Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Stan Lee to be Paid Millions for Spidey 387

Posted by CmdrTaco 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stan Lee to be Paid Millions for Spidey More

Stan Lee to be Paid Millions for Spidey

Comments Filter:

  • Contracts are part of the Laws too (Score:4, Interesting)

    by slashnutt ( 807047 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @03:48PM (#11423095) Journal
    The contract stated that Lee would get 'him to 10 percent of TV, movie and merchandising deals'. **AA can't use only the laws it likes; I just wish more actors would (could) go freelance and rid us of this type of cancer. If more people had similar clauses then it would be more cost effective to cut out the middleman and figure out someway to produce entertainment material on their own - visionary may be seeing some kind of internet distribution system for just a mere fraction of the cost of big name distributors. This won't happen anytime soon because Stephen King tried it already and it didn't work but he was a visionary and one day it will work.

    • Warning: Hollywood Contracts (Score:4, Informative)

      by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @03:54PM (#11423204) Journal
      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.

    • Stephen King tried it and it was an utter success would be more like it. What he did was simply ask people to pay rather than require them to, and ended up raking in 70% of all the downloads as *payed*. This fell to 46% when he jacked the price to 2$.. a *chapter*.

      I don't know about you, but if I put a PDF file online and say, "hey, I can't force you to, but I'm going to require you to put a buck in my hat for a download" and 70% of the people pay I consider it a roaring success.

      And that was at a buck a

    • Re:Contracts are part of the Laws too (Score:5, Informative)

      by FurryFeet ( 562847 ) <joudanxNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Thursday January 20, 2005 @05:01PM (#11424094)
      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.
    • I just wish more actors would (could) go freelance and rid us of this type of cancer.

      No no , you are confusing the MPAA with the Movie Actors Guild union.

      Actors are typically union menbers and therefore get much higher wages and cause utter hell for films, espically lower budget films.

      actors leaving the union will not do anything to the MPAA. directors, producers and Writers telling them to go F them'selves and start indie studios that do not sell out is that solution.

      One of the absolute BEST directors

  • Good for him (Score:5, Funny)

    by Vengeance ( 46019 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @03:49PM (#11423106)
    I'm happy to see that he's being compensated, albeit after a bit too much time.

    Maybe now he can stop hanging out at The Android's Dungeon.

    • Re:Good for him (Score:3, Interesting)

      by catch23 ( 97972 )
      But if Marvel appeals, it could still take a bit longer. And given Stan Lee's age (82) he might not last as long as the lawsuit might. What happens if he passes away? Does the lawsuit drop? If he wins, does the money go to the people in his will?

      Will Marvel hire an assassin to end the lawsuit?
      • After the way her movie has been received, I would imagine Elektra to be looking for some work.

      • Re:Good for him (Score:5, Funny)

        by pchan- ( 118053 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:09PM (#11423426) Journal
        Will Marvel hire an assassin to end the lawsuit?

        If they do send an assassin after him, they'll just end up scarring one of his grandkids, turning him into a masked crime fighter out for revenge on the people that killed his grandfather.

        Instead, I suggest trying to kill him with a massive dose of radiation.
        • Instead, I suggest trying to kill him with a massive dose of radiation.

          If Stan Lee and his ilk have taught us anything it's that radiation doesn't kill you, it just gives you super powers. So unless Marvel Enterprises wants a super powerful 82 year old on their asses, I think paying up is their only option..

    • Re:Good for him (Score:3, Funny)

      by zephc ( 225327 )
      "Wow, Stan Lee came back?"
      "Stan Lee never left."

    • He's at the mall. (Score:3, Funny)

      by DG ( 989 )
      Dude, I saw him at the mall. He was over by that place where that local-access TV station was doing a dating game ripoff show.

      DG

  • But wait.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @03:49PM (#11423109)
    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?
    • Yeah, but there's a long history. IIRC, Stan Lee was fired from Marvel and was pretty much broke wasn't he?

