicate that they have expired.</p>
<p>Alan, the timing is suspect.  My guess is that he wanted Marvel to pay him for the movie.  Perhaps they didn&#8217;t.  So he goes to a lawyer and the lawyer digs this up.  Just speculation.</p>
<p>As to my being a lad, that&#8217;s funny <img src='http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Alan Coil</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124323</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 02:13:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124323</guid>
					<description>matterconsumer said:
&quot;The copyright lapsed Dec 31, 2001. He registered it Feb 2007. So that’s six years of limbo.&quot;
&amp;#38;
&quot;I believe that this will damage his case because if he were truly interested in the copyright he would not have waited six years.&quot;
-----
Maybe he didn't know about this until recently?
----------
Every time I see your screen name, I automatically add 'lad' to the end.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>matterconsumer said:<br />
&#8220;The copyright lapsed Dec 31, 2001. He registered it Feb 2007. So that’s six years of limbo.&#8221;<br />
&amp;<br />
&#8220;I believe that this will damage his case because if he were truly interested in the copyright he would not have waited six years.&#8221;<br />
&#8212;&#8211;<br />
Maybe he didn&#8217;t know about this until recently?<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-<br />
Every time I see your screen name, I automatically add &#8216;lad&#8217; to the end.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Golden Apple Hater</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124310</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:41:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124310</guid>
					<description>I really don't follow the discussion.

Just go here
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

You will see that the copyright which was properly registered by Marvel was automatically renewed for 67 years.  There is no debate about it.  And the LEAGUE lawsuit was not settled, it was tossed.

And whoever argued that GF should have waited till this time doesn't understand law at all.  The doctrine of minimized damages REQUIRES him to speak up the moment he notices that his rights are being f-ed with.  It goes like this- when did you first notice that Marvel claimed copyright against your wishes.  Oh I don't know, 1978?  Why didn't you sue then if you had a case?  Bye bye.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really don&#8217;t follow the discussion.</p>
<p>Just go here<br />
<a href='http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm' rel='nofollow'>http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm</a></p>
<p>You will see that the copyright which was properly registered by Marvel was automatically renewed for 67 years.  There is no debate about it.  And the LEAGUE lawsuit was not settled, it was tossed.</p>
<p>And whoever argued that GF should have waited till this time doesn&#8217;t understand law at all.  The doctrine of minimized damages REQUIRES him to speak up the moment he notices that his rights are being f-ed with.  It goes like this- when did you first notice that Marvel claimed copyright against your wishes.  Oh I don&#8217;t know, 1978?  Why didn&#8217;t you sue then if you had a case?  Bye bye.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: matterconsumer</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124155</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:01:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124155</guid>
					<description>The 'major' Ghost Rider copyright is  the one that has lapsed.  This one is listed under registered works and not under periodicals.

In an earlier post I used the word &quot;expired&quot; in 94 and 95.  I should have said that these are the last publication dates listed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The &#8216;major&#8217; Ghost Rider copyright is  the one that has lapsed.  This one is listed under registered works and not under periodicals.</p>
<p>In an earlier post I used the word &#8220;expired&#8221; in 94 and 95.  I should have said that these are the last publication dates listed.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Rodrigo Baeza</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124140</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:27:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124140</guid>
					<description>&quot;No this is the same Ghost Rider. It lists publication dates from the 70s to the 90s.&quot;

I just checked, I see seven records for Ghost Rider issues #1 to #7, the Western version from 1967 (registration numbers RE-684-522, RE-684-540, and so on). And it seems you're wrong about the copyrights expiring in 1994 and 1995 for these records, from what I can see Marvel *renewed* the copyright on those dates.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;No this is the same Ghost Rider. It lists publication dates from the 70s to the 90s.&#8221;</p>
<p>I just checked, I see seven records for Ghost Rider issues #1 to #7, the Western version from 1967 (registration numbers RE-684-522, RE-684-540, and so on). And it seems you&#8217;re wrong about the copyrights expiring in 1994 and 1995 for these records, from what I can see Marvel *renewed* the copyright on those dates.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Rodrigo Baeza</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124126</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:04:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124126</guid>
					<description>&quot;Were they asked to be co-litigants and declined, or is Friedrich claiming he created everything about Ghost Rider himself? I think this is an important question.&quot;

Friedrich has claimed (see the 2001 interview quoted at the top) that he created the character by himself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Were they asked to be co-litigants and declined, or is Friedrich claiming he created everything about Ghost Rider himself? I think this is an important question.&#8221;</p>
<p>Friedrich has claimed (see the 2001 interview quoted at the top) that he created the character by himself.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: matterconsumer</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124119</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:53:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124119</guid>
					<description>and one more point.

