This is not an apt occasion on which to reexamine our Rights not be placed at the mercy of a jury. Which argues against treating the question as one of law,īut tugging the other way is the concern that property Whether a particular work is copyrightable is fact-specific, Cal.Ģ002), hold that copyrightability is always an issue of law. 1996), along with a number of districtĬourt cases, e.g., Collezione Europa U.S.A., Inc. 2001),Īnd our own Publications Int’l, Ltd. Bridgewater Candle Co., 259 F.3d 25, 34 n. It usually does) on originality, and that it is therefore an Mixed question of law and fact, at least when it depends (as We have found only a handful of appellate casesĪddressing the issue, and they are split. The defense of uncopyrightability, is strictly an issue for theĬourt. The parties agree that the alternative defense, Rejected his statute of limitations defense and that in anyĮvent two of the comic-book characters at issue are notĬopyrightable. McFarlane contends that a reasonable jury would not have The accounting is not yetĬomplete, and so the judgment is not final McFarlane’sĪppeal is therefore limited to the injunction requiring him to Monetary relief in respect of Gaiman’s supplemental claimįor damages for breach of his right of publicity, and orderedĪn accounting of the profits that McFarlane has obtained Ordered McFarlane to so designate Gaiman on undistributedĬopies in which these characters appear, provided modest

Gaiman to be the co-owner of the characters in question,

The judge entered a judgment that declared The case was tried to a jury, which brought in a verdictįor Gaiman. The Act, other provisions of federal law, and state law, as That he (Gaiman) owns copyrights jointly with McFarlane inĬertain comic-book characters. The Copyright Act against Todd McFarlane and corporationsĬontrolled by him that we can ignore, seeking a declaration

Neil gaiman todd mcfarlane