STAN LEE SUES MARVEL

[MattBrady]

<img src="http://classic.newsarama.com/Creators/stanlee.jpg" align="right" width="117" height="125" alt="Stan Lee">Making good on a threat made public last week, <a href="http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/index.cfm?story=ON-20021112-000727-1415" target="_blank">Dow Jones Newswire</a> is reporting this afternoon that Stan Lee has filed a lawsuit against Marvel Enterprises, claiming that the company has embarked on a “shameful scheme” to deprive him of profits from its largest money makers, notably, the Spider-Man and X-Men films, and various television series.

Lee claims that Marvel has “trampled upon” his rights, according to Dow Jones, particularly a 1998 agreement that entitles him to share in the profits of productions that use his famously fierce characters. Lee's suit, filed Tuesday in Manhattan federal court, seeks 10% of profits earned from Hollywood films including the "Spider-Man: The Movie," which this spring grossed $114 million in its opening weekend. Lee, 79 years old, claims he has not made any money from the film.

Last <a href="http://classic.newsarama.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000036" target="_blank"> week</a>, Marvel revealed that Lee had threatened legal action, although they called his claim meritless and noted that it paid him an annual salary of $1 million.

According to the suit, Marvel is refusing to honor its commitment to Mr. Lee now that it has "hit the jackpot" with Spider-Man, and expects similar successes with other films, including Daredevil starring Ben Affleck. Lee also seeks a share of profits made from toys and other merchandise based on his characters.

As originally posted on November 7th, Marvel's SEC filing reads:

<blockquote>"Threatened Action. The Company has received a written claim by Stan Lee, Chairman Emeritus, asserting the threat of litigation, in the event the Company fails to pay him 10% of the profits derived by the Company from the profits of the movies and television programs (including ancillary rights) utilizing the Company's characters, as provided in the Employment Agreement between the Company and Mr. Lee dated as of November 1, 1998. Pursuant to the terms of the Employment Agreement, the Company is currently paying Mr. Lee a salary of $1 million per year and believes that Mr. Lee's claim is without merit. If Mr. Lee commences suit, the Company intends to vigorously defend such action."</blockquote>The full SEC filing can be read on the SEC website by clicking <a href=http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933730/000093373002000013/0000933730-02-000013.txt target="_blank">HERE</a> or on Marvel.com [.pdf format] by clicking <a href=http://www.marvel.com/investors/archive/sept_2002_Q10.pdf>HERE</a>

The provision from Lee’s employment agreement being cited [under the Expenses/Fringe Benefits section] reads:

<blockquote>“f) In addition, you shall be paid participation equal to 10% of the profits derived during your life by Marvel (including subsidiaries and affiliates) from the profits of any live action or animation television or movie (including ancillary rights) productions utilizing Marvel characters. This participation is not to be derived from the fee charged by Marvel for the licensing of the product or of the characters for merchandise or otherwise. Marvel will compute, account and pay to you your participation due, if any, on account of said profits, for the annual period ending each March 31 during your life, on an annual basis within a reasonable time after the end of each such period.”</blockquote>

[J.C. Bakken]

[quote]Originally posted by Matt Brady:
<strong>claiming that the company has embarked on a “shameful scheme” </strong><hr></blockquote>
*chuckles* Stan writes for them, or what?

[quote]Originally posted by Matt Brady:
<strong>"Spider-Man: The Movie," which this spring grossed $114 million in its opening weekend. Lee, 79 years old, claims he has not made any money
from the film. </strong><hr></blockquote>

So, all in all, how much is Lee gonna bring in? I seem to remember something about it's 10% of what Marvel is earning. Pluss everything else, like Blade, X-Men and everything Marvel.

But, most importantly; What is Lee gonna do with all this money? Is there gonna be an exclusive with Lee later on?


[Edited just to say, WHAT? First post on a front-page story? :eek: Wow, ain't America awake yet? Congrats to me.

[arthur pendragon]

I just can't believe Marvel would trample upon anyone's rights, let alone good ol' Stan's. It just runs so contrary to the way the company has done business throughout the years. ;)

[Hunter]

Woo! More Mighty Marvel Controversy.

I know this comparison isn't new or original, but it feels more and more like we're watching pro wrestling the more I hear about Marvel.

