Slashdot Mirror
Stan Lee to be Paid Millions for Spidey
Soldrinero writes "After a tough legal battle that began in 2002 (mentioned in a previous Slashdot story), Stan Lee will finally get his due. A recent court decision says that Marvel owes Lee 10% of their profits for works based on his creations. Since three recent Marvel-based movies are in the all-time top 100 for box-office gross, this will be a sizable chunk of change."
Good call from the court.
He filed the lawsuit in November 2002, pointing out a clause in his contract that entitled him to 10 percent of TV, movie and merchandising deals, an amount he thought was significantly higher than the $1 million-per-year salary he currently receives. Marvel tried to find a loophole in the wording.
Seems like a no-brainer. It was in the contract, Marvel tried to finangle their way out of it, and they failed. Good show, I must say. Good for him for staking out the claim, and calling Marvel on their unethical business practices.
So, bottom line, everything aside: it was in his contract, so I don't see how Marvel can appeal. They keep their merchandising revenue anyways.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
So I hope that Stan Lee gets his cut from the gross take, and nothing else.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Lee began with Marvel in 1939, and served as writer, editor, art director, head writer and publisher for the company before effectively retiring from active duty and becoming chairman emeritus. He filed the lawsuit in November 2002, pointing out a clause in his contract that entitled him to 10 percent of TV, movie and merchandising deals, an amount he thought was significantly higher than the $1 million-per-year salary he currently receives.
"We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
Where? Six feet under I do believe. He's dead.
Actually Marvel did go bankrupt, and the rights to all their stuff was bought by another company that has risen from the ashes as what we're calling Marvel Enterprises today.
I'm no expert, but I think the character Spider-Man is protected by a trademark, and a movie like "Spider-Man" is protected by copyright, whereas something like a desktop metaphor for a computer interface would be covered by a patent.
COPYRIGHT vs. TRADEMARK vs. PATENT
I think the issue here is that Stan Lee had a contract with Marvel which entitled him to 10% of profits from TV, movie and merchandising deals (at least involving characters he created - not sure about others). Marvel tried to say that the contract didn't really say that, Stan disagreed and sued, and he won.
fnord.
Stan Lee had a contract with Marvel entitling him to a percentage of profits. So it's not really an intellectual property issue, it's basic contract law.
Thank you, come again.
fnord.
It all depends on what exactly he signed for- net poitns or gross points. If he signed for a percentage of the net, he is absolutely screwed. Films don't often make net profits. You're right- Hollywood accounting is remarkable. Remeber the story of Art Buchwald- he got 2 net points on "Coming to America," won his case, and saw nothing.
If you ever, ever, sign for anything, sign for gross points. 10% of a $250,000,000 then is $25,000,000. Much better numbers.
befuddled (noun) 1. Unable to create a pithy sig
Ya know what they say, debt is an asset.
Final judgement.. -1 zillion bucks!
Thing is, he sued Marvel, he's entitled to 10% of whatever Marvel charged the movie folks for the rights to make spiderman, not 10% of what the movie made.
Paramount (or whoever) aren't even defendants in this suit, IIRC.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the case continues with substituted parties. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) see here. I couldn't determine from the article what basis the case had for being in federal court because I thought Stan Lee was a new york resident, but if he's a California resident then the case is most likely based diversity of citizenship jurisdiction (residents of different states & >$75,000 in controversy) and either New York or California law on survival of claims would likely apply under Erie v. Tompkins.
:-/
In California, civil actions survive the death of the plaintiff, who has to be replaced by a personal representative/successor in interest. The idea originated with wrongful death claims and has been expanded to other areas. See here for a quick overview.
Contrary to Hollywood, it is difficult to kill someone for money and get away with it, so no, they won't hire an assassin, they'll try to drag out the case until he dies though so that he can't e.g. explain his understanding of the contract anymore.
So many of the rest of the real innovators in comics never got a true slice of the wild cash their creations produced. Siegel and Shuster got a pittance for Superman, and their story is far more the normal than Stan Lee's. It is the creative spark that should really reap the lion's share of the rewards in an endeavor, and not the marketing machine that grinds it away after the truly unique work is done.
If you haven't read it, I highly recommend The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, a fictional biographic account of two cousins riding the wave of comics. It won a Pulitzer, and is a fascinating, engaging tour through the history of comics and their role in society. It was reviewed on Slashdot about a year and a half ago, but since the story seems so relevant to Stan Lee's victory here I thought it was worth a mention.
Spider-Man in a giant robot, folks. I kid you not.
The contract was with Marvel. Stan Lee can't claim 10 percent of the movies' profits, what the court says is that he's entitled to 10 percent of whatever Marvel collected.
It should be a nice chunk of cash, but not as much as people around here think.
Stan Lee does all those interviews and appearances (and always has) because he's a shameless, sleazy thief desperately trying to [continue to] take credit for all the hard work for which Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, and countless other amazing talents were responsible.
Without Kirby, Ditko, and all the other talented creators, Marvel wouldn't even exist today. Perhaps the same can be said for Stan Lee's contributions, but he's just not even in the same league with those guys -- never was, and never will be.
As bad as Marvel is (and they're pretty greedy scumbags), Stan Lee is far, far worse, because he *personally* cheated people and continues to misrepresent his contributions to this day. Marvel's just another money-grubbing corporation, and that type of thing should be expected from them.