I'm not sure I understand the above cartoon's arguments.

Templeton claims fans are saying "Gary made Ghost rider a huge hit series and Marvel did nothing but steal his work." Who's saying that?

It then goes on to say t he character wasn't even popular until the nineties.

The X-men were not very popular until Chris Claremont and Dave Cockrum revamped them, creating the "version" that was made into three or four animated series, and then the movies. Does that mean by the cartoon's logic, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby don't deserve credit as the creators?

Is the cartoon trying to have it both ways, giving Thomas and Ploog creator credit AND then claiming GR wasn't a popular character until the nineties anyway?

I think the cartoon started the out good showing the other side of the argument, but I agree with you that the concept wasn't popular till the 90s is a very weak argument.

Was he selling Mike Ploog prints though?

Not sure exactly. My understanding from all the various articles, was that he was signing color copies of covers from the Ghost Rider comics that he wrote. Is that common? What do writers sell at cons?

I wonder is how many Ghost Rider sketches Mike Ploog has sold at cons? More than $17,000? Can you go after one guy and not the other, without it hurting your case? Isn't that part of what Mr. B was saying above? They will have to go after everyone at some point, or it weakens any given case doesn't it?

Agreed. I wish he would have stuck to making a serious point. If there are valid reasons for the action, beyond trying to scare the pants off anyone else thinking about suing, I would have liked to hear them.

The cartoon above seems to be making the claim that these lawsuits are unfair somehow. Painting Marvel as a victim. The cartoon oversimplifies the situation and mocks the fans, distorting the valid arguments into gross and idiotic statements, but I don't see what's wrong with one guy testing the system to see if he is owed anything, legally, if he has a case. And from Mr. B's post above it sounds like there was a valid argument to be made on several grounds, and some legal precedents.

It's too bad that the couldn't automatically give a bonus or something to these creators when movies are made.

Would that be some kind of legal admission that the original artists/writers were the real owners?

The imaginative artists and writers really did make that place the house of ideas.

Another point against the comic strip. While the 90s Ghost Rider was possibly more popular, the movie is based on the Johnny Blaze deal-with-the-devil concept, not the Danny Ketch version.

Two things:

First, some laws SHOULD BE disobeyed. Imagine if we lived back in the days when interracial marriage was against the law.

That is a law that SHOULD BE disobeyed.

Disney went out and bought the laws they wanted.

Second, I would challenge the "contract on the back of the check" thing.

An artist is hired to do work. He does the work. He gets the check after having done the work, and on the back there's an "oh, by the way, if you want to get paid for this work you just did, you need to now sign over all rights to it."

You are under no obligation to honor this 'after the fact' agreement. You've already done the work. If they are forcing you to agree to something AFTER you've done the work, that's duress, and it invalidates the contract.

One more thing. Even though you don't have to honor the 'contract on the back,' since we live in a country run by corporations, you'd better believe they'd spend the treasure of Midas to convince everyone otherwise, even though they're wrong.

Just because it's a law, doesn't mean it's right.

In reponse to artists/writers hired to do work under the impression that they would have certain rights, only to find out if they cash the check they relinquish them, is that true? I can understand Siegel and Shusters naivete back in '38 but wasn't it common knowledge by the time the 60s and 70s arrived that it was work-for-hire?

Everything else I agree with you.

That said, corporations like Disney lobby for copyright extension acts. Why not contact members of congress when the issue comes up, and they do support copyright extension despite it being detrimental, why not vote against them?

Gerald, you should speak to Rick Veitch and Steve Bissette about that.

Also, if there's a contract on the back of the check, you can alter it in any way you choose.

If the bank refuses to cash the check, Marvel can't use the artwork if you haven't been paid for it. I mean, they will, but now you have actionable cause against them, should you choose to defend the rights of a person against the powers of a corporation.

And to answer your last question, you can't vote it out. Disney will always have the money to buy the next congressman. The only thing you can do is make the price too high for Disney to operate and make a profit.

That is the ONLY remedy here. That is... unless you want to live under their thumb.

We can't vote the actual law out, but what members of congress voted for the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act/Sonny Bono Act/the Mickey Mouse Protection Act? And what were the reasons cited?