I guess bad press is still press, though. *shrug*

[Lestat de Lioncourt]

America's never awake hehe ;)

I'm backin up Stan here, I love the guy and his Marvel Characters, Marvel itself even!, is the pinnacle of his lifes work. If Marvel can't honour another contract which they agreed upon, especially with the founding father of the company! then I agree that theyre acting shamefully.

[Kevin T. Brown]

This is all Mike Doran's fault. He joins Marvel and Stan sues them. Coincidence? I think not!

:D

Seriously, from how the article read last week when it showed a portion of the applicable part of the contract, Stan is going to win. Besides, the Man created these characters! Without Stan Lee, there would be no Marvel as we know it! Give the man what is owed to him.
'Nuff Said!

[tralfaz]

if it's in his contract, he should get what ever money is due to him, regardless who is right or wrong.

[arthur pendragon]

Jemas responds to the suit while holding a fistful of cash, "From my cold dead hands..!" ;)

[IanZL]

you really think Stan would do this for publicity for himself or for Marvel? Wow, you are way off base. As for what he is going to do with the money? What do you care? The fact that he is already wealthy isn't the point. He is entitled to it and can do whatever he wants with it. He donate it charity, start a new company, or roll around in it naked its up to him.

[John Osen]

[quote]Originally posted by arthur pendragon:
<strong>I just can't believe Marvel would trample upon anyone's rights, let alone good ol' Stan's. It just runs so contrary to the way the company has done business throughout the years. ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

Agreed! ;)

[arthur pendragon]

Quesada responds to the suit, "Way to rain on everybody's parade, buddy!" ;)

[quote]Originally posted by arthur pendragon:
<strong>Quesada responds to the suit, "Way to rain on everybody's parade, buddy!" ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

Where's his reply?

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>

Where's his reply?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Stan Lee responds to Quesada, "Let a smile be your umbrella, true believer!" ;)

[Cliffy]

[quote]Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Where's his reply?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I believe that was a joke.

--Cliffy

[brett]

I agree.

Bakken,

What Stan does with the money is none of yours or anyone else's business. Even if he already was a billionaire, he is still entitled to at as per a contract Marvel specifically drafted for him. So, if he wants to wipe his ass with hundred dollar bills made from Spider Man and X-Men, it's his right to do so.

The only question mark looming over my head is that Mr. Joe Q and Jemas have been sooooooo vocal over the past few years about treating creators right, Marvel has changed, yadda, yadda, yadda, 'Welcome All Ye Creators Who Have Left The Fold -- This Is An All New, All Different Marvel Comics', I can't help but wonder what all those creators who have flocked over to Marvel recently are saying.

Me? I'd be scratching my head. If they can't honor a simply worded contract with Stan Lee, the man RESPONSIBLE for putting them on the map in the first place (No Stan Lee = No Spidey + No Spidey Movie = No 800 billion dollars for Sony), how then will they treat everyone else when it comes down to the bottom line?

Somehow, I can't help but see Alan Moore sitting somewhere in England nodding his head, glad he never did that FF book the Big Q proposed...

[Icewing_X]

Holy carp, the world has gone to Hell in a hand basket.

Stan Lee suing Marvel? I thought that would never happen.

Sigh.

~Icewing, enough to make a grown man cry

[arthur pendragon]

Marvel will still try to please creators that are still writing for them, or put on the best face for creators they want to work for them, but if your best days are behind you, look out!

[Sparvid]

If he didn't get any money from X-Men, why didn't he sue back then?

[arthur pendragon]

The deal Marvel got with the X-Men movie was far worse than their Spider-Man deal, plus they were unable to capitalize on the X-Men movie in a big way like they did with Spider-Man.

[brett]

X-Men only made 140 million whereby Spidey made 800 million. Maybe Stan figured 10% of 140 ain't that much but 10% of 800 is a nice bit of chump change. Either way, he's entitled to it as per Marvel's contract.

Ah, good old Marvel.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[BlakSun]

Wow...so it's come to this. I guess Damage Control is more than just a comic book....

[Jake Ivers]

The only question mark looming over my head is that Mr. Joe Q and Jemas have been sooooooo vocal over the past few years about treating creators right, Marvel has changed, yadda, yadda, yadda, 'Welcome All Ye Creators Who Have Left The Fold -- This Is An All New, All Different Marvel Comics', I can't help but wonder what all those creators who have flocked over to Marvel recently are saying.

