Gary Friedrich v. Marvel/Disney

[devilof76]

Cry me a river Lenin.

 

[CollectorNC]

You must work for Marvel. lol

 

[devilof76]

No, I work for Sideshow. Try to keep up.

 

[Devil_666]

Yeah but on its face, work-for-hire was a way for a corporation to take advantage of young artists and was done away with.

I'll never understand this thinking. Did they put a gun to his head and make him sign the contract/work for them!?

If there was nothing wrong with it, why did Marvel stop doing it as it mentions in the article?

Probably because as more companies popped up/opportunities to start your own company instead, they had to rethink their hiring process. Just like MMA. When the UFC first started back in 1993 the only fighter in a tournament who got paid was the winner. Everyone else that lost went home empty handed. But once the sport gained a little popularity and other knock-off companies popped up a couple years later that offered ALL the fighters who participated guaranteed money, the UFC had to switch up their business model to survive (because the alternative would've been 0 fighters). Does that mean that they were originally in the wrong? No. It just means the circumstances/situation/the times changed. No more, no less.

Also, say he did one job for them and ONLY after submitting his work and getting the check did he see the fine print on the back of the check...how the hell is that right?

How the hell can stupidity like that be defended? If you don't know ahead of time what you're getting yourself into with a job/contract and you STILL sign up/agree to it then you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[devilof76]

Smart mother____er right there.

 

[CelticPredator]

Well, it looks like Gary Friedrich.....

Just got BURNED.

 

[CollectorNC]

I'll never understand this thinking. Did they put a gun to his head and make him sign the contract/work for them!?



Probably because as more companies popped up/opportunities to start your own company instead, they had to rethink their hiring process. Just like MMA. When the UFC first started back in 1993 the only fighter in a tournament who got paid was the winner. Everyone else that lost went home empty handed. But once the sport gained a little popularity and other knock-off companies popped up a couple years later that offered ALL the fighters who participated guaranteed money, the UFC had to switch up their business model to survive (because the alternative would've been 0 fighters). Does that mean that they were originally in the wrong? No. It just means the circumstances/situation/the times changed. No more, no less.



How the hell can stupidity like that be defended? If you don't know ahead of time what you're getting yourself into with a job/contract and you STILL sign up/agree to it then you have no one to blame but yourself.

You really can't put yourself in his shoes at all eh? Can't imagine what they likely told him back then to keep him working?

 

[banthafett]

For those who actually care. Hart Fisher will be making a special "updated" run of his classic "marvel shirt" and money will go to Gary. News how to order should be here by the end of the week.

 

[Star Puffs]

You really can't put yourself in his shoes at all eh? Can't imagine what they likely told him back then to keep him working?

Empathy is was makes us good people, not blind enforcement of contract law.

 

[devilof76]

Yeah, what we need is more contract abrogation.

 

[Blackthornone]

Yeah, what we need is more contract abrogation.

Revive slavery with contracts then? Contracts need to be regulated so that they can be fair and just.

 

[CollectorNC]

Revive slavery with contracts then? Contracts need to be regulated so that they can be fair and just.

Exactly work for hire and employment at will are hiring practices that ONLY look after the best interests of the employer and ALWAYS put the employee in a perilous situation. I guess some on here would say, just don't work if your state has employment at will (which many do) because you, the employee, is taking the risk.

 

[Blackthornone]

Yeah, what we need is more contract abrogation.

You would probably feel right at home on lllium. Everything is legal there. Enjoy your stay. Just don't sign anything.

 

[devilof76]

The only thing that should be illegal is initiated force.

Revive slavery with contracts then? Contracts need to be regulated so that they can be fair and just.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Blackthornone]

The only thing that should be illegal is initiated force.



What the hell are you talking about?

Just make slavery legal, and then draw up contracts between buyer and seller, and all will be justified according to your argument. Your argument is that honoring contracts comes first, and morality second.

 

[devilof76]

No, my argument in your mind is that honoring contracts comes first and morality second. In reality, my argument is that by putting morality first, you permit/require a society in which the initiation of force becomes a necessity for maintentance of legal order. You demand obedience and conformity to a moral law of which no individual has a choice regarding whether or not they acknowledge that law as true.

