Friday The 13th And The Lawsuit Behind The Mask

Friday The 13th And The Lawsuit Behind The Mask

Over the years, the Friday the 13th franchise has generated plenty of lawsuits and business fights, but the most important one for creators and rights holders is not about monsters, sequels, or merchandising deals. It is about authorship, leverage, and a part of the Copyright Act that allows certain creators to reclaim rights decades after they signed them away.

Why This Case Mattered To The Franchise

The dispute in Horror Inc. v. Miller turned on a question that arises frequently in entertainment and marketing work, even outside Hollywood. When Victor Miller wrote the screenplay for the first Friday the 13th film in 1979, was he doing so as an employee or as an independent contractor? That label did not just affect a tax form or a payroll practice. It controlled whether Miller had, decades later, a statutory right to terminate the copyright grant he made and reclaim United States rights to the screenplay.

People often assume that once a creator signs an assignment, the deal is permanent. Federal copyright law takes a different view for certain grants. Congress built a second look into the statute, based on a practical reality: early in a project, the creator often has less bargaining power and cannot accurately predict what the work will become over time. Section 203 is one of the mechanisms that can shift leverage back to the author later in life, but only when the work is not a work made for hire.

The Termination Right Under 17 U.S.C. Section 203

Section 203 applies to certain grants made by an author on or after January 1, 1978, and it permits termination of the grant during a limited window that opens thirty-five years after the grant. If the grant covers the right of publication, the statute uses an alternative timing rule tied to publication and a forty-year outside point, and it still funnels the termination into a five-year window. The notice requirements are strict. The effective date must fall within the statutory window, and the notice must be served well in advance, no less than 2 years and no more than 10 years before the effective date stated in the notice.

That structure is not an academic detail. It is the entire fight in many copyright recapture cases. The party holding rights typically argues that the statute does not apply because the creator was an employee, or because the work was a work made for hire, or because the notice was defective, late, or outside the statutory window. Section 203 is not forgiving about timing, and sophisticated rights holders treat termination risk as something to plan for well before the thirty-five-year mark.

Employee Versus Independent Contractor Was The Entire Ballgame

In Horror Inc. v. Miller, the production side argued that Miller should be treated as an employee for purposes of the Copyright Act. One of the arguments focused on guild structure, citing Miller’s membership in the Writers Guild of America and the producers’ collective-bargaining environment. The Second Circuit rejected the idea that guild membership, standing alone, converted Miller into an employee and evaluated the relationship under the Supreme Court’s agency law framework.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid is the key source for this analysis. Reid uses a multifactor agency test to determine whether a creator is an employee or an independent contractor for copyright purposes, looking at the realities of control, the manner and means of creation, the provision of tools and workspace, the duration of the relationship, the method of payment, tax treatment, employee benefits, and related factors that reflect common law agency principles. No single factor is dispositive, which is exactly why these cases turn on documents and credible testimony about how the relationship actually functioned.

How The Second Circuit Applied Reid In Horror Inc. v. Miller

The Second Circuit examined the relationship between Miller and Manny, Inc., the production company tied to the first film, under the Reid framework. The court looked at practical indicators such as control over the work, the nature of the engagement, and the economic realities reflected in how the parties operated. After weighing the factors, the court held that Miller was an independent contractor when he wrote the screenplay. That conclusion meant the screenplay was not treated as a work made for hire for purposes of the termination provisions, which cleared the path for Miller to terminate the grant and reclaim domestic rights under Section 203.

The outcome matters because it determines who controls licensing of the original screenplay in the United States. Control over underlying rights drives everything else: sequels, derivative works, character exploitation, merchandising, streaming licenses, and the business decisions that come with running a legacy franchise. The decision also serves as a warning to rights holders who assume that older assignments are locked forever without carefully reviewing whether the original creator relationship can be characterized as an employment relationship under Reid.

