Gaiman beats McFarlane; Posner describes Spawn

[CaptainMarvel]

Todd McFarlane apparently lost his final appeal against Neil Gaiman, which isn't really a surprise. What surprised me the most was seeing Judge Posner go into an in-depth description of Spawn:

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?submit1=showop&caseno=03-1331.PDF

[Mutley Hyde]

Summary; Gaiman created three characters in one issue (#9) under an oral agreement defining his compensation as being "better than the big guys" (meaning DC and Marvel). McFarlane jacks Gaiman by continuing to use his characters in further issues without compensating Gaiman for it.

Gaiman - 1
McFarlane - 0


I was wondering what all the fuss was over one issue, but didn't realize it was an issue of McFarlane continuing to use Gaiman's creations without compensating him. Seems to me McFarlane was all talk when he went on and on about how Image was the creator's company. In the spirit of his original mission statement (so to speak) for Image, I think this was the right decision.

[Liquid Death]

So...will this allow the release of MiracleMan?

Please? :)

[bishop2knight]

From Gaiman's blog (http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2004_02_22_archive.asp#107766958467371937):

“It's also, I think, an important judgement for protecting creators from rapacious or crooked publishers, in that it clarifies what a copyright notice is there for, and what a copyright form is there for. A publisher can't (as Todd did) file a form with the copyright office three years after something has been published, claiming to have written something that was written by someone else (er, me in this case) and thus start the statute of limitations running for copyright purposes -- if the real author doesn't find out about this within three years, he or she has lost his copyright. As the judgment points out, "Authors don't consult the records of the Copyright Office to see whether someone has asserted copyright in their works". Nor can a publisher sneakily set the statute of limitations running by printing a different copyright notice on a later edition of a work, again, as Todd did.

And my favorite part:

And – for those keeping track of what this step means, Gaiman laid it out in his blog as well: “it's still full steam ahead now for the Miracleman plans, and now I need to figure out what I want to do with Angela, Cogliostro and Medieval Spawn.”

[JasonF]

Originally posted by Liquid Death
So...will this allow the release of MiracleMan?

Please? :)

My understanding is that Gaiman had a choice of either 1) enforcing the contract and trading Angela and Medieval Spawn to McFarlane in exchange for Miracleman, or 2) taking his share of the profits to Angela and Medieval Spawn. Gaiman eventually chose 2, so now McFarlane still has whatever rights to Miracleman he had in the first place. Of course, it's not clear what rights he did have -- Dez Skinn, the original British publisher of Moore & Gaiman's Miracleman claims that any rights Eclipse (McFarlane's claim to Miracleman is that he bought Eclipse, the U.S. publisher of Miracleman) may once have had reverted to Skinn before McFalrane bought Eclipse. Then there's an argument that Skinn never had any rights, either, and that the rights belong to whoever published Miracleman back in the 1950s.

The point is, Miracleman is still a convoluted mess, but this ruling confirms that McFarlane is now Gaiman's man-whore, so to the extent Gaiman needs to twist McFarlane's arm, he's got lots of leverage to do so.

By the way, thanks to Captain Marvel for pointing me to this thread. I'm a comic fan and a law fan, so I'm really enjoying this stuff.

[JasonF]

I've had a chance to read the opinion, and -- as usual -- Judge Posner is in great form. My favorite quote (from page 19):

[Spawn is]a kind of malevolent Superman figure, although actually rather weak and stupid.

I wonder if Posner has a clerk who is a fan of Spawn, or if Posner himself is the Spawn fan. Stranger things have happened -- Clarence Thomas is apparently a huge fan of Icon. But someone in those chambers is definitely a comic book fan (witness the aside about the Lone Ranger's real name at page 26).

I also like how, at pages 25-26, he takes the time to tell kids that they need to read prose, not just watch TV or movies (or read comics!)

