A federal appeals court ruled that screenwriter Victor Miller could reclaim U.S. rights to the original Friday the 13th screenplay. While the case was pending, uncertainty over the franchise rights stopped new content for Friday the 13th: The Game; the title was later delisted from Steam when its license expired, and official online multiplayer has since ended.
What Is This About?
Screenwriter Victor Miller won the right to terminate the U.S. copyright transfer covering his original Friday the 13th screenplay. In Horror Inc. v. Miller, No. 18-3123-cv, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Miller was an independent contractor—not an employee—for Copyright Act purposes when he wrote the script in 1979. The court affirmed summary judgment for Miller on September 30, 2021, and issued its mandate on October 21, 2021.
The ruling was a major win for an individual creator, but it did not hand Miller every element of the franchise. Nor did it issue a court order shutting down Friday the 13th: The Game. The actual timeline has three distinct parts: the pending litigation stopped new game content in 2018; dedicated servers were retired in 2020; and an expiring game license led to removal from sale after December 31, 2023, followed by the end of official online play after 2024.
The sequence makes the game a useful consumer-rights case study in 2026. California now requires clearer disclosures when digital stores use words such as “buy,” while the European Commission has responded to the Stop Killing Games movement's successful citizens' initiative—but has not imposed a legal duty to keep discontinued games playable.
This Is a Copyright Ruling, Not a Class Action Settlement
Horror Inc. v. Miller was a dispute over authorship, copyright transfers, and the “work made for hire” doctrine. Horror Inc. and The Manny Company sought a declaration that Miller's termination notices were invalid. Miller counterclaimed, and both sides moved for summary judgment.
There is no consumer settlement fund, no payout, no deadline, and no claim form. Steam customers and console players were not parties to the case, and the Second Circuit did not award compensation to game owners.
Why Victor Miller Won the Copyright Appeal
Section 203 of the Copyright Act gives an author a carefully timed opportunity to terminate certain copyright transfers made on or after January 1, 1978. Congress created the right because a creator may sign away a work before anyone can know its eventual value. A true work made for hire is excluded, so Miller's case turned on whether he had written the screenplay as Manny's employee or as an independent contractor.
Horror Inc. and Manny relied heavily on Miller's membership in the Writers Guild of America, East and Manny's participation in the WGA collective bargaining agreement. The Second Circuit rejected the idea that labor-law status controlled the copyright question. “Employee” can serve different purposes under different statutes, the court explained, and the Copyright Act requires a common-law agency analysis under the Supreme Court's Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid framework.
The case-specific facts leaned decisively toward independent-contractor status:
- Miller brought specialized writing skill and received sole “written by” credit.
- He worked on one movie project for about two months, primarily at home and largely on his own schedule.
- Manny paid two lump sums tied to completion of the screenplay drafts.
- Manny did not provide the traditional benefits courts associate with employment.
- The evidence indicated that Manny did not withhold payroll taxes from Miller's compensation.
- Cunningham exercised some creative input and approval, but the court found that control only marginally supported employee status.
The court therefore held that the screenplay was not a work made for hire and that Miller's Section 203 termination notice was effective against Manny and its successors. It also rejected the companies' argument that the Copyright Act's three-year statute of limitations made his authorship claim too late.
What Rights Did the Ruling Actually Return?
The safest answer is narrower than “Miller owns Friday the 13th.” The appeal established Miller's authorship and his ability to terminate the transferred rights in the original screenplay. His termination notice identified the script, its earlier drafts, and the elements contained in that work.
Section 203 has important limits. It recaptures rights granted under U.S. copyright law; it does not itself unwind rights arising under foreign law. Existing derivative works made under the old grant may also continue to be used under the terms of that grant, even though the former grantee generally cannot create new derivative works after termination without the returned rights.
The record further shows why later franchise rights are more complicated. Miller's drafts treated Jason as a drowned child and did not create the adult, supernatural killer who led the sequels. The lake-ending image of a disfigured child was added during production over Miller's objection, according to the appellate opinion. The adult hockey-masked version developed later; the joint appendix notes that the hockey mask first appeared in Friday the 13th Part III.
