Gary Friedrich v. Marvel/Disney

[Blackthornone]

Look, there is no universal standard of fairness. People have different desires, values and goals. What is worth something to one is worth nothing to another. The individual and only the individual can decide what is good for their life, which is why they need to be free to decide which associations they should or should not become entangled in. It is no more the law's responsibility than it is the other contracting party's. The final authority in determining one's own self-interest is one's self. Defer to another in that regard and if you get cheated, you have no one to blame but yourself.

So you really don't think there is anything wrong with someone needing to sign over their rights to their work just go get paid on their check, by surprise? You don't think that the conditions of employment should be spelled out BEFORE services are rendered? Employers shouldn't have the right to assert specific conditions of being paid AFTER services have been rendered. People who worked for an agreed upon wage are owed that amount, period, with no other conditions other than that which they previously agreed to before starting the work.

It would be like an employer saying, ok, now that you've done the work we agreed upon, you must perform sexual favors for me before I will actually pay you. Or, you must paint my house, you must wash my car, you must give me your firstborn, before I will actually pay you. To which the employee might respond, "say what??? I'm not going to do that! I have to eat. I need to cash this check, so since all checks need to be signed in order to cash them, of course I'll sign it and get my money."

 

[ashkanls]

I worked as a designer for Fox Racing. What EVER I created was their property! In fact I had to sign a confidentiality form not to mention going through 3 levels of security. The art would be loaded on their server and shared with everyone so that it could be used 20 years from now if they wanted. Marvel has the right to go after him for $$$ since he wasted their $$$ to fight him in court. The artist should know better that to legally get in a fight without a contract. Times have changed and he is old so I get how he doesnt know how the real world works these days.

 

[devilof76]

I've said several times that it was wrong for them to change the terms of the contract after services were rendered, but if the artist did not agree to it, the proper course of action would be to sue for payment. He was owed the money and they had no right to deny him payment based on the revised contract.

The problem is that when he signed it, he consented to it. He gave it all the approval it needed to become legally binding. He was the only one with the power to decide whether it was in his interest or not and he chose to say yes to their terms.

If it was wrong for them to change the terms after the fact, how is it right for him to? What will contracts between companies and artists be worth if years down the road, one party can change their mind and sue for damages? Good way to destroy contract law in the industry completely.

 

[Blackthornone]

I've said several times that it was wrong for them to change the terms of the contract after services were rendered, but if the artist did not agree to it, the proper course of action would be to sue for payment. He was owed the money and they had no right to deny him payment based on the revised contract.

The problem is that when he signed it, he consented to it. He gave it all the approval it needed to become legally binding. He was the only one with the power to decide whether it was in his interest or not and he chose to say yes to their terms.

If it was wrong for them to change the terms after the fact, how is it right for him to? What will contracts between companies and artists be worth if years down the road, one party can change their mind and sue for damages? Good way to destroy contract law in the industry completely.

I'm saying it should not be legal for an employer to amend a contract on the check the employee is paid with. Whether the employee signs or not, it should not be considered a legal contract, because it is basically signed under duress.

 

[devilof76]

Either people take responsibility for themselves, or they relinquish their sovereignty to someone who will gladly take it.

I'm wondering if any contract was signed prior to the work being done. If so, then he definitely had a case before he signed the check. If not, then he has nothing. Ex post facto contract arbitration would be a legal abomination, and short of having goons threatening to break his legs, he was not under duress.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

I'm wondering if any contract was signed prior to the work being done

usually they are, but work for hire contracts are spelled out pretty clear on the terms

 

[CollectorNC]

All of these artists contracted freely. No one forced them, so they have no right to retaliate in kind. Force employed against this company would be a first strike, without provocation, and that is the action of a common thug. I don't give a damn how convinced you are that your morality is superior to theirs. A thug is a thug, and by definition, morally bankrupt.

You are kidding, right? Just because you sign a contract, which it's not quite clear what Friedrich ORIGINALLY signed, other than endorsing his check that Marvel was sneaky enough to put a waiver on it. I had a company do that and I crossed through the waiver and put a notation that I in no way agreed to terms within the waiver and then cashed it. That's hardly a contract. He probably got himself stuck later by actually signing a contract, which is what the courts probably looked at. But most contracts you can retaliate in some manner, otherwise an employee has no rights at all.

 

[CollectorNC]

So you really don't think there is anything wrong with someone needing to sign over their rights to their work just go get paid on their check, by surprise? You don't think that the conditions of employment should be spelled out BEFORE services are rendered? Employers shouldn't have the right to assert specific conditions of being paid AFTER services have been rendered. People who worked for an agreed upon wage are owed that amount, period, with no other conditions other than that which they previously agreed to before starting the work.