[WillieTheShakes]

[comic book guy/] Best ruling ever! [\comic book guy]

[littlefuzzy]

Anyone remember the lawsuit against Palladium Books over their rpg called Nightspawn?

That always seemed stupid to me, as spawn and nightspawn were words long before McFarlane.

BTW, I have the Nightspawn book, not the revised version with the new title. :D

[Crocker Jarmen]

On Gaiman's site, they have an MP3 of the opening arguements for the appeal. I was shocked at how flustered and unpolished McFarlane's lawyer sounded. Listening to the judge lecture him every three minutes is pretty funny.

[Patman]

McFarlane himself isn't the best orator either.

[Michael Corvin]

How about an analogy.

Does Timothy Zahn get compensation for characters he created for the Star Wars universe, that were used in later novels, toys, comics and what not. Doubtful.

Sounds like a shady case to me.

[WillieTheShakes]

Originally posted by Michael Corvin
How about an analogy.
... Sounds like a shady case to me.

Wow, with legal reasoning like that (and in complete absence of the evidence presented) it's amazing to me that you were the judge neither at the trial nor at the appeal, both of whom ruled in Gaiman's favour...

[TeeSeeJay]

Originally posted by Michael Corvin
How about an analogy.

Does Timothy Zahn get compensation for characters he created for the Star Wars universe, that were used in later novels, toys, comics and what not. Doubtful.

Sounds like a shady case to me.

Zahn's and Gaiman's contracts were not at all similar. If they were, Gaiman wouldn't have gone to court.

Your analogy is fatally flawed.

[JasonF]

Originally posted by Michael Corvin
How about an analogy.

Does Timothy Zahn get compensation for characters he created for the Star Wars universe, that were used in later novels, toys, comics and what not. Doubtful.

Sounds like a shady case to me.

Zahn likley did his work as a "work made for hire," which means the copyright owner is his employer, not Zahn himself. Gaiman's work was not done as "work made for hire," so the copyright owner is Gaiman.

[Michael Corvin]

Originally posted by WillieTheShakes
Wow, with legal reasoning like that (and in complete absence of the evidence presented) it's amazing to me that you were the judge neither at the trial nor at the appeal, both of whom ruled in Gaiman's favour...

What's more amazing to me is that you have been a member here since 2001 yet you flame other members despite the rules.

Whereas JasonF provides a nice simple explanation. :up: Thanks.

[Gamblor187]

Originally posted by Crocker Jarmen
On Gaiman's site, they have an MP3 of the opening arguements for the appeal. I was shocked at how flustered and unpolished McFarlane's lawyer sounded. Listening to the judge lecture him every three minutes is pretty funny.

Where is this at? I couldn't find it on Gaiman's site.

jim

[WillieTheShakes]

Sorry if you took it as a flame - there was nothing unsure nor tentative about your post, nor was there any sense that you were seeking an explanation. Instead, you questioned the merits of a case (which had already been ruled on by two judges) not based on the evidence (much of which is freely available on Gaiman's site, as are the rulings) but on an unrelated analogy...

[Josh-da-man]

Originally posted by Michael Corvin
How about an analogy.

Does Timothy Zahn get compensation for characters he created for the Star Wars universe, that were used in later novels, toys, comics and what not. Doubtful.

Sounds like a shady case to me.

I'm not sure about what kind of arrangement Zahn has/had with Lucasfilm regarding rights, but it's likely that anything Zahn created in his Star Wars novels would've been covered by the contracts he signed when he wrote them.

The Gaiman/McFarlane case is a totally different matter, as Gaiman apparently believed that he would retain some degree of ownership of any characters he created while authoring the Spawn comics in question. If Gaiman had signed a contract granting McFarlane full ownership of the characters in question, then the case probably wouldn't have made it to court, and Gaiman wouldn't have won if it did.

[Crocker Jarmen]

Originally posted by Gamblor187
Where is this at? I couldn't find it on Gaiman's site.

jim

It's on Tuesday's journal entery.

http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/journal.asp