Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stan Lee to be Paid Millions for Spidey

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the big-bucks-true-believers dept.

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."

10 of 387 comments (clear)

  1. But wait.... by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought there was no such thing as intellectual property according to 90% of the people here. So this is a bad thing right? Or is it only OK when you download Mp3s and movies?

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:But wait.... by crashfrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or is it only OK when you download Mp3s and movies?

      The next time I make millions of dollars from that Dave Matthew's Band mp3 and those bootleg Battlestar Galactica episodes, I'll be sure to cut them a check.

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
    2. Re:But wait.... by N0decam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's also the fundamental difference of who's being ripped off. Stan created Spider-Man etc. The **AA don't create things, they just hoard the rights to other people's creations.

    3. Re:But wait.... by nettdata · · Score: 5, Insightful

      " I know more then one artists getting fucked this way."

      Yeah, cuz they had a gun pointed to their head when they signed those contracts, right?

      I worked in the music business for years (head of tech for Nettwerk, home of Sarah McLachlan, Lilith Fair, Bare Naked Ladies, Avril Lavigne, to name a few, as well as Virgin, EMI, Sony), and have seen my fair share of artists come in to see the A&R guys.

      It amazes me how stupid some of the new artists are; they totally fail to prepare themselves for entering into any agreements with the labels, and then blame anyone but themselves later on when the light bulb clicks on and they realize that the contracts, written by the labels, are in the label's favour.

      Maybe they're just too stupid to know they're stupid, but that's still no excuse. Even the most least expensive entertainment lawyer should be able to describe the situation outlined by the paperwork.

      Sure, some of the "smart" guys I've known (who were some of the best musicians I've EVER heard), walked away from the userous loans/contracts, but there were always 100 willing idiots waiting in line to take their place.

      Even the most simplistic moron of an "artist" should find themselves someone to handle their business/legal affairs, because that makes up 90% of the music BUSINESS.

      A bad contract or two may be just the wake-up call that some musicians need to get a little grounded in reality. (Don't even get me started on the "I'm an artist, so I refuse to deal with boring things like business/contracts" crap).

      Mind you, most of the "artists/musicians" I know think that they're just the cat's ass, and will be making millions in no time, so this little "loan" won't be that bad; it'll get paid back in no time, and then it's on to the fame and fortune.

      They need a serious dose of reality (and a smack in the head). Just watch 10 minutes of American Idol to see how freakin obliviious 99% of the entrants are to their complete lack of talent.

      END RANT

      PS: I've been a musician all my life; played the violin since I was 5, was offered a scholarship to Tanglewood, and have played lead guitar in Van Halen / SRV cover bands and other paying gigs for years, so it's not like I'm against musicians... I am one. I'm just against STUPID musicians that whine and complain.

      REALLY END RANT

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
    4. Re:But wait.... by redivider · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It amazes me how stupid some of the new artists are; they totally fail to prepare themselves for entering into any agreements with the labels, and then blame anyone but themselves later on when the light bulb clicks on and they realize that the contracts, written by the labels, are in the label's favour.

      Maybe they're just too stupid to know they're stupid, but that's still no excuse. Even the most least expensive entertainment lawyer should be able to describe the situation outlined by the paperwork.

      Sure, some of the "smart" guys I've known (who were some of the best musicians I've EVER heard), walked away from the userous loans/contracts, but there were always 100 willing idiots waiting in line to take their place.

      That's a big part of the problem.

      Just because you spend the money on an entertainment lawyer or business manager doesn't mean you're gonna have any options other than the horrible contract in front of you. Obcenely unfair terms for new artists have become the norm. Turn down one bad contract and if you're lucky you'll get offered another bad contract. If every new artist were to turn down these bad deals, it might make some sort of difference. But there's always some other hungry band waiting in line right behind you, and they're willing to give up rights to everything just to take a ride on a tour bus for a year. And with the advent of ProTools, they can take a mediocre artist and a good producer and make them sound perfect. You can no longer use your talent as a bargaining chip, because they have a computer that can simulate talent for them.

      Obviously there are exceptions to this, but most unproven artists -- meaning they don't have a significant number of independent album sales, no real radio play, no "story," etc. -- are put in a situation where they either sign the contract as is, or they walk away. It's a huge decision to make especially for the kind of people who actually care about what they do and may see this as their one shot at making it. It's easy to tell someone to walk away, but it's a whole other story when the deal is on the table and you have to make that call. It's easier, like you said, once you go through a couple bad deals, to see the reality of situation and make the right choice. But a lot of these bands are in the 18-25 age range. They're young and passionate and a little bit naive, and the label takes full advantage of that.

      They don't hold a gun to your head, but with such a small number of companies having control over the entire industry, it can certainly feel like it. It's like, you either sign one of the bad deals that you're lucky to get (according to them), or you can go back to obscurity in your garage. I'm not saying that's actually the case, but I don't totally blame a young band for getting caught up in the excitement and signing a bad deal in the hope that somehow they'll be different.

      This post is kind of all over the place, but the point is, you can't put *all* of the blame on the artist just because they signed a "bad" deal. The major labels have consolidated to the point where you either sign on their terms (they'll give you a few lame concessions to make it seem like you negotiated something) or you do it yourself, which is becoming more and more difficult. The major labels manipulate the market (radio, MTV, major retail, etc) by paying these outlets huge amounts of money to promote their products, knowing that the independent artist can't afford to compete. This makes it almost impossible for the independent artist to break into the mainstream and therefore more likely to want to sign with the major label, even if the deal is heavily sided with the label, just for that chance to break out and become successful.

      --
      Sinch
  2. 10% of Profits? Relying on their accounting? by belrick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He'd better invest in some auditing. You know the studios will cook the books with all sorts of extra "fees" for stuff that has no value, reducing the bottom line.

    Just like record production companies hire all sorts of expensive behind the scenes "help", reducing the amount of profit that is applied against the artist's advance.

  3. What's the saying about actor contracts? by Speare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Never ask for points on the profits. No movie has ever made a profit.

    Of course movies make profits. But where those profits are buried in the accountancy, nobody will fess up lightly. I hope Stan Lee has an ironclad judgement that can't be wiggled out with some fancy bookwork.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  4. Re:Contracts are part of the Laws too by Frymaster · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Damn greedy hollywood stuck their hand in the cookie jar and got caught.

    well, of course their greedy: that's the whole point of this "free enterprise" thing that everyone seems to think is so neat.

    what bugs me is the hypocrisy, though. if you rip off hollywood for the $4 cost of a rental by downloading ghost dad 2 from some p2p network, the mpaa will sue your ass... but they seem to have no compunction about taking liberties with mr. lee's intilectual property.

    heck, i bet the producers even photocopied some spiderman comics without getting prior written consent.

    --

    2 1337 4 u!

  5. Re:A Victory by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it was in his contract, so I don't see how Marvel can appeal.

    Marvel's argument has been that they made no money on the film. All the money made on the film was spent on production or marketing. All the profits were from merchandising, to which Stan Lee is not entitled a percentage. It is "creative" accounting on their part and hopefully the courts will continue to agree with Mr. Lee in this case.

  6. Re:How it works... by petsounds · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know why parent is modded as Funny. It's actually insightful. The MPAA and RIAA have single-handedly destroyed copyright law in this country, impinged on fair-use, and hampered technological progress. I would venture to say the only lobbying group that has a bigger hold on the U.S. government is the military-industrial complex.