      • Re:But wait.... (Score:2, Informative)

        by Swift Kick ( 240510 )
        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:But wait.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kierthos ( 225954 )
      It's bad when it's used against us, and it's good when it's used for us (or someone we like or admire).

      There will be a test later, so you better study if you hope to pass "Understanding Slashdot 101".

      Kierthos

    • Re:But wait.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by crashfrog ( 126007 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @03:51PM (#11423152) Homepage
      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.

      • Re:But wait.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by N0decam ( 630188 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @03:55PM (#11423216) Homepage
        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.

        • Re:But wait.... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by shark72 ( 702619 )

          "The **AA don't create things, they just hoard the rights to other people's creations."

          ... and pay to have those creations made, and cover the costs involved in marketing, selling and sistributing those creations.

          If you have a piece of paper with some lyrics and chords on it, the idea is that you take it to a record company, which comes up with the money to turn that into a CD, then comes up with more money to make sure the radio stations play it and the stores sell it. They get (or at least share) t

          • Re:But wait.... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:14PM (#11423497)
            ... and pay to have those creations made, and cover the costs involved in marketing, selling and sistributing those creations.

            MPAA maybe, but most members of the RIAA just "lend" the artist the money to create and promote their work and then collect it back after they sell records.... If the artist doesn't the artist owes. I know more then one artists getting fucked this way.

            • Re:But wait.... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by nettdata ( 88196 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:38PM (#11423812) Homepage
              " 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

              • Re:But wait.... (Score:3, Funny)

                by defile ( 1059 )

                Agree with everything you said, but I zeroed in on this section.

                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.

                Well, it might be an excuse. "Your honor, my client is so incredibly stupid, that he's in no condition to be committing to anything at all. Why, there are 12 year olds who should enter contracts before my client. Thus, the contract is v

              • Re:But wait.... (Score:4, Insightful)

                by redivider ( 786620 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @05:26PM (#11424427)

                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.

            • "MPAA maybe, but most members of the RIAA just "lend" the artist the money to create and promote their work and then collect it back after they sell records.... If the artist doesn't the artist owes. I know more then one artists getting fucked this way."

              The record company is at risk of losing money, but the artist is not. If the record company ends up spending more on the record than is recouped in sales, then the artist, unfortunately, will end up with a big fat ZERO, but the record company will have

          • Re:But wait.... (Score:5, Funny)

            by KlomDark ( 6370 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:15PM (#11423520) Homepage Journal
            Parent message auto-posted by the **IA CensorBot which monitors slashdot attempting to perform assinine damage control on contradictory viewpoints and keywords.

            (c) 2005 **IA CensorBot 5.12

          • Re:But wait.... (Score:3, Interesting)

            by N0decam ( 630188 )
            I'm not saying that what they do has no value. I just question a legal system that winds up giving more rights to the people behind the marketing than the people behind the creating.

            Copyright was created to encourage creation, not to encourage marketing.

            And before you say "nobody forced them to sign away their rights" realize that the **AAs have created an environment that makes it difficult to make it on your own. As an example, payola to radio stations is illegal, and yet it continues unabated.

            I pers

          • .. and pay to have those creations made, and cover the costs involved in marketing, selling and sistributing those creations.

            They pay the marketing, distribution, and production. I guess that is the part of intellectual property that needs to be protected to encourage author's to create new works and benefit society, right? And once the author dies, they keep those rights for many more years (going on forever right now) because that also encourages the dead authors to crawl out of the grave as artistic

        • The **AA don't create things, they just hoard the rights to other people's creations
          They also spend millions in promotions, provide contacts, etc, which sadly enough, is worth more (in terms of cash) than the creation itself. There's a reason why very talented people who don't sell out linger in obscurity, while an untalented Ashlee Simpson is given a national stage to perform.
          • They also spend millions in promotions, provide contacts, etc, which sadly enough, is worth more (in terms of cash) than the creation itself.

