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."

Comments

A Victory

[Staplerh]

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.

Re:A Victory

[Lumpy]

note: there havs NEVER been a film that has made money.

This is normal hollywood accounting. That scam has been going for almost 100 years now, but is very well known to those of us in the industry.

if you sign a movie deal ALWAYS ask for Gross points and never EVER accept NET points.

Points are percent of the money. Gross = percent of the gross it takes in, Net = percent of net profit, there NEVER is any net profit.

I know personally 2 writers that were promised 10 and 20 percent NET. they both recieved NOTHING for their script except the initial $1000.00 option. also they did not get their name on screen because the studio had another writer rewrite some of the script to change it a bit, the rewriter got his name on screen as writer for writing 10% of the story.

There is nothing nobile and honest in Hollywood.

Warning: Hollywood Contracts

[Alien54]

are infamous for giving people percentages of the Net Profit, not the Gross Profit. Hollywood book-keeping is infamous for frittering away money in all kinds of obscure "expenses", so that there is never anything leftover from the Gross for the Gross Profit. In fact, if there is anything left over, it is usually by mistake, since it is the net profit that is taxed.

So I hope that Stan Lee gets his cut from the gross take, and nothing else.

Re:But wait....

[Swift Kick]

Someone didn't read the article:

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.

Re:Where does that put Kirby?

[forceflow2]

Where? Six feet under I do believe. He's dead.

Re:Intelectual property?

[spif]

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.

Re:But wait....

[spif]

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.

Re:10% of Profits? Relying on their accounting?

[tdhillman]

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.

Re:Movies never show a profit!

[stratjakt]

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.

Good for Stan, but still a shame about the rest

[jmoriarty]

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.

Does that include Toei's "Supaida-Man" show, too?

[Mogomra]

Spider-Man in a giant robot, folks. I kid you not.

Re:Contracts are part of the Laws too

[FurryFeet]

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.