I think this only applies to Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore. :D

[Sean Walsh]

[quote]Originally posted by arthur pendragon:
<strong>Jemas responds to the suit while holding a fistful of cash, "From my cold dead hands..!" ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

And minutes later, many thousands of people burst into Marvel Comics offices and successfully beat Bill Jemas to death... :p

Sean

[Doc_Weasel]

Not to be standing up for Marvel, but there are several things to note here. First, the agreement says Stan is entitled to 10% of the profits Marvel makes from the productions utilizing Marvel characters. This is not the same as 10% of the profits made from those productions. For example, any Marvel share of the profits from Spider-Man will be far, far, FAR less than the $800 million Spidey grossed. After all, it’s Sony Columbia, not Marvel, who is making money hand over fist on the movie.

Also, the agreement expressly states that Stan is not entitled to any percentage of the fees Marvel receives for licensing the characters or to any of the money made from merchandising. I did a quick search of articles written about the Sony Columbia – Marvel deal for Spider-Man and found several interesting items. A Variety article from 1999 discussing the deal contained this quote: “Marvel's Ellenbogen said the deal was significant to his company because ‘we own and control the merchandising rights -- the main source of income for Marvel will be merchandising.’”

Further, it is entirely possible that Marvel has no “profit interest” in the success of Spider-Man or other films. I can find no mention of Marvel sharing in any of the films profits in any of the articles I’ve just read. The closest thing I’ve found is a LA Times story which says Marvel’s licensing fee for Spider-Man depends on how much the movie grosses. The higher the gross, the more Marvel gets paid for licensing rights, with the amount topping out around $15 million. While this means the fee is tied to the profits, it would appear that the contract has been written so technically Marvel makes no profit from the movie. (This may have been done expressly to screw over Stan and others and may be a result of the Blade-Marv Wolfman situation.)

Finally, the agreement contains this sentence: “Marvel will compute, account and pay to you your participation due, if any, on account of said profits, for the annual period ending each March 31 during your life, on an annual basis within a reasonable time after the end of each such period.” Considering that Spider-Man was released in May 2002, the accounting period for paying Stan any share of profits from Spider-Man would end in March 2003. Marvel could easily make the argument that Stan hasn’t received anything from Spider-Man yet because the accounting period hasn’t closed yet.

I realize none of the Spider-Man specifics apply to any of the other Marvel movies, but I would be surprised if the details of those contracts are substantially different…

[D.J. Coffman is your daddy]

Don't worry. Stan Lee will die soon. And Jack Kirby will kick his sorry ass all over the afterlife.

Sounds like Stan has to remember some of the shady things he did in his time.... money grubbing cocksucker

[DarthRandall]

Now while I'm not a huge proponent of Jemas or the mighty Q, it is possible that neither of them were aware of this stipulation in Stan's contract, seeing as how neither of them (at least Quesada and possibly Jemas - I was out of the loop back then) were in power at the time. So for them to take the flack for this is kinda premature in my book. If it turns out they knew about it and just decided to ignore it, then string em up by their tiny testicles.

On the other hand, Stan is entitled to the money, IMO. For whatever reason he hasn't been paid yet, it's time to give the man what he deserves.

[D.J. Coffman is your daddy]

Ok, now my split personality reminded me that Stan is the man, and he deserves it all! Give it all to Stan! HES THE MAN!

[John Osen]

Re Doc Weasel: Exactly! :D

[MIKEON-LINE]

I really, REALLY hope that when they make their comments (which in reality will probably be "No comment as company policy dictates,") Joe and Bill handle this professionally. If there was ever a time NOT to showboat and deliver tongue-in-cheek commentary, this is it.

Sheesh - between this and the flaming train wreck that is Marville (so far), the House of Ideas probably won't be having as happy a New Year as they would have planned/forecasted a few months ago.

[arthur pendragon]

Never fear! Although I'm certain that Bill and Joe still love to talk trash, I'm equally certain that Marvel has told them to keep their pieholes shut regarding this matter.

[Hdefined]

Well, since Stan was entitled to some profit from the X-Men movie and didn't make his claim a couple years back, I'm assuming he overlooked it as a mere fault and maybe mentioned it to a few heads, but never got word back. ANd now that Marvel's raking in serious dough and Stan still isn't getting his just deserts, he's going after them. I bet his 60 Minutes comments were to give them a heads up, and since they failed to negotiate, he's taking care of business now.