My comment regarding contracts was made within the context of a civil society, based upon individual rights, where men voluntarily associate with one another, and their agreements become inviolable by virtue of the legal recognition conferred upon said agreements by contract law. Pretending that a slave compelled by force is in any way comparable to a man who voluntarily contracts and then decides after signing that he doesn't like the terms is a joke. In reality (your old friend) a man who is forced to submit to contract abrogation when he had every reason to believe he had entered into a binding contract, and ends up surrendering his property to his associate's whims is a more apt analogy to men whose lives were taken from them by a law that had no real respect for property rights.

 

[risingstar]

There is no morality here, only what is legal. The choice of one argument over the other seems to depend wholly on what that person has to lose.
All this to say, it's always easier to feel entitled to someone else's money.

 

[user 1190]

But isn't it for Friedrich? I mean I know what Quesda said but the actual court docs read that he can't say he is Ghost Rider's creator, nor sale Marvel Ghost Rider merchandise. Last year at a comic-con, I got a huge blow up of Marvel Spotlight #5 signed by him and chatted with him for awhile. Neal Adams was there too drawing all kinds of Marvel characters and pocketing the money. I guess Marvel turns the other way if you don't sue them and I agree that suing them when you were likely one of 3 contributing creators of GR, is kinda dumb. He could have gone on doing the conventions flying under Marvel's radar. I just don't like the initial way Marvel built its bullpen on the back of writers and artists in such a manner, to basically force them to sign away their rights for a paycheck.

There is a difference between commissions and prints. A single original image is not illegal but once you produce multipule versions of that image you are breaking copyright law.

 

[Blackthornone]

No, my argument in your mind is that honoring contracts comes first and morality second. In reality, my argument is that by putting morality first, you permit/require a society in which the initiation of force becomes a necessity for maintentance of legal order. You demand obedience and conformity to a moral law of which no individual has a choice regarding whether or not they acknowledge that law as true.

My comment regarding contracts was made within the context of a civil society, based upon individual rights, where men voluntarily associate with one another, and their agreements become inviolable by virtue of the legal recognition conferred upon said agreements by contract law. Pretending that a slave compelled by force is in any way comparable to a man who voluntarily contracts and then decides after signing that he doesn't like the terms is a joke. In reality (your old friend) a man who is forced to submit to contract abrogation when he had every reason to believe he had entered into a binding contract, and ends up surrendering his property to his associate's whims is a more apt analogy to men whose lives were taken from them by a law that had no real respect for property rights.

No individual has a choice as to whether to follow ANY law, whether it is based upon morality or not. Insofar as that is true, whether a law is based upon morality is irrelevant. I think that laws should be maintained to preserve the optimum quality of human life. Whether it is based upon morality or not is really of secondary importance.

As far as this man's contract was concerned, if it amounted to him agreeing to it solely by signing his check, that was unfair. His contract should have been agreed upon in writing at the time he accepted his job. If so, then agreeing to the contract by signing his check would have been unnecessary, wouldn't it? Why would they even waste the money to print it on the check if he had already signed a contract when he first started working for them?

 

[risingstar]

I just don't like the initial way Marvel built its bullpen on the back of writers and artists in such a manner, to basically force them to sign away their rights for a paycheck.

I imagine you'd not aware of what music contracts looked like back in the day... or even today.
Do a net search on what Amercian Idol contestants have to sign in 2012. You'd think we were back in the stone age.

While it would be nice if the world gave everyone a "fair shake", it simply isn't realistic. In the end, Marvel could live without Ghost Rider, Gary can't. Those in Gary's position will never be in the driver's seat. Does anyone know who created Daffy Duck? Does anyone know how much money Mary Shelley's family gets in royalties for her Frankenstein creation? How much does Harrison Ford get for the use of his likeness on those endless Star Wars properties? Does anyone care that all those billions of dollars in gold coins found in that sunken ship actually belong to Peru and not Spain yet Spain is claiming it as their own? I can go on and on about the endless injustices ion the world and it'll always come down to the same thing.