Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Decision of Note: <B>Writer is Co-Owner Of Rights in 'Spawn' Character</B>

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
March 01, 2004

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that comic-book writer Neil Gaiman was joint owner of the copyrights in characters he created for the “Spawn” series published by Todd McFarlane. Gaiman v. McFarlane, 03-1331. The appeals court reached its decision by finding that Gaiman's claim wasn't time-barred.

Gaiman began writing for Todd McFarlane under an oral agreement in 1992. Gaiman then created, named or described, and wrote the dialogue for three new characters ' Medieval Spawn, Angela and Count Nicholas Cogliostro ' that McFarlane illustrated. Gaiman filed suit in January 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin for, among other things, a joint ownership declaration. A jury ruled in favor of Gaiman and the district judge entered a judgment that Gaiman indeed was co-owner of the character copyrights.

McFarlane had argued that Gaiman's suit was barred by the three-year statute of limitations of Sec. 507(b) of the Copyright Act. McFarlane contended that Gaiman should have known since 1993, when “Spawn No. 9,” in which the characters first appeared, was published with a copyright notice of McFarlane's ownership of the compilation in the comic book. But the appeals court noted that a compiler's copyright notice isn't adverse to a contributor's copyright and thus doesn't place a contributor on notice of a copyright claim. That McFarlane had also published paperback books in which he claimed the copyrights in all related characters didn't place Gaiman on notice because, the appeals court noted, there is no obligation for authors to read the copyright notices of works in which their materials appear. Also, McFarlane's registration of the comics and books didn't give Gaiman constructive notice considering, the appeals court noted, that authors “don't consult the records of the Copyright Office to see whether someone has asserted copyright in their works.”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?