Hey, I'm sure he doesn't need the money, but this isn't Hugh Hefner and the playboy mansion, I'm betting this stuff will go to various charities. It's just the fact that attitudes like Marvel's can't go overlooked or unpunished

[Slangword]

To Doc Weasel - Thanks for bringing some additional information to the discussion. Ciontracts are very carefully worded, and I have no doubt that the outcome of the suit will turn on that wording and the wording of the contracts with the movie companies.

To the guy that talked trash about Stan - did that really add anything to the discussion? Whether Stan is a nice guy or not is immaterial -- Both he and Marvel should live up to the terms of the contract.

--Scott

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by Hdefined:
<strong>
Hey, I'm sure he doesn't need the money, but this isn't Hugh Hefner and the playboy mansion, I'm betting this stuff will go to various charities. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Agreed! ;)

<a href="http://www.twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/media/02stansrolls.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/media/02stansrolls.jpg</a>

[KingStalin]

Ok Marvel is a publicly traded company yes? They are making a lot of movie cash making the suits happy. Within the last 6 months 2 lawsuits have come about because of not fullfilling their own contracts that they made. Plus the publicity looks horrible when the father of the company has to sue them to get money that they already agreed to pay them. If I was Bill or Joe I would be a little afraid that Avi Arad would come kick my ass.

[THOMAS]

How long do you think before Stan lee present's is pulled off the top of every Marvel book?

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by THOMAS:
<strong>How long do you think before Stan lee present's is pulled off the top of every Marvel book?</strong><hr></blockquote>

It shouldn't take long, especially if 'Stan Lee Presents' is contractually obliged to be there. ;)

[arthur pendragon]

Former President, Bill Clinton weighs in on the likelihood of Stan Lee prevailing in this lawsuit, "It all depends on what your definition of "is" is. ;)

[grantg]

[quote]Originally posted by Sparvid:
<strong>If he didn't get any money from X-Men, why didn't he sue back then?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactely... greedy old ****er. If Stan loses this one do you think Marvel will give him the boot out the door? No more chairman, no more million and a clean set of books.

Could be interesting.

[J Wyatt]

[quote]Originally posted by arthur pendragon:
<strong>The deal Marvel got with the X-Men movie was far worse than their Spider-Man deal, plus they were unable to capitalize on the X-Men movie in a big way like they did with Spider-Man.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactly. I believe Marvel got a relatively low flat fee to have the X-Men movie done, but share in the profits of the Spider-Man movie.

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by grantg:
<strong>

Exactely... greedy old ****er. If Stan loses this one do you think Marvel will give him the boot out the door? No more chairman, no more million and a clean set of books.

Could be interesting.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Reached for comment, a Marvel spokesperson said "Mr. Lee has made contributions to Marvel and the comic book industry in the past, for which he continues to be well compensated. Marvel believes it is in full compliance with, and current on all payments due under, the terms of Mr. Lee's employment agreement and will continue to be so in the future."

Even if Stan doesn't prevail in this suit, I don't think it's a given that Marvel stops paying him his annual salary. That pesky contract again. ;)

[San]

I'm not picking sides here, but it's weird how everybody assumes that Stan is right and that Marvel is not fulfilling their contract. I mean, we only heard from Stan's side...of COURSE his lawyer will tell us that he's entitled to ten % blah blah.

Most of you (with the exeption of Doc Weasel) seem to accept this without any questioning. Without knowing what's in this contract between Marvel and Lee, or how to interpret what's in that contract.

It's odd. Don't you guys ever question the information that's been given to you, or do you just like to jump in the deep end, pretending you can swim?

San

[hiphophead]

[quote]Originally posted by J.C. Bakken:
<strong>

But, most importantly; What is Lee gonna do with all this money? Is there gonna be an exclusive with Lee later on?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

What Stan "will do" and what Stan "should do" are so far apart it is not funny. I would like to see Stan take a good chunk of that money are hook up Ditko, Kirby and all the other guys who have been screwed over the years.

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by San:
<strong>I'm not picking sides here, but it's weird how everybody assumes that Stan is right and that Marvel is not fulfilling their contract. I mean, we only heard from Stan's side...of COURSE his lawyer will tell us that he's entitled to ten % blah blah.

Most of you (with the exeption of Doc Weasel) seem to accept this without any questioning. Without knowing what's in this contract between Marvel and Lee, or how to interpret what's in that contract.

It's odd. Don't you guys ever question the information that's been given to you, or do you just like to jump in the deep end, pretending you can swim?

San</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think it's very possible that Marvel prevails in this matter. This hinges upon the wording of the contract, and how "profits" are recognized by the company.

