## Facts

- Gary Friedrich, a freelance comic-book writer, claimed he created the character “Ghost Rider,” related characters, and the origin story.
- “Ghost Rider” (Johnny Blaze) and the origin story first appeared in *Marvel Spotlight* #5 in 1972, published by Marvel.
- In 1978, years after the initial publication, Friedrich signed a one-page, pre-printed Marvel form described as a “work-for-hire” agreement.
- Friedrich later claimed he owned the renewal-term copyrights and that the 1978 form did not clearly transfer renewal rights.
- Marvel asserted the character was created through Marvel’s in-house process and that the 1978 form confirmed Marvel’s ownership.
- Friedrich filed suit in 2007 asserting ownership and infringement claims tied to later exploitations (e.g., films and merchandise).
- The district court granted summary judgment to Marvel, concluding Friedrich had conveyed any rights he may have had (including renewal rights) and that the ownership claim was time-barred.
- On appeal, Friedrich contested the rulings on renewal-rights transfer, timeliness (repudiation/limitations), and authorship/work-for-hire.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1978 form agreement unambiguously assigned to Marvel any renewal-term copyrights Friedrich might own in “Ghost Rider” and its origin story.
2. Whether Friedrich’s ownership claim was untimely as a matter of law because Marvel clearly repudiated his ownership claim outside the limitations period.
3. Whether undisputed facts established “Ghost Rider” was created as a work made for hire (or otherwise not authored by Friedrich), permitting summary judgment against him on authorship.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for trial.
- The court held summary judgment was improper because material factual disputes existed regarding:
  - whether renewal rights were transferred by the 1978 form;
  - when, if ever, Marvel clearly repudiated Friedrich’s ownership claim for limitations purposes; and
  - who authored the relevant protectable expression and whether the work was made for hire.

## Legal Principles

- Renewal rights are subject to a strong presumption against conveyance; an agreement must clearly transfer renewal rights to overcome that presumption.
- When an agreement is ambiguous as to renewal-rights transfer, extrinsic evidence (including intent and course of dealing) may be required, making summary judgment inappropriate.
- A copyright ownership claim accrues when the claimant’s ownership is clearly repudiated such that the claimant knew or should have known of the repudiation.
- Continued crediting and royalty payments may support a factual dispute over whether repudiation was sufficiently clear to start the limitations period.
- Authorship and work-for-hire determinations can be fact-intensive; conflicting evidence about contributions, editorial control, and working relationship can preclude summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit required a trial because the post-publication 1978 form did not unambiguously convey renewal rights, the record did not establish clear repudiation for limitations purposes as a matter of law, and authorship/work-for-hire questions turned on disputed facts.


Gary Friedrich Enters., LLC v. Marvel Characters, Inc., 716 F.3d 302 (2d Cir. 2013)