The copyright lapsed Dec 31, 2001.  He registered it Feb 2007.  So that's six years of limbo.

If he really wanted the copyright he could have registered it immediately and then begun to publish Ghost Rider comics.

He did not.  As far as I know he hasn't published any Ghost Rider comics.

I believe that this will damage his case because if he were truly interested in the copyright he would not have waited six years.  He would actively be using his copyright.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>and one more point.</p>
<p>The copyright lapsed Dec 31, 2001.  He registered it Feb 2007.  So that&#8217;s six years of limbo.</p>
<p>If he really wanted the copyright he could have registered it immediately and then begun to publish Ghost Rider comics.</p>
<p>He did not.  As far as I know he hasn&#8217;t published any Ghost Rider comics.</p>
<p>I believe that this will damage his case because if he were truly interested in the copyright he would not have waited six years.  He would actively be using his copyright.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: matterconsumer</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124109</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:42:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124109</guid>
					<description>No this is the same Ghost Rider.  It lists publication dates from the 70s to the 90s.

I'm reading Friedrich's complaint.  

His contention is that he created Ghost Rider prior to allowing Marvel to use the character.  He acknowledges that Marve copyrighted the character.

Of course, Marvel allowed it to lapse.

What his complaint doesn't mention is that Columbia copyrighted the movie before Friedrich registered the lapsed copyright.

Seems to me that the movie should be free and clear.

Now the usage of Ghost Rider in comics is another matter altogether.  Seems to me that he could block the use of the name Ghost Rider in comics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No this is the same Ghost Rider.  It lists publication dates from the 70s to the 90s.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m reading Friedrich&#8217;s complaint.  </p>
<p>His contention is that he created Ghost Rider prior to allowing Marvel to use the character.  He acknowledges that Marve copyrighted the character.</p>
<p>Of course, Marvel allowed it to lapse.</p>
<p>What his complaint doesn&#8217;t mention is that Columbia copyrighted the movie before Friedrich registered the lapsed copyright.</p>
<p>Seems to me that the movie should be free and clear.</p>
<p>Now the usage of Ghost Rider in comics is another matter altogether.  Seems to me that he could block the use of the name Ghost Rider in comics.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: R. Maheras</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124098</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:26:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124098</guid>
					<description>I think this whole retroactive ownership lawsuit trend is wrong to begin with, but what bugs me even more is that it appears that when guys like Joe Simon or Gary Friedrich go off and file these suits, they seem to do so unilaterally for their own exclusive benefit. 

In the case of the Ghost Rider, why shouldn't people like Dick Ayers, Roy Thomas, and especially Mike Ploog be co-litigants?

Were they asked to be co-litigants and declined, or is Friedrich claiming he created everything about Ghost Rider himself? I think this is an important question.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think this whole retroactive ownership lawsuit trend is wrong to begin with, but what bugs me even more is that it appears that when guys like Joe Simon or Gary Friedrich go off and file these suits, they seem to do so unilaterally for their own exclusive benefit. </p>
<p>In the case of the Ghost Rider, why shouldn&#8217;t people like Dick Ayers, Roy Thomas, and especially Mike Ploog be co-litigants?</p>
<p>Were they asked to be co-litigants and declined, or is Friedrich claiming he created everything about Ghost Rider himself? I think this is an important question.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Rodrigo Baeza</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124062</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-124062</guid>
					<description>&quot;Marvel had copyrights that expired in 1994 and in 1995.&quot;

Based on the dates you mention, that would be the copyright for Marvel's Western &quot;Ghost Rider&quot; (created in 1966, first appearance cover-dated February 1967), not the Johnny Blaze version. 

Under the old copyright law, copyrights had to be renewed 28 years after the original filing. The copyright for the Johnny Blaze version should have been renewed around 2000 (which is why Friedrich claims the copyright reverted to him in 2001).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Marvel had copyrights that expired in 1994 and in 1995.&#8221;</p>
<p>Based on the dates you mention, that would be the copyright for Marvel&#8217;s Western &#8220;Ghost Rider&#8221; (created in 1966, first appearance cover-dated February 1967), not the Johnny Blaze version. </p>
<p>Under the old copyright law, copyrights had to be renewed 28 years after the original filing. The copyright for the Johnny Blaze version should have been renewed around 2000 (which is why Friedrich claims the copyright reverted to him in 2001).
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Barbara Peterson</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-123996</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:25:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-123996</guid>
					<description>&amp;#62;&amp;#62;where you are paying them 25-35 percent of th final judgement…

I think lawyers these days get 40 - 45 percent or even more...