[Demosthenes]

So my question is this... Isn't marvel still in debt up to it's ass? If so it isn't really making a profit from these moovies until the debt is all gone. So what is 10% of nothing? I know it's semantics but it maybe the difference between an open and shut case.

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by hiphophead:
<strong>

What Stan "will do" and what Stan "should do" are so far apart it is not funny. I would like to see Stan take a good chunk of that money are hook up Ditko, Kirby and all the other guys who have been screwed over the years.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I would like to see Colleen Doran knock on my door, too. Which do you think will happen first? ;)

[Demosthenes]

huh "moovies"

Spider cow Spider cow friendly neighborhood spidercow. oh drat!

[John Osen]

[quote]Originally posted by San:
<strong>I'm not picking sides here, but it's weird how everybody assumes that Stan is right and that Marvel is not fulfilling their contract. I mean, we only heard from Stan's side...of COURSE his lawyer will tell us that he's entitled to ten % blah blah.

Most of you (with the exeption of Doc Weasel) seem to accept this without any questioning. Without knowing what's in this contract between Marvel and Lee, or how to interpret what's in that contract.

It's odd. Don't you guys ever question the information that's been given to you, or do you just like to jump in the deep end, pretending you can swim?

San</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hi San! My grandfather is from Holland. I agree with you, but got blasted the last time this topic was posted and gave up. :D

[hiphophead]

[quote]Originally posted by arthur pendragon:
<strong>

I would like to see Colleen Doran knock on my door, too. Which do you think will happen first? ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

You would be amazed (no pun intended) what some people will do in their twilight years. Have you ever noticed how grandparents treat the grandchildren different than they treated their own children? Trying to atone for past sins??

[Mike Cruz]

:p

The revelation of that Stan "the Man" Lee has filed suit against the company he helped to build brings new dimension to the phrase:

"Make Mine Marvel!"

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by Demosthenes:
<strong>So my question is this... Isn't marvel still in debt up to it's ass? If so it isn't really making a profit from these moovies until the debt is all gone. So what is 10% of nothing? I know it's semantics but it maybe the difference between an open and shut case.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Debt doesn't preclude profit. If it did the United States never could have claimed(even though it was a fraud)that they were running a surplus with a six trillion dollar debt.

[pifpog]

[quote]Originally posted by Slangword:
<strong>To Doc Weasel - Thanks for bringing some additional information to the discussion. Ciontracts are very carefully worded, and I have no doubt that the outcome of the suit will turn on that wording and the wording of the contracts with the movie companies.

To the guy that talked trash about Stan - did that really add anything to the discussion? Whether Stan is a nice guy or not is immaterial -- Both he and Marvel should live up to the terms of the contract.
--Scott</strong><hr></blockquote>

Legally, you are exactly right -- Stan Lee's personality has nothing to do with the merits of his lawsuit, which will no doubt be trashed out in court (unless cooler heads prevail and they settle, with a nice "Don't discuss these terms" clause").

But ethically, Stan Lee's suit is a mixed bag. Yes, he did create Spiderman and a host of other characters and it may be even unlikely that we'd be having any sort of forum to discuss these weighty issues if he didn't transform comics from "kid's stuff".

On the other hand, he has brazenly promoted himself to the exclusion of all of those other creators who made the characters great. How many years did it take before he admitted that Steve Ditko was, in fact a co-creator. Did he ever once step up and say publically "Jack Kirby deserves some of the cash coming from all these characters who remain in our imaginations because of his amazing artwork?" No. Instead, when he worked for Marvel and apparently until recently, he supported the notion that Marvel was a pay-for-hire operation and characters created for Marvel books were Marvel's property.

In the end, I have the same feelings towards Stan Lee as I do towards Bill Clinton -- deeply admiring of the vision, horribly disappointed with the private acts.

Let the flaming begin.

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by hiphophead:
<strong>

You would be amazed (no pun intended) what some people will do in their twilight years. Have you ever noticed how grandparents treat the grandchildren different than they treated their own children? Trying to atone for past sins??</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's my impression, and only my impression, that Stan thinks he's done nothing with respect to Messrs. Kirby and Ditko, ergo, he's got nothing for which he needs to atone. Stan will take care of Stan, as he's always done. That's why he's my hero. ;)

<a href="http://www.twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/media/02stansrolls.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/media/02stansrolls.jpg</a>

[John Osen]

[quote]Originally posted by pifpog:
On the other hand, he has brazenly promoted himself to the exclusion of all of those other creators who made the characters great. How many years did it take before he admitted that Steve Ditko was, in fact a co-creator. Did he ever once step up and say publically "Jack Kirby deserves some of the cash coming from all these characters who remain in our imaginations because of his amazing artwork?" No. Instead, when he worked for Marvel and apparently until recently, he supported the notion that Marvel was a pay-for-hire operation and characters created for Marvel books were Marvel's property.

