Decarlo v. Archie Comic Publications, Inc.
Decision Date | 22 January 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 00 Civ. 2344(LAK).,00 Civ. 2344(LAK). |
Citation | 127 F.Supp.2d 497 |
Parties | Daniel S. DECARLO, Plaintiff, v. ARCHIE COMIC PUBLICATIONS, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Whitney North Seymour, Jr., Sharron Ash, Landy & Seymour, New York City, for Plaintiff.
Leora Herrmann, Edmund J. Ferdinand, III, Grimes & Battersby, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Daniel S. DeCarlo long has drawn the She's Josie comic strip, including the characters Josie, Melody and Pepper, for defendant Archie Comic Publications, Inc. ("ACP") and been compensated on a flat per-page rate and by certain royalties. Now that ACP is embarked on much more extensive and lucrative commercialization of these characters, including a motion picture, DeCarlo claims that he owns the characters and that ACP's commercialization exceeds the rights he granted to it.
The matter now is before the Court on DeCarlo's motions to remand the case to the state court from which it was removed and to disqualify ACP's attorneys and ACP's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting their counterclaim, as well as DeCarlo's cross motion for summary judgment striking ACP's affirmative defenses and dismissing its counterclaim.
Plaintiff's Claim
DeCarlo has been a comic book artist since the 1950's. He claims to have begun developing the character Josie in the mid 1950's at about which time he began working full time as a freelancer for a number of enterprises, including ACP for which he continues to work.1 He contends that he showed a Josie comic strip, including the Melody and Pepper characters, which he claims also to have created, to ACP in or about 1961.2 Following an unsuccessful effort to syndicate the proposed strip, ACP itself decided to publish it and brought out the first She's Josie comic book in 1963.3 It paid DeCarlo $23 per page for his work on the Josie comic books and, according to the complaint, paid him a 5 percent royalty on revenues earned therefrom from June 1966 through October 1969.4 In addition, it sent him a check for $1,406.25 in 1998 without any explanation.5
It then set forth covenants in relevant part as follows:
The 1996 Agreement is entitled a Work for Hire Agreement between DeCarlo and ACP. It began with a series of introductory recitals:
• ACP 9
• "All past, pending and future uses of all Properties, including uses by [ACP's] licensees, will be collectively referred to in this Agreement as `Works.'"10
The 1996 Agreement then set forth provisions defining the relationship of the parties, their understanding regarding compensation, and so on. The key provisions included the following:
The foundations of plaintiff's position here are that he was the sole creator of the Josie strips and characters, that he granted to ACP only the right to use his drawings in its comic books and strips, and that plaintiff retains all other ownership interests in the characters Josie, Melody and Pepper. He alleges that ACP, in derogation of his retained rights, has licensed or otherwise used the Josie, Melody and Pepper characters for purposes other than comic strips and comic books — purposes such as dolls, recordings, animated cartoons and live action motion pictures — without his consent and without payment of fair and reasonable compensation.11 Defendant disputes each of these propositions, but that is immaterial for present purposes.
DeCarlo admits having known for many years that ACP claimed rights in his alleged work product far more extensive than he now acknowledges having granted. He concedes, for example, that he understood in 1963 that Radio Comics, an ACP subsidiary, claimed sole ownership of the copyright in She's Josie # 1, one of the comic books, and, indeed, that he "didn't think it was right" for it to have done so.12 He knew that the creator credits on the covers of Josie # 22 (published in 1966) through Josie and the Pussycats # 47 (published in 1970) with the exception of one issue read "by Dan `n Dick," a reference to DeCarlo and Richard Goldwater of ACP, despite DeCarlo's contention that he was the sole creator of these characters.13 Indeed, he knew that ACP licensed the Josie property to Hanna-Barbera for the production of animated programs that were telecast on CBS from 1970 to 1974 and that ACP, in his words, was "making a fortune" from the shows, yet DeCarlo neither received nor then demanded any additional compensation.14 He knew also that ACP had authorized release of Josie cartoons on videocassette and licensed the production of Josie underwear.15 Indeed, when he learned in 1993 that Josie and the Pussycats cartoons were being aired on The Cartoon Network, he was, in his words, 16 Yet through this entire period, plaintiff concededly never voiced any discontent to ACP about its use of the Josie characters or asserted any of the claims of ownership he now asserts.17
In due course, ACP entered into negotiations with Universal City Studios with a view to licensing motion picture rights in the Josie property. Not surprisingly, particularly in view of DeCarlo's reticence over the decades, it acted on the premise that it owned the entire right, title and interest in it. When Universal inquired in 1998 whether DeCarlo ever had made any claim to ownership or co-ownership in the property, ACP truthfully responded that he had not. Indeed, based on DeCarlo's silence, ACP took the position that Universal's "concerns vis-a-vis the copyright issue . . . are without any merit" and a "non-issue." Indeed, when it succeeded in licensing the motion picture rights, it relied upon DeCarlo's silence in agreeing to indemnify Universal against the consequences of any dispute that might arise as to ownership of the Josie characters.18
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lego A/S v. Best-Lock Constr. Toys, Inc.
...where alleged copyright infringer was "ignorant" of the fact that plaintiff owned copyrighted material); DeCarlo v. Archie Comic Publ'ns, Inc. , 127 F. Supp. 2d 497, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("Finally, ACP plainly was ignorant of the facts now alleged by DeCarlo, i.e. , that he claims ownership ......
-
Gary Friedrich Enter.S v. Marvel Enter.S Inc
...that the 1976 Act controls copyright-related controversies arising after January 1, 1978, was reiterated in DeCarlo v. Archie Comic Publications, 127 F.Supp.2d 497 (S.D.N.Y.2001). There, the court held that unpublished comic book characters, created prior to 1978, were nonetheless subject t......
-
Simplexgrinnell v. Integrated Systems & Power, Inc.
...was ignorant of the true facts; and (4) defendant relied on plaintiff's conduct to its detriment. DeCarlo v. Archie Comic Publ'ns, Inc., 127 F.Supp.2d 497, 509 (S.D.N.Y.2001). ISPI has not established a basis for 27. ISPI has not shown that SimplexGrinnell intended for ISPI to continue to u......
-
Cambridge Literary v. W. Goebel Porzellanfabrik, Civil Action No. 00-10343-NG.
...question jurisdiction is not properly invoked on the basis of a federal defense to a state law claim." DeCarlo v. Archie Comic Publ'ns, Inc., 127 F.Supp.2d 497, 502 (S.D.N.Y.2001), aff'd, 11 Fed.Appx. 26 (2d Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1056, 122 S.Ct. 647, 151 L.Ed.2d 564 (2001). Ther......