[This is a footnote to my running report on the 2010 hearing on the Neil Gaiman v. Todd McFarlane case. To see coverage from the beginning, click here.]
1. Does plaintiff Neil Gaiman have a copyright interest in the following?
Medieval Spawn: Yes
Spawn #26: Yes
2. Would a reasonable person in plaintiff Gaiman's position have discovered prior to January 24, 1999, that the McFarlane defendants were claiming to be sole owners of copyright interests in the following?
Medieval Spawn: No
Angela #1, #2, and #3: No
3. Did the plaintiff and the McFarlane defendants enter into a contract in 1992?
4. Did the McFarlane defendants breach the 1992 contract?
5. Did the plaintiff and the McFarlane defendants enter into a contract in 1997?
6. Did the McFarlane defendants breach the 1997 contract?
12. Was defendants' failure to identify plaintiff Gaiman as a co-author of Spawn #26, Spawn Volume 6, or Pathway to Judgement a false description or representation of the origin of the work?
13. Does plaintiff Gaiman believe that defendants' failure to identify him as a co-author of Spawn #26, Spawn Volume 6, or Pathway to Judgement is likely to damage him?
14. Did plaintiff Gaiman consent in writing to the use of his name and biographical information on Angela's Hunt?
15. Did plaintiff Gaiman make misrepresentations or omissioins of material fact to defendant concerning his DC Comics contract during the negotiations of the 1997 contract?