Editor’s
Note: This is the second part of a blog post discussing the lawsuits between
Dan DeCarlo and Archie Comics. The first part can be found here.
The final lawsuit
involving Dan DeCarlo and Archie Comics[1]
was another action brought by Archie Comics seeking declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief against DeCarlo’s estate, who passed away in December 2001.
In the lawsuit, DeCarlo’s estate tries again to argue ownership claims for the
Josie and Sabrina characters and also adds the character Cheryl Blossom and her
family. The court reaffirmed the previous decision that DeCarlo was equitably
estopped from contesting Archie Comics ownership of the Josie and the Pussycats
characters. As for Sabrina, the court found there to be a presumption that
Sabrina was a work for hire, and if it wasn’t, DeCarlo’s signing of the 1988
and 1996 agreements, in which he assigned all rights he might have in previous
works to Archie Comics, conclusively grants ownership of Sabrina to Archie
Comics. The court also found the agreements signed in 1988 and 1996 also
transferred any rights DeCarlo may have had in the Cheryl Blossom characters. Furthermore,
the court also ruled that the copyright assignment termination notices the
estate sent to Archie Comics in an attempt to reclaim ownership of the
character are null and void because (i) the Sabrina work was a
work-made-for-hire, and (ii) the statutory time period for filing the
termination notices in regards to Josie or Cheryl Blossom had not occurred. In
a footnote the court states, “Whether
defendant or DeCarlo's heirs may be entitled to invoke Section 203 with respect
to any of DeCarlo's Josie or Cheryl Blossom works
is a question which, in the case of the 1988 assignment, can occur no earlier
than 2013. The Court declines to rule on that issue at this time.”[2]
Speaking bluntly,
these cases are a bit of a mess, but it’s easy to pass judgment in hindsight. In
interviews, DeCarlo stated that he contacted a Cartoonist’s Association attorney
in 1970 because he was upset about how Archie Comics handled the Josie
cartoon—not telling him about it until the day before it was to air.[3] The
attorney he spoke with told him he had a good case, but he would probably be
blackballed in the industry if he pursued it; so, he didn’t.[4] In
the 2000 case, DeCarlo’s attorney sought to primarily argue state law breach of
contract claims. After the arguments failed in the Josie case, instead of
focusing on copyright law, they attempted to retry many of the same state law
and contract claims, which I imagine didn’t endear them to the court. I can
only speculate that they chose this approach because they didn’t like their
chances under copyright law. Even though it appeared the court in the last case
gave the estate an opening to seek termination of copyright assignments, thus
far I have not seen any indication the estate has done so, and based on the
outcome for the Shuster family, it might not be successful.
While DeCarlo was a valuable contributor to
the characters inhabiting the Archie universe, his attempts to gain control
over the characters failed. As is so often the case when a creator asserts
claims against his former employer, the relationship ended poorly. After the
first lawsuit was filed, Archie Comics immediately fired him after having
worked for Archie Comics for over 40
years, stating they “found that they and their employees could not stomach
having [DeCarlo], in his words, “sneaking” around Archie Comics’ offices.”[5]
We’ve seen it before in other cases I’ve discussed. When a company feels like
its ownership of its intellectual property is being challenged, it will lash
out. It’s an understandable reaction, but incredibly disappointing to see. As a
fan, you would prefer to believe these companies would take care of the
creators who’ve contributed so much to the company’s legacy (and profits), but
that is seldom the case.
The takeaway for
creators: (i) know your employment status and if the work is a work-for-hire,
(ii) make sure you understand what you are giving away when you sign
agreements, (iii) don’t wait too long to take action if you think someone is
infringing on your rights, and (iv) if you sue someone, the relationship will
likely end.
[1] Archie Comic Publications, Inc. v. DeCarlo,
258 F.Supp.2d 315 (SDNY 2003)
[2] Archie,
258 F.Supp.2d at 334 n.121.
[3] The
Comics Journal, No. 229, page 43 (2000).
[4] http://www.donosdump.com/Jozine/LifeOfJosie/Life08a.html
[5] https://www.peterdavid.net/2014/03/31/archie-and-the-lawyer-guys-part-2/;
http://www.donosdump.com/Jozine/LifeOfJosie/Life08.html
No comments:
Post a Comment