It would be like an employer saying, ok, now that you've done the work we agreed upon, you must perform sexual favors for me before I will actually pay you. Or, you must paint my house, you must wash my car, you must give me your firstborn, before I will actually pay you. To which the employee might respond, "say what??? I'm not going to do that! I have to eat. I need to cash this check, so since all checks need to be signed in order to cash them, of course I'll sign it and get my money."

Exactly, and therein lies the main issue. As far as subsequent contracts he may have signed, I am more concerned with the initial ones that got him "hooked" by Marvel. Did Marvel have it in writing with him before he wrote anything? Did Marvel only give him a verbal, "this is a work-for-hire"? Or did they say anything until he got his check and it was too late?

 

[CollectorNC]

I'm saying it should not be legal for an employer to amend a contract on the check the employee is paid with. Whether the employee signs or not, it should not be considered a legal contract, because it is basically signed under duress.

Precisely.

 

[HataFoLife]

Sounds like a classic case of a frivolous litigation. If only Stella Liebeck got her ass handed to her like this fella did.

 

[Blackthornone]

Sounds like a classic case of a frivolous litigation. If only Stella Liebeck got her ass handed to her like this fella did.

I just read about the Stella Liebeck case. I think you are wrong.

https://www.social.mtu.edu/faculty/speters/WrightsMcDonaldsfacts.htm

 

[risingstar]

Google Stella Liebeck and see the pics which pop up regarding her coffee burns... Yipes.

 

[Devil_666]

You mean HOT coffee can burn you if it's spilled on you!?

 

[Blackthornone]

You mean HOT coffee can burn you if it's spilled on you!?

The Coffee McDonald's served was between 180 and 190 degrees, about 40 degrees hotter than people have it in their homes. 130 degrees or higher can cause burns. every other fast food restaurant served their coffee 20 degrees cooler. Initially she didn't want to sue.


"...she and her family thought McDonald's should pay $15,000 to $20,000 to cover her daughter's out-of-pocket expenses (which were about $2000) and wages lost while staying home to take care of her and to reimburse Medicare for over $10,000 of medical expenses. About six months after the accident, Stella's daughter wrote to McDonald's to request reimbursement for these items and to ask that McDonald's lower the temperature of its coffee. Although McDonald's had previously settled many claims by other coffee burn victims for amounts up to and exceeding $500,000, it offered Stella and her family only $800." So she met a lawyer who helped her sue.

The jury thought it was a frivolous case too, until they saw the burn pics and heard how the Mc Donald's rep thought that coffee burns were a trivial thing.

 

[user 1190]

Yeah unless it was found that McDonalds had broken some sort of food handling rule for how hot coffee is to servered I dont see how it's their fault and i have never seen anything stating that. I feel bad the lady got burnt, but it was more her fault then anyone else's.

It would be like if I sued a bike park in because I crashed on a big jump, if it had been a smaller jump I would have had less injuries but that's not their fault.

 

[Blackthornone]

Yeah unless it was found that McDonalds had broken some sort of food handling rule for how hot coffee is to servered I dont see how it's their fault and i have never seen anything stating that. I feel bad the lady got burnt, but it was more her fault then anyone else's.

It would be like if I sued a bike park in because I crashed on a big jump, if it had been a smaller jump I would have had less injuries but that's not their fault.

I think you should take 5 minutes to read the article like I did before you pass judgment.

https://www.social.mtu.edu/faculty/sp...naldsfacts.htm

 

[user 1190]

I think you should take 5 minutes to read the article like I did before you pass judgment.

https://www.social.mtu.edu/faculty/sp...naldsfacts.htm

I have read lots on this case and did not just learn of it today as others

Not once has anything ever said that there is a specific temp coffee should be served, only it was hotter then server in most homes, thats not saying much. It was a jury who felt they should exact revenge on McDonalds lawyers for saying the truth and blaming a helpless little old lady who got burned.

So can I sue a hotel for burns if I run the water as hot as it can get since the water heater at my house is set lower? Same basic things, I git burned on my own and blame someone else for the temperature.

 

[Devil_666]

You mean people can do stupid ____ and blame OTHERS for their stupidity? AND get paid in the process!?

 

[devilof76]

And moral elitists will join arms with litigious crusaders to support their claim of victimhood?

Say it ain't so.

You are kidding, right?

I usually kid about these things.

If he was free to not agree to the terms and still cash the check, then he should have done that. So either the waiver was binding and he agreed to it, or it wasn't and Marvel has no claim.

When did people stop honoring their word? Signature doesn't mean much these days, huh?

 

[CelticPredator]

You mean people can do stupid ____ and blame OTHERS for their stupidity? AND get paid in the process!?

I love this.

I love this so much.