That means the ruling did not create a simple, court-defined split in which Miller received every name and location while Horror Inc. automatically kept every later version of Jason. The opinion resolved Miller's status and termination right. Licensing any new film, game, or other project may require a separate analysis of which screenplay elements it uses, which later elements it uses, where it will be distributed, and what agreements the relevant rights holders have reached.
How the Lawsuit Affected Friday the 13th: The Game
The game connection is relevant—and unusually well documented. Friday the 13th: The Game, developed by IllFonic and published by Gun Media, launched in 2017 as an asymmetrical horror game built around online matches between Jason and a group of camp counselors.
On June 11, 2018, while the copyright case remained unresolved in federal court, Gun said the legal claim made all future content “unfeasible.” The announcement ended plans for new maps, counselors, playable Jason versions, modes, clothing, emotes, and kill packs. The company continued maintenance work, but the content pipeline never returned—even after Miller's eventual appellate victory.
That is the clearest direct effect of the litigation. The rest of the game's decline happened in stages:
- November 2020: Dedicated servers were decommissioned and online matches reverted to peer-to-peer hosting. The database supporting progression and unlocks stayed online at that point.
- December 31, 2023: The game and its downloadable content were removed from Steam and other digital storefronts after the game license expired. Existing owners kept the title in their libraries.
- After December 31, 2024: Official online matchmaking and the progression database were no longer supported, ending the game's central player-versus-player experience.
The court did not order those later steps. Gun directly attributed the 2018 content freeze to the rights dispute, but the available public record does not establish that Miller's court victory alone caused the 2023 license not to be renewed or the 2024 services to end. Those events also involved licensing and product-support decisions outside the four corners of the appellate opinion.
Can Existing Owners Still Play the Game?
Not in its original online form. The title is unavailable for a new purchase on Steam, and official public and private multiplayer functions no longer work. A library license is therefore not the same experience owners bought when the online population and progression systems were active.
The download is not entirely inert, however. Gun built Offline Bots to work without an internet connection, and the game also includes Single Player Challenges and the Virtual Cabin. Existing owners report that those limited modes remain accessible, although server-dependent levels, unlocks, customization, and the ability to play as a counselor against other people are unavailable. Offline Bots allows the user to play only as Jason against computer-controlled counselors.
This is why the terminology matters:
- Delisted means the game is no longer offered to new buyers.
- Server shutdown means an online function has ended; it may eliminate all or only part of a game.
- Removed from a library means an existing customer's access license has been revoked—a separate and more severe event.
Friday the 13th: The Game was delisted and lost its online core, but it was not broadly erased from existing Steam libraries. That makes it a partial preservation failure rather than the complete remote destruction seen in some always-online games.
What California AB 2426 Changed on Steam
California Assembly Bill 2426, effective January 1, 2025, targets the language digital storefronts use at checkout. A covered seller may not advertise a digital good with “buy,” “purchase,” or similar ownership language unless it obtains a specified acknowledgment or gives a clear, conspicuous notice that the transaction is a license and links to the license terms.
The law contains exceptions, including free goods, subscription access sold only for the subscription period, and digital goods the seller cannot revoke after the transaction—such as a permanent offline download to external storage that works without an internet connection.
Valve added a notice to Steam carts in October 2024 stating that a digital purchase grants a license for the product on Steam, with a link to the subscriber agreement. The timing was widely reported as preparation for the California law.
AB 2426 is a transparency rule, not a preservation mandate. It does not require a publisher to renew a franchise license, keep matchmaking online, release server software, remove online authentication, or refund users when a supported feature ends. In other words, it makes the limited nature of the transaction harder to hide; it does not give the buyer a permanent functional copy.
Where Stop Killing Games Stands in 2026
Ross Scott of Accursed Farms launched the Stop Killing Games campaign in April 2024 after Ubisoft shut down The Crew, an always-online racing game that became unplayable. The campaign's central argument is that publishers need not operate servers forever, but should leave sold games in a reasonably functional state when support ends—potentially through an offline patch, local-network play, or tools that let customers host their own servers.