I can see him suing Marvel, but what gives him the right to sue Hasbro et al. *They* dealt with Marvel in good faith, if Marvel screwed him how are they even supposed to know about and why should they be punished for it?

But, by suing as many companies as he can, he's sweetening the pot for when he gets his settlement. Because that's what this, and everything like this comes down to. Companies don't want to fight it because it costs them more money in lawyers fees than it would to pay up, regardless of who is in the right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt;where you are paying them 25-35 percent of th final judgement…</p>
<p>I think lawyers these days get 40 - 45 percent or even more&#8230;</p>
<p>I can see him suing Marvel, but what gives him the right to sue Hasbro et al. *They* dealt with Marvel in good faith, if Marvel screwed him how are they even supposed to know about and why should they be punished for it?</p>
<p>But, by suing as many companies as he can, he&#8217;s sweetening the pot for when he gets his settlement. Because that&#8217;s what this, and everything like this comes down to. Companies don&#8217;t want to fight it because it costs them more money in lawyers fees than it would to pay up, regardless of who is in the right.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: matterconsumer</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-123896</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:39:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-123896</guid>
					<description>All one has to do is search for Ghost Rider in the serials database and look for the entry Ghost Rider 22 items.  This is a list that goes all the way back to '68 and ends with June 1990.  This covers comics published to '94.

The copyright searches cannot be directly linked and so all I can do is point.

This brings us to the registered works database.

A search here yields Ghost Rider with 49 items.

Marvel had  copyrights that expired in 1994 and in 1995.  

Columbia Pictures registered the Ghost Rider trailer in June 2006.   There are other registrations for the trailers and the movie poster.  

Feb 16, 2007 Columbia registers the whole cinematic kit and kaboodle.

Feb 26, 2007 Friedrich registers Ghost Rider.  This is the Marvel Spotlight comic in '72.

Searches can be done at:

http://www.copyright.gov/records/

Columbia registered the movie prior to Friedrich's registration.  Marvel's registrations are for Ghost Rider and go back to '68.  Friedrich's registration is for Marvel Spotlight's Ghost Rider in '72.

However, Marvel did let their registration for Ghost Rider expire.  And created a mess.

If successful in court it seems that what could happen is that Friedrich could prevent Marvel from using the Ghost Rider name in future comics.

The merchandising hasn't been registered either.  So presumably he could try to block that as well.

The movie itself is problematic for him as it was registered prior to his complaint.

But in all likelihood he wants to settle and it looks like he could cause Marvel some headaches in the process.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All one has to do is search for Ghost Rider in the serials database and look for the entry Ghost Rider 22 items.  This is a list that goes all the way back to &#8216;68 and ends with June 1990.  This covers comics published to &#8216;94.</p>
<p>The copyright searches cannot be directly linked and so all I can do is point.</p>
<p>This brings us to the registered works database.</p>
<p>A search here yields Ghost Rider with 49 items.</p>
<p>Marvel had  copyrights that expired in 1994 and in 1995.  </p>
<p>Columbia Pictures registered the Ghost Rider trailer in June 2006.   There are other registrations for the trailers and the movie poster.  </p>
<p>Feb 16, 2007 Columbia registers the whole cinematic kit and kaboodle.</p>
<p>Feb 26, 2007 Friedrich registers Ghost Rider.  This is the Marvel Spotlight comic in &#8216;72.</p>
<p>Searches can be done at:</p>
<p><a href='http://www.copyright.gov/records/' rel='nofollow'>http://www.copyright.gov/records/</a></p>
<p>Columbia registered the movie prior to Friedrich&#8217;s registration.  Marvel&#8217;s registrations are for Ghost Rider and go back to &#8216;68.  Friedrich&#8217;s registration is for Marvel Spotlight&#8217;s Ghost Rider in &#8216;72.</p>
<p>However, Marvel did let their registration for Ghost Rider expire.  And created a mess.</p>
<p>If successful in court it seems that what could happen is that Friedrich could prevent Marvel from using the Ghost Rider name in future comics.</p>
<p>The merchandising hasn&#8217;t been registered either.  So presumably he could try to block that as well.</p>
<p>The movie itself is problematic for him as it was registered prior to his complaint.</p>
<p>But in all likelihood he wants to settle and it looks like he could cause Marvel some headaches in the process.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Jeff Flowers</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-123814</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:48:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-123814</guid>
					<description>Personally speaking, I would like to see Marvel lose this one, although I don't think that they will. I detest the whole &quot;work for hire&quot; thing Marvel was running, and I think it is sad that Marvel doesn't take care of the creators of the characters they make money off of. 