            I never bought this argument. I can't think of a single band that I listen to (including those that have moved over to major labels) that has got a national promotion or any sort of advertising campaign. Sometimes a song or two will make it onto the radio, but that alone is not enough to praise the industry gods, as they are also the roadblock from getting onto radi
        • So if you actually went to either Spiderman movie, or own the DVD, you should expect to be taken to small claims court by the MPAA for another 10% of your purchase price?

          Part of my brain is cheering "hooray for the artists", and the controdictosensor went off.

          Maybe it's OK because I haven't seen Stan Lee shoving his fist down my throat saying I've been a bad person the last several years. (For going to a movie that didn't support him). I mean, Stan could have had an option to lead a fan based boycott.
      • I'm not sure why making money has anything to do with this. The question is ownership, not compensation.

        With that in mind, explain where the cutoff is for this to be wrong? If I make a dollar? 10? 100,000?
      • I hope you supported whatever entity was suing JibJab Media over their adaptation of This Land is Your Land (before the court found for JibJab, at least).
    • This is a corporation ripping off an individual not the other way around.
      • How does that change anything? What, you're saying it's ok for individuals to own IP, but not companies?

        And to be a little pedantic, I am certain it is Stan Lee Enterprises (a corporation in case you were wondering) that filed suit. So you were wrong about your statement.
      • as an individual i can create a corporation consisting of me, myself, and I. just a thought.

    • Re:But wait.... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by freshman_a ( 136603 )
      In his contract it stated he would get 10%. He wasn't paid the 10% and sued. He won and is now getting his 10%. What does that have to do with downloading MP3s and movies?

    • Re:But wait.... (Score:3, Informative)

      by spif ( 4749 )
      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.
    • As long as it's somebody they dont like getting ripped off, piracy is ok. But if it's somebody they like, OMG how dare you steal even a penny from them.
    • You're being very squirrely here.

      If you say, "Do you believe in intellectual property?", you'll get set of answers.

      If you say, "Do you believe in copyright," you'll get another set of answers.

      They aren't the same thing, although some people try to take the generlaly broad support that copyright has and smear it over a whole bunch of other things, using the rubric "intellectual property". For one thing, the very term itself tries to define the terms of the debate -- a sure sign of intellectual dishonesty.
      • Completely correct- but the difference between IP and copyright is getting degraded over time. Originally- copyright was artist only, giving him a set of rights he could license (but retained ownership of) for 24 years, after which the work passed into the public domain. Then it went to 27 years. Then it became inheritable. Then corporations were able to buy ownership of copyright. Then it went to 50 years. Then to 75 years. Now it's 97 years and still being extended...at some point copyright becomes
  • Wasn't Jack Kirby in a similar situation with Stan many years ago?

    • Steve Ditko (Score:2, Redundant)

      by MsGeek ( 162936 )
      What about his heirs? Steve Ditko is the true creator of Spiderman. Kirby's heirs will be due big time for The Fantastic Four, however. Stan Lee has some settling up he needs to do with the families of the real creators he screwed during the '60s.

      For the real story:
      http://www.ditko.comics.org/ditko.html [comics.org]

      • Steve Ditko is the true creator of Spiderman

        Did you actually follow the link you posted? Even it concedes that Spider-man was "half Stan Lee". It also mentions that the scripts were the Stan Lee contribution - Ditko did the artwork.

        It is extremely unlikely that Steve Ditko had a contract quite as generous as Stan Lee's, so it is extremely unlikely that Steve Ditko should get any of the money mentioned (that's Stan Lee's share of the pie, regardless of the money due to anyone else).

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

      • You think. (Score:2)

        by jd ( 1658 )
        What if someone has been using voodoo to turn him into a Zombie? Besides, other dead guys (like Elvis) appear in supermarkets all the time.

  • The Man (Score:5, Funny)

    by pete-classic ( 75983 ) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Thursday January 20, 2005 @03:51PM (#11423144) Homepage Journal
    "I am very gratified by the judge's decision, although, since I am deeply fond of Marvel and the people there, I sincerely regret that this situation had to come to this," Lee told the Hollywood Reporter.

    He then shouted, "Excelsior!" and flew away.

