Gary Friedrich To Appeal Ghost Rider Legal Case

[Rich Johnston]

Bleeding Cool told you this morning that the court had found against Gary Friedrich, the creator of Marvel's Ghost Rider character, and in favour of Marvel Comics over the movie rights to the character, citing the cheque backs that Friedrich had signed in order to cash them, as well as subsequent contracts.

However his lawyer, Charles S. Kramer of Reizman Berger of Missouri, told Bleeding Cool today "We are limited in our ability to comment because the litigation continues, but will say that it is our intention to appeal the Court?s adverse ruling at the soonest opportunity."

So the Ghost Rider may yet rise again!

[darkspark]

I met Gary at free comic book day here in Omaha a few years back. He signed a copy of Ghostrider vol 1 #13 for me, seemed like a nice enough guy but way too in to trying to recapture something he lost long ago. He isn't just fighting Marvel now he is fighting Disney too. It maybe time to bow out with some grace over this.

[Thad]

Huh -- I thought back-of-the-check contracts had been pretty roundly rejected as legally binding.

Bet we haven't heard the last of this.

Not that it took any particular foresight to call this one.

[Dmer1]

I recall Steranko's solution to the back of check disclaimer. He simply crossed out the assignation disclaimer, and cashed the check. Marvel sent it though, voiding their claim to his work, supposedly. I wonder if he got royalties for the reprint volumes.
I'd like to see Frederich win this. If it goes to the right judge, he certainly has a case IMO.

[JOE SOAP]

He should set his head on fire and ride into the Marvel offices wielding a chain.

[Appasawz]

If he's fighting for the movie rights he clearly couldn't have seen Nick Cage brutally murder anything that could ever have been cool about a Ghost Rider movie.

[Thad]

Merchants will accept money from a bad movie just as readily as money from a good movie.

[Comicsfan101]

Any chance of a brief recap of what it is he's arguing for and what supports or does not support the claim? Even a link to a previous mention?