Opinion ID: 899620
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Authorship and Work-for-Hire

Text: On appeal, Friedrich also asks us to review the district court's decision to deny his cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of authorship. Friedrich contends that the record establishes as a matter of law that he was the author, or at least a joi nt author, of the Ghost Rider work. Because we have jurisdiction over the grant of summary judgment, we have the discretion to review the otherwise unappealable order denying Friedrich's crossmotion for summary judgment. See Barhold v. Rodriguez, 863 F.2d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 1988). Although we have already decided to vacate the judgment in favor of Marvel, we exercise our discretion to review this portion of the district court's order in the interests of judicial economy. See id. As with the grant of summary judgment, we review the district court's denial de novo, but this time we construe the record in favor of Marvel, the party copyright since at least 2004 and chose to proceed with the production and release of two Ghost Rider movies, including one produced entirely after this lawsuit was filed. - 43 - against whom summary judgment is sought. Mullins, 653 F.3d at 113 (quotation omitted).
The Copyright Act protects original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression , but not ideas. 17 U.S.C. § 102; see H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 57 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5670 (indicating 1976 Act did not change the basic dichotomy between expression and idea embodied in the 1909 Act) . The author of a work owns the copyright in that work, 18 unless it was a work made for hire, in which case the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title. 17 U.S.C. § 201(a), (b); see also Cmty. for Creative NonViolence, 490 U.S. at 743-44 (citing 1909 Copyright Act § 62). Although the 1976 Act requires the parties to execute an express agreement that a work is made for 18 If the work is a joint work, that is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole, then the authors are co-owners of the copyright. 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 201(a). - 44 - hire, see 17 U.S.C. § 101, works created prior to 1978 are governed by the 1909 Copyright Act, Martha Graham Sch., 380 F.3d at 633-34. That Act did not require an express agreement; instead, [t]he copyright belong[ed] to the person at whose 'instance and expense' the work was created. Id. at 634-35. A work is made at the hiring party's 'instance and expense' when the employer induces the creation of the work and has the right to direct and supervise the manner in which the work is carried out, even if that right is never exercised. Id. at 635.
We agree with the district court that there are genuine disputes of material fact that preclude granting summary judgment on the issue of authorship. While Friedrich points to evidence that would demonstrate that he was the sole author or a joint author of the work, Marvel has presented evidence supporting the following contradictory account of the creation of Ghost Rider: Marvel had published comic books starring a cowboy named Ghost Rider since 1966. In 1971, Friedrich was working on an issue of Daredevil when he approached Thomas - 45 - with an idea, not a written proposal, for a motorcycleriding villain named Ghost Rider. Thomas thought the character was better suited as a superhero in his own comic book and arranged a meeting with Lee. Lee authorized the comic book, deciding Ghost Rider's alter ego would be named Johnny Blaze, even though both Friedrich and Thomas disliked that name. Friedrich began writing Ghost Rider's origin story only after this meeting. Thomas and Ploog scheduled a meeting to design the character, but Friedrich failed to attend that meeting and did not provide any instruction on what Ghost Rider should look like beforehand. Therefore, Ploog modeled the new character after the original cowboy, incorporating Thomas's idea for an Elvis-like leather jump suit and a skull head, and then spontaneously drawing flames to frame the skull. The rest of the book was produced according to the Marvel method, with Marvel retaining editorial control throughout and paying all costs, including a page rate for Friedrich's contributions as a freelance writer. When construed in Marvel's favor, the record reveals that Friedrich had nothing more than an - 46 - uncopyrightable idea for a motorcycle-riding character when he presented it to Marvel because he had not yet fixed the idea into a tangible medium. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). A jury could find that Marvel then induce[d] the creation of the flaming-skulled superhero Ghost Rider and Spotlight 5, and had the right to direct and supervise the manner in which the work [was] carried out. Martha Graham Sch., 380 F.3d at 635. Under this version of the facts, Thomas, a Marvel employee, was the one who decided that Ghost Rider should be a superhero in his own comic book. Lee, the head of Marvel, commissioned the work by authorizing the comic's production. Ghost Rider's appearance and origin story developed through the collaborative efforts of Friedrich, Thomas, Lee, and Ploog, all of whom were paid by Marvel. If accepted as true, a jury could easily conclude from these facts that Ghost Rider was a work made for hire and thus that Marvel was the sole statutory author. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of Friedrich's motion for summary judgment. - 47 -