A U.S. District Courtroom federal decide has reinstated abstract judgment in favor of Frazetta Properties, LLC, ruling that Jesse David Spurlock and Vanguard Productions misled the Courtroom utilizing a cast doc to justify unauthorized use of Frank Frazetta’s copyrighted art work.The ruling comes from an ongoing case filed in 2022, by which Vanguard Productions revealed a guide that includes Franzetta’s cowl artwork with no license. The comedian writer infringed on the copyright of two visible works from “Loss of life Supplier” by artist Frank Frazetta.
The photographs utilized in “Frazetta E-book Cowl Artwork” weren’t coated by a previous license and weren’t honest use. Spurlock defended the discharge of the guide by submitting a doc he falsely claimed had been signed by members of the Frazetta household. Forensic evaluation later confirmed the Plaintiffs by no means signed the doc. “It seems, this doc was by no means signed by the Plaintiff principals, because the protection represented. Defendant Spurlock knew this.” states the abstract judgement.
In his June 2, 2025, Order, U.S. District Decide William F. Jung wrote:
“Mr. Spurlock fooled the Courtroom (and the legal professionals)… This was false, because the protection now admits in mild of the forensic proof offered.”
The Courtroom sanctioned Spurlock, reinstated its authentic abstract judgment ruling in favor of Frazetta Properties, and ordered him to pay the Plaintiffs’ authorized charges. The ruling affirmed that Frazetta Properties owns the legitimate copyright to the Loss of life Supplier II and Loss of life Supplier V artworks, and that Spurlock’s use of these pictures in his 2022 publication was unauthorized and infringed upon the Property’s rights. The Courtroom additionally rejected Spurlock’s claims of honest use and prior licensing, stating that his use of the artwork “supplants the thing of the protected work and is due to this fact not transformative to any significant extent.”
This federal case adopted a 2019 state court docket lawsuit (Case No. 2019 CA 001718 NC), by which Spurlock sued the Frazetta household, alleging breach of contract after receiving a termination discover. At trial, the Frazetta household efficiently demonstrated that Spurlock had didn’t uphold his contractual obligations, together with underreporting and underpaying royalties on Frazetta-related guide gross sales. A jury dominated in favor of the Frazettas, and Spurlock later deserted his enchantment. He was additionally ordered to pay authorized charges in that case.
“This ruling reinforces what we stand for: defending the Frazetta identify from fraud and defending the legacy of one of many best artists in American historical past—it doesn’t matter what it takes.” — Joe Weber, consultant of Frazetta Properties, LLC
Frazetta Properties will likely be submitting a sworn transient outlining damages, charges, and prices incurred because of Spurlock’s misconduct, as ordered by the Courtroom