What Business Owners And Creators Should Take From This

For small businesses, marketing agencies, production companies, and creators, the lesson is not limited to Hollywood. The employee versus independent contractor distinction is often treated as a staffing decision, but in intellectual property work it becomes a control decision. The documents signed at the start of a creative relationship can determine whether the business owns what it paid for, whether it owns it only for a term, and whether it is exposed to statutory recapture decades later. Reid also punishes sloppy process. If the relationship looks like an independent contractor relationship in practice, a label in a contract will not rescue the rights holder if the other facts point in the opposite direction.

This is one reason I push clients to treat creative contracting as a serious risk management exercise, not a formality. If a business is commissioning valuable creative work, it needs to know what it is buying, what it is licensing, what it is not getting, and what the long term termination risk looks like under federal law. On the creator side, it is equally important to understand that some assignments are not forever, and that the timing and notice requirements can create leverage later, so long as the creator fits the statutory definition and the work is not a work made for hire.

Final Thoughts

Horror Inc. v. Miller is a reminder that copyright ownership is often decided by relationships and paperwork, not just creativity. The Friday the 13th brand is a cultural icon, but the legal fight behind it was a straightforward, high-stakes question of classification and statutory timing. The case is worth knowing because it shows how federal termination rights can change the economics of a franchise long after the original work was created, and how the employee-versus-independent-contractor distinction can determine who holds the keys to licensing in the United States.

Contact us today to discuss your business or legal matter. Put our 20+ years of legal experience to work for you.

---

For detailed insights and legal assistance on topics discussed in this post, including litigation, contact the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont at our Bergen County Office. We're here to answer your questions and provide legal advice. Contact us at (201) 904-2211 or email us at  info@pjlesq.com.

Interested in More Legal Insights?

Explore our range of resources on business and legal matters. Subscribe to our podcast and YouTube channel for a wealth of information covering various business and legal topics. For specific inquiries or to discuss your legal matter with an attorney from our team, please email me directly at pl@pjlesq.com or call at (201) 904-2211. Your questions are important to us, and we look forward to providing the answers you need.

About Peter J. Lamont, Esq.

Peter J. Lamont is a nationally recognized attorney with significant experience in business, contract, litigation, and real estate law. With over two decades of legal practice, he has represented a wide array of businesses, including large international corporations. Peter is known for his practical legal and business advice, prioritizing efficient and cost-effective solutions for his clients.

Peter has an Avvo 10.0 Rating and has been acknowledged as one of America's Most Honored Lawyers since 2011. 201 Magazine and Lawyers of Distinction have also recognized him for being one of the top business and litigation attorneys in New Jersey. His commitment to his clients and the legal community is further evidenced by his active role as a speaker, lecturer, and published author in various legal and business publications.

As the founder of the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont, Peter brings his Wall Street experience and client-focused approach to New Jersey, offering personalized legal services that align with each client's unique needs and goals​.

---

DISCLAIMERS: The contents of this website and post are intended to convey general information only and not to provide legal advice or opinions. The contents of this website and the posting and viewing of the information on this website should not be construed as, and should not be relied upon for, legal or tax advice in any particular circumstance or fact situation. Nothing on this website is an offer to represent you, and nothing on this website is intended to create an attorney‑client relationship. An attorney-client relationship may only be established through direct attorney‑to‑client communication that is confirmed by the execution of an engagement agreement.

As with any legal issue, it is important that you obtain competent legal counsel before making any decisions about how to respond to a subpoena or whether to challenge one, even if you believe that compliance is not required. Because each situation is different, it may be impossible for this article to address all issues raised by every situation encountered in responding to a subpoena. The information below can give you guidance regarding some common issues related to subpoenas, but you should consult with an attorney before taking any actions (or refraining from acts) based on these suggestions. This post will also focus on New Jersey law. If you receive a subpoena in a state other than New Jersey, you should immediately seek the advice of an attorney in your state, as certain rules differ in other states.

Disclaimer: Recognition by Legal Awards

The legal awards and recognitions mentioned above do not constitute an endorsement or guarantee of future performance. These honors reflect an attorney's past achievements and should not be considered as predictors of future results. They are not intended to compare one lawyer's services with those of other lawyers. The process for selecting an attorney for these awards can vary and may not include a review of the lawyer's competence in specific areas of practice. Potential clients should perform their own evaluation when seeking legal representation. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.