Gaiman v. McFarlane
360 F.3d 644 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When two or more authors collaborate with the intent to merge their contributions into an indivisible whole, such as a comic book character, they are considered joint authors, and each co-owner's contribution need not be independently copyrightable on its own. A claim for co-ownership accrues for statute of limitations purposes only upon a clear and express repudiation of the claimant's ownership rights by a co-owner.
Facts:
- Todd McFarlane, creator of the 'Spawn' comic book series, entered into an oral contract with writer Neil Gaiman to write the script for one issue, 'Spawn' No. 9.
- In the script for 'Spawn' No. 9, Gaiman created and described three new characters: Medieval Spawn, an angel named Angela, and an elderly mentor named Count Nicholas Cogliostro.
- Gaiman provided the characters' names (for Angela and Cogliostro), dialogue, and detailed descriptions, while McFarlane created the visual illustrations for them.
- The issue was a commercial success, and McFarlane subsequently created derivative works, including action figures of Medieval Spawn, and sent Gaiman royalty checks.
- McFarlane's company also sent royalty reports to Gaiman that referred to him as a 'co-creator' of the characters.
- In a letter dated February 1999, McFarlane explicitly stated that 'all rights to Medieval Spawn and Cogliostro shall continue to be owned by Todd McFarlane Productions,' unambiguously denying Gaiman's ownership interest for the first time.
Procedural Posture:
- Neil Gaiman filed suit against Todd McFarlane in the U.S. District Court, seeking a declaration that he was the co-owner of copyrights in certain comic book characters.
- The case was tried before a jury, which found in favor of Gaiman.
- The district court entered a judgment declaring Gaiman a co-owner, ordered an accounting of profits, and issued an injunction against McFarlane.
- McFarlane (appellant) appealed the judgment, specifically the injunction, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, where Gaiman was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a writer who contributes textual descriptions, names, and dialogue to the creation of comic book characters, which are then visually depicted by an artist, obtain a joint ownership copyright interest in those characters, even if the writer's contribution alone may not be independently copyrightable?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, J.
Yes, a writer who contributes expressive textual elements to a comic book character in collaboration with an artist obtains a joint ownership copyright interest. The court affirmed the district court's judgment. First, the court rejected McFarlane's statute of limitations defense. A copyright owner's claim for a declaration of co-ownership does not accrue until the other co-owner expressly repudiates their rights. McFarlane's copyright notices on the compilations were not an adverse claim, and Gaiman's suit, filed less than three years after McFarlane's explicit 1999 letter of repudiation, was timely. Second, the court held that Gaiman was a joint author of the characters Medieval Spawn and Cogliostro. In a collaborative work like a comic book, where contributions of text and art are intended to merge into an inseparable whole, it is not necessary for each author's contribution to be independently copyrightable. Gaiman's contribution of names, descriptions, and dialogue was expressive and essential to creating the distinctive, copyrightable characters. The characters were not mere uncopyrightable 'stock characters' under the 'scènes à faire' doctrine because the combination of Gaiman's text and McFarlane's art gave them sufficient distinctiveness to warrant copyright protection.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the doctrine of joint authorship in the context of collaborative, mixed-media works like comic books. It establishes that in such collaborations, the focus is on the copyrightability of the final, merged product rather than the independent copyrightability of each individual contribution. This provides crucial protection for writers and other non-visual creators in industries where their expressive contributions are fused with visual elements. The case sets a strong precedent that protects authors from losing their ownership rights through implication, requiring an explicit and unambiguous repudiation to trigger the statute of limitations for co-ownership claims.
Unlock the full brief for Gaiman v. McFarlane