Gary Friedrich Enterprises, LLC v. Marvel Characters, Inc.
716 F.3d 302
2d Cir.2013Background
- Friedrich claims authorship of Ghost Rider and renewal rights; Marvel asserts work-for-hire ownership and that renewal rights were conveyed.
- Initial Ghost Rider publication in 1972 (Spotlight 5) credited to Marvel; Friedrich’s contribution acknowledged as conceived and written.
- A 1978 form work-for-hire agreement signed by Friedrich purportedly covered future work; its language is disputed as to renewal rights.
- Renewal term concerns arise after initial term ended in 2000; Marvel continued exploitation of Ghost Rider during renewal period with limited direct royalties to Friedrich.
- District court previously granted summary judgment to Marvel on ownership, finding renewal rights conveyed; this court vacates and remands for trial due to ambiguities and disputed facts.
- Key factual disputes surround whether the 1978 agreement actually conveyed renewal rights, the accrual of ownership claims, and whether Ghost Rider was a work made for hire under prior law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1978 agreement conveyed Friedrich's renewal rights | Friedrich contends renewal rights not conveyed | Marvel asserts renewal rights were conveyed under form contract | Ambiguous contract; material facts preclude summary judgment |
| Whether Friedrich's ownership claim is time-barred by the statute of limitations | Ownership claim timely; repudiation occurred before 2004 | Claim barred by three-year limitations; repudiation timely/undetermined | Timeliness unresolved; genuine disputes preclude summary judgment |
| Whether Friedrich was the author or a joint author vs. Marvel as author under work-for-hire | Friedrich is sole or joint author | Marvel induced creation; work-for-hire non-authorial assignment applies | Genuine disputes of material fact; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- P.C. Films Corp. v. Turner Entm't Co., 138 F.3d 453 (2d Cir. 1998) (renewal rights may be conveyed by general words if intent clear)
- Siegel v. Nat'l Periodical Publ'ns., Inc., 508 F.2d 909 (2d Cir. 1974) (general assignment language can include renewal rights when intended)
- Corcovado Music Corp. v. Hollis Music, Inc., 981 F.2d 679 (2d Cir. 1993) (strong presumption against conveyance of renewal rights; must be explicit)
- Merchant v. Levy, 92 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1996) (timing of knowledge of entitlement to royalties controls accrual)
- Stone v. Williams, 970 F.2d 1043 (2d Cir. 1992) (accrual of ownership claims tied to royalty awareness; co-ownership timing)
- Martha Graham Sch. & Dance Found., Inc. v. Martha Graham Ctr. of Contemporary Dance, Inc., 380 F.3d 624 (2d Cir. 2004) (pre-1978 works governed by 1909 Act; agency/actual relationship crucial)