Opinion ID: 899620
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Private Repudiation

Text: Second, the record is unclear as to whether Marvel privately repudiated Friedrich's claim in its communications with Friedrich before April 4, 2004. Although Marvel contends that it told Friedrich that it 14 Under the 1909 Act, copyright protection was not renewed automatically. See 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 9.05[A][1]. Only certain parties could file for renewal and formal renewal was an absolute condition to continued copyright protection. Id. § 9.05[A][1], [D][1][a]. While subsequent amendments made it possible for the renewal rights in works published between 1964 and 1977 to vest without formal registration, see Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-307, 106 Stat. 264; 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 9.05[A][1]-[2], this historical fact indicates that the name on the original 1972 copyright notice was not necessarily a public repudiation of Friedrich's claim to ownership of the renewal copyright. - 37 - considered Ghost Rider to be a work made for hire either at the time of the comic book's creation or at the time he executed the Agreement in 1978, the circumstances surrounding those events are in dispute. Only Marvel's letter dated April 16, 2004 clearly communicates that position to Friedrich. Because Friedrich filed his complaint less than three years later, his ownership claim would be timely if that was the first time Marvel privately repudiated his ownership claim. Accordingly, there is a genuine dispute as to when Marvel first told Friedrich that it intended to take sole credit for Ghost Rider.