The one form of media that will always be close to my heart is the comics industry; the illustrated means of telling epic tales makes life feel grand and surreal in a way no novel can accomplish.  In comics, anything and everything can happen, and writers and artists have the amazing ability of collaborating to paint the perfect picture in the minds of audiences.  Different from most writers, comic writers and artist have a benefit others never could: they can be fans of their own media.  A writer cannot be a “fan” of literature, this is not how writing works, and it is very, very vague.  Comics artists and writers though, specifically artists, do what they do because they fell in love with the style and the characters from a young age.  For the longest time, comics were fun, and making them even more so; of course, everything has head-bashing setbacks, and it is finally the comics form’s turn; Marvel Comics has made the decision, in accordance with the current flavor-of-the-month censorship craze, to begin suing artists who draw characters, for profit, that Marvel as a company owns.  An artist at a comic convention, for instance, can no longer be commissioned to draw Captain America in their style, as Marvel’s estate owns the character.  Now, certainly, this makes sense; copyright laws can be quite direct.  The head-bashing enters when everyone realizes that Marvel does not care who they sue: they will sue their own contracted artists, as well.  Mike Deodato, the current artist of The New Avengers can no longer draw and sell images of any Marvel character, not even the characters in his own book that he gets paid to draw every month; he can, and would, be sued for not only doing what his loves, but his actual job.

1. Gary Friedrich Ghost Rider Lawsuit: Joe Quesada and Dan Buckley Add Some Clarity

The catalyst event is not only chronicled here, but it is described in detail from the point of view of Marvel Comics’ Editor in Chief Joe Quesada and Publisher Dan Buckley.  The event described is the second court case revolving around the creator of Ghost Rider, Gary Friedrich, and Marvel’s suing him for distributing, for profit, unlicensed reprints/copies of old Ghost Rider Comics.  As they were “unlicensed” and, as proven years earlier, in the ownership of Marvel, the suit claims that Friedrich is illegally making a profit on stolen merchandise, regardless of his being the creator or not.

I intend to use this as the overall springboard for all points to be made, as this is the catalyst for Marvel, Disney, and their lawyers’ decisions.  The case and the interview will be referenced constantly, with the interview itself providing means for comprehending Marvel’s viewpoint.

2.  Marvel Wins Court Battle Over Ghost Rider:

The article provides background, and rather unfortunately recent, information on the first Ghost Rider copyright court case.  It analyzes the creator of Ghost Rider, Gary Friedrich, claiming that Marvel did not have the rights to Ghost Rider beyond producing comics for the character, as film and marketing were not discussed at the time of contract signing, and  he deserved royalties for the 2007 film.  This past year, a federal Judge ruled that Marvel’s new mass media division, which also did not exist at the the time of Friedrich’s contract signing, Marvel Entertainment, does in fact retain the rights to his character.  This would be a stepping-stone to the current debacle.

I intend to use this as background to Marvel’s integrity and character study, as means to understand Marvel’s stance on copyright and what “ownership” of a character is.  The article will also serve as background to the larger, overall court case and dispute between Friedrich and Marvel, that provides the main thesis.

3. Worth a Thousand Words: The Images of Copyright

A very lengthy, extensive, article dated the first of this year, analyzing the vague concept of copyright and copyrighting images.  Rebecca Tushnet is incredibly critical of the Law, and her focuses on multimedia and images, specifically them as “transparent or opaque” concepts, is quite welcome in terms of the comic art topic, as comic images may not be directly connected to ownership and copyright claims within the realm of artistic liberty.

4.  No More Unauthorized Artwork

This is not an academic database article or analysis, I will say that upfront.  This is a journal post on the popular, and possible number-one, art congregation location on the internet, DeviantArt, where artists professional and amateur around the globe share their creations publicly.  The journal piece itself is a well-crafted analysis, commentary, and repost of professional comic artist Steve Bissette’s statements that comic artists should openly refrain from drawing Marvel characters, whether for profit or not, as a means of protest and personal safety.

I intend to use this exactly as it is presented: this is not an academic article.  This is the voice of the people, and even more specifically the people this case is intentionally working against, and their reaction.  Public reaction is very key to disputes such as these, and from the perspective of actual artists this makes a very useful weapon.  (An interesting note not mentioned here is a statement made by artist Robert Liefeld: “Not a single creator that has sued Marvel for creative compensation has succeeded. The list is getting longer. Know what you signed.  I do not own Deadpool, Cable, X- Force—I get a generous payout on their exploitation, but I knew from day one, they are not mine. Period.  I signed those deals when I was 21 years old. I knew that pennies on the dollar were better than no pennies at all.  I was an eager young talent looking to change the game and the playing field, I did that through my creations. No regrets.”)

5.  Copyright Law

This is the United States Copyright Law, from the US Copyright Office, by which all creations are given official ownership to a party, legally.  There is irony in their mission statement, “To promote creativity by administering and sustaining an effective national copyright system.”  as they state that they at the Office are “proud to be part of a long tradition of promoting progress of the arts and protection for the works of authors.”  Perhaps not so much to sustain creative rights of artists and authors, but whoever that Office can decree owns them at the time?  Rather convenient, actually.  This source is, of course, to criticize while abiding by the legal proceedings and how Marvel is capable of making their claims.  While it is no personal contract, which would be the best possible source, it is the next best thing for an overall standpoint.

I intend to use the Copyright Office as a means of maintaining a sense of professionalism, as analyzing Marvel’s actions cannot be done without considering the laws that they themselves are claiming they can use.  Understanding knowledge of copyright laws will provide a better outcome, regardless of what the outcome actually is.  It is a necessity for this type of analysis.