  • A Victory (Score:5, Informative)

    by Staplerh ( 806722 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @03:51PM (#11423150) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:27PM (#11423667)

      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.

      • Re:A Victory (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Wraithlyn ( 133796 )
        According to the article, he IS entitled to a cut of merchandise deals though?

        "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"

        Even so, according to IMDB, total wordwide box office receipts for Spidey 1 & 2 (which are both in the top 15 grossers of all time) is approx 1.6 billion. Must take some kinda nerve to try and claim they made no profit on that.

      • Re:A Victory (Score:3, Informative)

        by Lumpy ( 12016 )
        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 recieve

  • whither Ditko? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spoonyfork ( 23307 ) <spoonyfork AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday January 20, 2005 @03:51PM (#11423154) Journal
    What about the co-creator, Steve Ditko [spiderfan.org]? Where's his payday?

  • In a future Simpson's episode (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Stan Lee: "You don't want a Batman toy. You want something more dignified. Like this big wad of money."
    Boy: "Ahh, but only Batman can fit in my Batmobile."
    Stan Lee: "This big wad of money can fit too."
    (breaks the car by forcing in big wad of money.)
    Stan Lee: "See? It's fitting already."
    Boy: "Ahh, you broke my Batmobile."
    Stan Lee: "Broke? Or made it better?"

  • 10% of Profits? Relying on their accounting? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by belrick ( 31159 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @03:52PM (#11423176) Homepage
    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.
    • > 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.

      But that's okay, because the record companies are saving the artists from evil P2P pirates. Nothing big pirates hate more than little pirates squeezing in on their business.
    • 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.
      • Well, he signed on the profits Marvel raked in, not the movie studios... They studios had to 'buy' the rights to make the movie, and if they didn't make a profit at the box office they were hosed. but with $2,700,000,000. in gross raked in by the movie studios for daredevil, spiderman 1 and 2, xmen 1 and 2, and the incredible hulk... well, that's an incredible hulk of cash... supposedly marvel got 50 mil for spiderman 1... who's worldwide sales were $800,000,000 so likely he'll get 15 million on the esti

  • Kirby (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @03:54PM (#11423200) Homepage
    So when does Kirby's widow get her cut?

  • Stan Lee's newest hero: Lawyer man (Score:5, Funny)

    by FerretFrottage ( 714136 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @03:55PM (#11423208)
    Lawyer Man, Lawyer Man
    Get's the biggest settlement that he can
    Sues a company, any size
    Get's cash and a a new ride
    Look out, here comes the Lawyer Man

  • What's the saying about actor contracts? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Speare ( 84249 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @03:55PM (#11423210) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • From the article

      ...considering Marvel has banked $50 million alone (from SpiderMan)...

      Stan Lee gets 10% of the profit Marvel makes from selling the rights to his creations, not profits of the movies themselves. So he doesn't have to worry about the movie-making accounting. The question would be if Marvel can play tricks to reduce their reported profits. Of course, for past films, these figures have already been reported and cannot now be changed.

    • The rule of thumb in the biz is never settle for points on the net, you'll never see a net dime. Percentages of the gross is what you want.

      Steven
  • I read both /. and fark for the last month or so more and more stories are taken from yesterday's fark. Perhaps the admins should read fark and post the stories as fark does, this way some newbie doesn't get credit, and we get up to date news.

    Just a thought.

  • With a great Power... come$ a great re$pon$ibility.
  • Movie Studios are very, very good at hiding profits. Most people that have earned it, get a percentage of the gross, as getting a percentage of net profits can wind up being nothing. Winston Groom, who wrote Forrest Gump, was promised 5% of the net profits, if I recall correctly, and wound up getting almost nothing since Fox said the picture made no money in theaters (despite taking in around $300 million in the USA alone). So, he might have won in court, but with some creative accounting, he might not m

  • Good (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @03:57PM (#11423250) Journal
    But Marvel will appeal.