In the end, I have the same feelings towards Stan Lee as I do towards Bill Clinton -- deeply admiring of the vision, horribly disappointed with the private acts.

Let the flaming begin.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Hi Pifpog! Thanks for your comments. I agree, but got burnt so badly by personal attacks the last time this topic was posted, I gave up.

[Pariah]

I support Stan and all, he deserves the recognition, but geez, he's only got a couple years left in him. What will he do with the money?! Cryogenics anyone? Maybe he really wants to see if RAVAGE 2099 was an accurate read on the future.

[Brian Jacks]

Shit's gonna hit the fan now, methinks. Wonder if we'll be seeing Mr. Doran on CourtTV.

-Brian

[Cloak & Dagger]

I believe Joe Quesada can be left out of this, since he's only the editor of Marvel comics and isn't in charge of the contracts Marvel Enterprise signs with others.

Second, if the contract says that Stan Lee stands to get money from Marvel, then Stan Lee should get money from Marvel. If Marvel Enterprise owes Stan money, there's really no shades of gray to consider. Seems pretty black and white to me.

Third of all, I think Stan's the man. Others may be livid over the fact that so many creators were "trampled" by Stan to be where he is, but I'm not that enraged. Sometimes business demands that you be ruthless. Steve Ditko isn't making much of a complaint about a character he co-created. I'm not sure how accurate this is, but I think I remember reading where he says that Spider-Man is nothing to him anymore. If he wants attention, he'll make his voice heard.

Stan has gotten a lot of flak for being so vocal about his characters and creations. I think he's a great creator. He's had his hand in creating more characters than most will give credit for. Him and Jack Kirby created Fantastic Four, X-Men, Avengers, Hulk, Thor, Black Panther,etc. But then Stan also created Spider-Man and Dr. Strange with Ditko, Daredevil with Bill Everett, She-Hulk with John Buscema, Captain Marvel with Gene Colan and more. He is clearly a creative person, since he shaped many of these characters into what they are.

I hope Stan gets what he deserves and hopefully the matter is resolved quickly.

[Burke 0011]

Yeah, right on, man - after all those people Stan killed? And those babies he threw in garbage cans?.......

Nice. You're gonna throw shit at the guy, sustantiate the reasons why instead of making shady allegations like a 12-year old (hey, I don't like him, so he's a dick!)


If it's in the man's contract, he should get the money: plain and simple. End of story.

[Burke 0011]

Above post is meant for DJ COffman - waaaaaay back on page one. (Hadn't realised this thing was already three pages...)

[beta-ray]

I don't know who to side with on this one... Yeah if Marvel made a contract they should stick with it... but Lee has really become a figurehead in my eyes. I guess if he wrote the movie or was more actively creative I'd not feel so hesitant...

[davi0850]

First let me say I love Stan. Let me also say I love Marvel characters. If Stan is entitled to the money, then he should get it. Plain and simple.

But, lets try to keep a few things in mind as we add our opinions to the mix.

1. Things are rarely plain and simple, especialy in litigation. There has to be more information otherwise, Marvel Enterprises would be a fool to break a contract unless they have legal reasons to believe they were either not breaking the contract or there was another document that made the contract void. Lets wait and see before we outsiders jump to any conclusions.

2. Lets try to remember that Stan is sueing Marvel Enterprises, not Joe Q. Joe Q. is the EIC of the print end of Marvel and, most likly has no say what-so-ever about what the Movie end of Marvel does. Not to mention that the Contract was written well before Joe became EIC and most likly has never seen a copy of the contract, as he is not the Human Resources Manager for Marvel.

3. Feel free to bash Bill Jemas all you like. Lets face it. The man's an ass.

4. Using Spider-Man for example. Stan is entitled to the Marvel's profits of the movie, not the entire revenue and not the entire profit. My guess is that Sony took the bulk of that. So we may not be talking about as much money as you may think.

Well, that's all I've got. Let the bashing continue...