The related European Citizens' Initiative used the formal title “Stop Destroying Videogames.” It passed the required threshold and was submitted to the European Commission in January 2026 with 1,294,188 verified statements of support. Organizers presented it to the Commission and European Parliament, and Parliament debated it in May.
The campaign did not receive the binding rule it requested. In its June 16, 2026 response, the Commission said it could not, at that stage, propose a legal obligation to keep games playable after commercial support ends. It instead committed to begin discussions with industry and consumer representatives by the end of 2026 toward a code of conduct for game end-of-life practices, promote awareness and enforcement of existing consumer protections, and report on EU digital-content law.
Friday the 13th: The Game illustrates both the campaign's concern and the legal difficulty. Its defining multiplayer experience depended on continuing licensing and backend services, yet a small offline portion survived. A workable rule would have to address not only server engineering, but also third-party copyrights that may limit what a publisher is legally allowed to distribute after a license ends.
What Digital-Game Buyers Should Take Away
A storefront button does not describe the durability of the product. Before buying a server-dependent game, consumers should look for an offline mode, local multiplayer or LAN support, privately hosted servers, and a published end-of-life plan. A license disclosure explains the legal structure of the deal, but it does not tell a buyer how much of the product will work five or ten years later.
The Friday the 13th history also shows why legal claims should be separated carefully. Miller's appellate win protected an author's statutory right to reclaim his screenplay. The content freeze protected the publisher from releasing material during uncertain ownership. The later delisting reflected an expiring game license. The online shutdown reflected the end of backend support. Those events are connected, but they are not interchangeable.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who won Horror Inc. v. Miller?
Victor Miller won. The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for him on September 30, 2021, holding that he was an independent contractor for Copyright Act purposes when he wrote the original screenplay and that his Section 203 termination notice was effective.
Does Victor Miller own all of Friday the 13th and Jason Voorhees?
No. The decision concerned Miller's authorship and termination of the U.S. screenplay rights he had transferred. It did not award him every later sequel element, foreign right, or existing derivative work. The adult hockey-masked version of Jason developed after Miller's screenplay.
Did the copyright lawsuit shut down Friday the 13th: The Game?
It directly stopped all new content in 2018: Gun Media said the unresolved legal claim made new maps, characters, modes, and other content unfeasible. The public record does not establish that the later license expiration, storefront delisting, and online-service shutdown were caused solely by the court ruling.
Can owners still play Friday the 13th: The Game on Steam?
The game is no longer sold on Steam and official online multiplayer is unavailable. Existing owners may still have limited offline access, including Offline Bots, Single Player Challenges, and the Virtual Cabin, though online progression-dependent unlocks and multiplayer functions are gone.
What does California AB 2426 do for digital-game buyers?
AB 2426 requires covered digital sellers using words such as “buy” or “purchase” to disclose clearly that the transaction grants a license and link to its terms, unless another statutory path or exception applies. It does not require publishers to keep servers running or preserve a game after support ends.
Did the European Union adopt the Stop Killing Games proposal?
Not as a binding preservation mandate. After the related European Citizens' Initiative collected 1,294,188 verified statements of support, the European Commission said in June 2026 that it would not propose a legal duty to keep discontinued games playable at that stage. It instead committed to pursue an industry code of conduct and stronger awareness and enforcement of existing consumer rights.
Is there a Friday the 13th settlement or claim form?
No. Horror Inc. v. Miller was a copyright ownership and termination dispute, not a consumer class action. There is no settlement fund, payout, deadline, or claim form.
Sources
- GovInfo — Horror Inc. v. Miller, No. 18-3123-cv
- U.S. Copyright Office — Notices of Termination
- Friday the 13th: The Game — End of Content announcement
- Friday the 13th: The Game — Offline Bots
- Game Developer — Final patch and end of dedicated servers
- Game Developer — Game license expiration and delisting
- PlayStation — Friday the 13th: The Game delisting notice
- Steam Community — Owner reports after the online shutdown
- California Legislature — AB 2426 digital-goods law
- Ars Technica — Steam's digital-license checkout notice
- European Commission — Reply to “Stop Destroying Videogames”
- Stop Killing Games — Campaign overview
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