    The whole point here is to try and run-out-the-clock on Stan Lee. The guys in his 80s. They're hoping he'll just go ahead and die before they have to pay. If he did die, does Marvel then owe Lee's children (does he have any?)

    Insurance companies view this as a legit business practice. They'll often sit on someone's benefits, and make them jump through as many legal hoops as possible, if they know they have a terminal disease, or are otherwise close to death.

    At any rate, we can all agree that Spiderman sucks.
    • Any money owed to him will go to his estate. The money would go to whoever was supposed to get it under the will.

      If by some strange chance, Lee doesn't have a will, it would go to his children. If he had no children the law would follow its course. First it'd go to his parents, but since their obviously dead, it'd go to their kids (i.e., Stan's brothers and sisters.) If they're dead, it'd got to Stan's nieces and nephews. If they're dead, it'd go to their sons and daughters. If there is no one at all
    • It is called an estate. And Judges often frown on this practice. Regardless what happens to Stan, Marvel will bleed.

  • Don't make me... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ZiZ ( 564727 ) * on Thursday January 20, 2005 @03:58PM (#11423261) Homepage
    You're making me Ang Lee. You wouldn't like me when I'm Ang Lee.
  • Now Stan Lee can spend his money to develop what he always wanted - an underground lair to fight crime from, complete with cool car, neat gadgets, and a butler to watch out for him.

    Oh. Wait. Maybe that's someone else [warnerbros.com].
  • Stan Lee sues the simpsons... says Comic Book Guy is offensive to "guys like Stan Lee". ... worst joke _ever_

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by revery ( 456516 ) <charles@[ ]2.net ['cac' in gap]> on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:14PM (#11423501) Homepage
    An observant reader writes in suggesting that perhaps Marvel is correct about not paying Stan Lee his 10% citing Issue 299 of the Fantastic Four where Dr. Doom destroyed the time continuum of the year during which Stan Lee retired, thereby nullifying his contract. While he get a No-Prize for his efforts another valiant reader mentions that perhaps Stan Lee will be triumphant because he is in fact Captain Marvel, to which we reply: Captain Marvel is dead.

    Nuff said.
  • I guess this means that Marvel will have to declare bankruptcy... again.

    -m

  • Seems odd he wouldn't get paid his due, considering the cameos [eeggs.com] he's [eeggs.com] made [eeggs.com] in Marvel movies.

    Correct me if I'm wrong here.

  • Good for Stan, but still a shame about the rest (Score:3, Informative)

    by jmoriarty ( 179788 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:40PM (#11423839)
    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 [amazon.com], 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 [slashdot.org]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.

  • Let's hope Marvel's other suit goes as badly (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MattW ( 97290 ) <matt@ender.com> on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:52PM (#11423987) Homepage
    It seems like Marvel is the SCO of the comic book industry. Let's hope their lawsuit against NCSoft and Cryptic Studios [wired.com], makers of City of Heroes, goes just as poorly.

    I just love some of the quotes by Marvel.

    Considering that defendants own no comic characters themselves, it stands to reason that the comic books to which they refer are those that depict the characters of Marvel and others," wrote Marvel's attorneys in the complaint.

    I'm sorry, but they do, in fact, publish their own comic. In fact, due to the bundling with the game, I believe I read it had the 3rd highest circulation of any comic in print.

    The complaint says that the "defendants have created, marketed, distributed and provided a host environment for a game that 'brings the world of comic books alive,' not by the creation of new or original characters but, instead, by directly, contributorily and vicariously infringing upon Marvel copyrights and trademarks."

    There are typically around 1500-2500 players on Virtue every night, it seems. I almost never see a copycat.

    A great quote from Cory Doctorow:

    "Asking City of Heroes to police their users to ensure that they don't replicate Marvel characters is like asking a school to police its students to make sure none of them show up for Halloween in a homemade Spider-Man costume," said Cory Doctorow, a renowned writer and advocate for free speech and fair use. "It's unreasonable bullying, and it is bad corporate citizenship."

    And of course, it's a click away to report a copycat character, and NCSoft removes them rapidly.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein

Close