[KingStalin]

[quote]Originally posted by Demosthenes:
<strong>huh "moovies"

Spider cow Spider cow friendly neighborhood spidercow. oh drat!</strong><hr></blockquote>

you know what's weird when i was a kid i used to draw Spider-Cow comics. How bizzare was that. Then again I called my comics Moovel Comics. sigh to be a kid in fourth grade again.

[rstevens]

go Stan ... BLING BLING BLING!!

then share it with the Kirby estate.

[Inhumans_99]

Doh! You are trying to inject common sense into this thread :) People forget that Stan's agreement probably only translates to 10 percent of what MARVEL made from the characters, NOT the movie studios (and that is extremely important, anyone who thinks Stan is going to get a movie studio to pony up over 100 million dollars as his share of the 1.2 billion Worldwide Gross of S-M is living on a world created in thier mind). So if Marvel receives 50 million from S-M when all is said and done, Stan can only try to prod Marvel into ponying up 5 million dollars to put in his pocket (and if the contract was a "simple" contract, any corporate lawyer can drag things out for years, just like they did with the Art Buchwald case, and make it seen like a pyrhic victory even if Stan gets the courts to force Marvel to uphold thier contract with him).

I am not a lawyer, just another schlub adding his ultimately worthless opinion to this thread, but I suspect Stan will be lucky to see a few more million in his pocket from this lawsuit. The real people to hit the jackpot with S-M are indeed Sony Pictures (and Universal, Fox...IF future Marvel films are hits).

Once this is pointed out to Stan he will stop accusing Marvel of hitting the jackpot and Marvel screwing him out of potentially tens of millions (okay he did not say this, but perhaps he is thinking something to that effect, or maybe not :) ), a few million maybe, but tens of millions...nah, unless he goes after Sony next.


People should also realize this lawsuit has NOTHING to do with advancing creator rights, Stan simply wants to get paid (like he could tell anyone with a straight fact that he is also suing in the hopes that people who work for Marvel get a fairer piece of the pie...HAH!). I do not blame him, should not hurt him to try.

Christopher H.

[quote]Originally posted by Doc_Weasel:
<strong>Not to be standing up for Marvel, but there are several things to note here. First, the agreement says Stan is entitled to 10% of the profits Marvel makes from the productions utilizing Marvel characters. This is not the same as 10% of the profits made from those productions. For example, any Marvel share of the profits from Spider-Man will be far, far, FAR less than the $800 million Spidey grossed. After all, it’s Sony Columbia, not Marvel, who is making money hand over fist on the movie.

Also, the agreement expressly states that Stan is not entitled to any percentage of the fees Marvel receives for licensing the characters or to any of the money made from merchandising. I did a quick search of articles written about the Sony Columbia – Marvel deal for Spider-Man and found several interesting items. A Variety article from 1999 discussing the deal contained this quote: “Marvel's Ellenbogen said the deal was significant to his company because ‘we own and control the merchandising rights -- the main source of income for Marvel will be merchandising.’”

Further, it is entirely possible that Marvel has no “profit interest” in the success of Spider-Man or other films. I can find no mention of Marvel sharing in any of the films profits in any of the articles I’ve just read. The closest thing I’ve found is a LA Times story which says Marvel’s licensing fee for Spider-Man depends on how much the movie grosses. The higher the gross, the more Marvel gets paid for licensing rights, with the amount topping out around $15 million. While this means the fee is tied to the profits, it would appear that the contract has been written so technically Marvel makes no profit from the movie. (This may have been done expressly to screw over Stan and others and may be a result of the Blade-Marv Wolfman situation.)

Finally, the agreement contains this sentence: “Marvel will compute, account and pay to you your participation due, if any, on account of said profits, for the annual period ending each March 31 during your life, on an annual basis within a reasonable time after the end of each such period.” Considering that Spider-Man was released in May 2002, the accounting period for paying Stan any share of profits from Spider-Man would end in March 2003. Marvel could easily make the argument that Stan hasn’t received anything from Spider-Man yet because the accounting period hasn’t closed yet.

I realize none of the Spider-Man specifics apply to any of the other Marvel movies, but I would be surprised if the details of those contracts are substantially different…</strong><hr></blockquote>

[nighthawk]

This from the "man" who didn't pay an $800k negative balance on his Stan Lee media inc account?I saw the hard working people who had to cover for him and then get fired from their jobs because he wouldn't pay the money back.I hope he loses.