But then again, I am the kind of guy who refuses to buy non-creator owned works.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Personally speaking, I would like to see Marvel lose this one, although I don&#8217;t think that they will. I detest the whole &#8220;work for hire&#8221; thing Marvel was running, and I think it is sad that Marvel doesn&#8217;t take care of the creators of the characters they make money off of. </p>
<p>But then again, I am the kind of guy who refuses to buy non-creator owned works.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-123481</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 05:34:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-123481</guid>
					<description>Seriously people...OF COURSE he would wait until there was something worth suing about. Lawyers are not cheap. Gary probably doesn't have the money to press this kind of suit. So...one has to wait until there is something to sue about...and then get a lawyer on contingency...where you are paying them 25-35 percent of th final judgement...and sometimes even then you have to pay the lawyers hard costs...which are not cheap. That's the way the system is set up right now. There is no moral high ground unfortunately...but this is why people hate lawyers! :P</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seriously people&#8230;OF COURSE he would wait until there was something worth suing about. Lawyers are not cheap. Gary probably doesn&#8217;t have the money to press this kind of suit. So&#8230;one has to wait until there is something to sue about&#8230;and then get a lawyer on contingency&#8230;where you are paying them 25-35 percent of th final judgement&#8230;and sometimes even then you have to pay the lawyers hard costs&#8230;which are not cheap. That&#8217;s the way the system is set up right now. There is no moral high ground unfortunately&#8230;but this is why people hate lawyers! <img src='http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' />
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Steve Leialoha</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-123277</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:12:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-123277</guid>
					<description>I just remembered that there were statements about work for hire on the back of the art returns after '76.  If you wanted your art, you signed it.  Wouldn't have applied to writers.   It's been a while...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just remembered that there were statements about work for hire on the back of the art returns after &#8216;76.  If you wanted your art, you signed it.  Wouldn&#8217;t have applied to writers.   It&#8217;s been a while&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Wilson Ramos jr</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-123152</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:20:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-123152</guid>
					<description>That's true, I shouldn't pick a side. If he is in the right, I hope he get the money.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s true, I shouldn&#8217;t pick a side. If he is in the right, I hope he get the money.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: markus</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-123110</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:50:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-123110</guid>
					<description>@Wilson Ramos jr. 
You still seem to be deriving your judgment of the situation from the assumption that Marvel is in the right here.
If they are not, that is, if they're witholding money from him that is legally his, Friedrich is in no way obliged to make things pleasant for them. Plus, a lawsuit is a stressful event either way and so there's nothing at all wrong morally or otherwise with waiting until the matter is worth the effort. Whether that &quot;worth the effort&quot; is in terms of &quot;can't take it anymore&quot; or &quot;enough money&quot; is immaterial. On the contrary, it's actually the _norm_ that civil lawsuits are not filed until the damage because in some way substantial.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Wilson Ramos jr.<br />
You still seem to be deriving your judgment of the situation from the assumption that Marvel is in the right here.<br />
If they are not, that is, if they&#8217;re witholding money from him that is legally his, Friedrich is in no way obliged to make things pleasant for them. Plus, a lawsuit is a stressful event either way and so there&#8217;s nothing at all wrong morally or otherwise with waiting until the matter is worth the effort. Whether that &#8220;worth the effort&#8221; is in terms of &#8220;can&#8217;t take it anymore&#8221; or &#8220;enough money&#8221; is immaterial. On the contrary, it&#8217;s actually the _norm_ that civil lawsuits are not filed until the damage because in some way substantial.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Steve Leialoha</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-123109</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:40:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/10/ghost-rider-creator-sues-for-ownership/#comment-123109</guid>
					<description>Work for hire agreements did not come about until the 1976 Copyright changes.  Prior to that, the Marvel method was to put a stamp on the back of the paycheck that said &quot;By signing this document Marvel owns all rights. etc&quot;  Some people deposited their checks without signing them.    In all the years I worked for Marvel I never signed any formal contracts, except at Epic.  Lawyers are expensive.  Why NOT wait until the property in question has generated a zillion dollars, give or take, before suing for a piece of the action?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Work for hire agreements did not come about until the 1976 Copyright changes.  Prior to that, the Marvel method was to put a stamp on the back of the paycheck that said &#8220;By signing this document Marvel owns all rights. etc&#8221;  Some people deposited their checks without signing them.    In all the years I worked for Marvel I never signed any formal contracts, except at Epic.  Lawyers are expensive.  Why NOT wait until the property in question has generated a zillion dollars, give or take, before suing for a piece of the action?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