[madcougar]

Who the hell cares what he does with the money? If he's entitled to it, then he's entitled to it. I just don't understand this logic. "He's so old, he doesn't deserve it!" Huh?

I don't know what the contract says, but if at the end of the day it says Marvel owes him 10% of X amount, then Stan deserves 10% of x amount. I don't care if he screwed Ditko or Kirby or Jesus himself. The man has a contract.

I don't care if Stan Lee Creates sucked, Ravage really sucked and he fondled Kevin Smith on the set of Mallrats, the man has a contract. Period.

The only argument here is: does Lee's contract stipulate he gets 10% of X amount.

[Dan20]

I haven't been following this case too closely, so I don't know who's "right" or "wrong" or anything like that. I suppose if Stan had a contract and didn't get what it promised, he's got a case.
But I just think this is really sad news...it's a shame something couldn't be worked out and that it came to this. "Stan Lee Sues Marvel"...not a headline that should have had to come about.

[Reloaded]

[quote]Originally posted by madcougar:
<strong>Who the hell cares what he does with the money? If he's entitled to it, then he's entitled to it. I just don't understand this logic. "He's so old, he doesn't deserve it!" Huh?

I don't know what the contract says, but if at the end of the day it says Marvel owes him 10% of X amount, then Stan deserves 10% of x amount. I don't care if he screwed Ditko or Kirby or Jesus himself. The man has a contract.

I don't care if Stan Lee Creates sucked, Ravage really sucked and he fondled Kevin Smith on the set of Mallrats, the man has a contract. Period.

The only argument here is: does Lee's contract stipulate he gets 10% of X amount.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am in full agreement.

[enabler]

[quote]I support Stan and all, he deserves the recognition, but geez, he's only got a couple years left in him. What will he do with the money?!<hr></blockquote>

Stan's no spring chicken, but he could live another 20 years for all we know - remember George Burns? Besides which, any money potentially won from the case, as everything else in his estate, will be passed on to whomever he's willed it to.
I believe most people, if put in Stan Lee's current position, would feel the same way he does: slighted. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but that's how he feels.

[Donnie Darko]

AHA! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"sniff" "sniff"

And I thought the Gaiman vs Macfarlane case was fun...

[AllAboutMe]

The fact is: a contract is a contract. Maybe when the higher-ups at Marvel gave Stan the Man this entertainment bonus clause, they were fondly remembering such classic Marvel TV/film ventures such as the Punisher, The Fantastic Four and Captain America (both tv and movie...yeesh).
Sure, now that they are making a good amount of profit on such films as Spidey and I'm sure the same will be made of the upcoming XMen 2, Hulk and even Daredevil (just looking at those open collar shots of Ben Affleck is hurting, they want to horde the cash. Typical big business.
If anyone out there thinks they would be satisfied with the $1 mil a year and "not worry" about the supplemental income from the movies, you are kidding yourself. It is easy for us "common folk" to say such things. Much like a star athlete who make $5 mil a year gets offered $7 mil...sure he doesn't need it, but not many people are gonna turn down an extra $2 mil. And no one is gonna let their boss keep that extra dough that is contractually obligated to them.
And I bet "Stan Lee Presents" in every book is in that contract somewhere too.

[D.J. Coffman is your daddy]

Geez Burke, lighten up! You obviously didn't see the positive post from me...

Anyway--- STAN LEE MUST BE STOPPED! If not for anyone, lets do it for Kirby!

[Warren V. Wind]

[quote]Originally posted by D.J. Coffman is your daddy:
<strong>Don't worry. Stan Lee will die soon. And Jack Kirby will kick his sorry ass all over the afterlife.

Sounds like Stan has to remember some of the shady things he did in his time.... money grubbing cocksucker</strong><hr></blockquote>

Who the **** pissed in your corn flakes?

I think the next question should be who's cock are you sucking on at Marvel?

Just remember people without Stan Lee there is NO MARVEL!!!

...and this isn't about who created what,
It's about what is on the contract!!

It's obvious that Marvel owes Stan Lee some money, its just going to be interesting to see Marvel pull an Enron and come up with some "creative" accounting to screw him out of anything that he deserves.

Marvel will probably will fire him because of this and he's out that cool mill per year.

Either way I think Stan is screwed, but
he doesn't deserve to be called a cocksucker!

...and for that, I guess you shouldn't be called one either.
I am truly sorry about that!!!

[JimHughs4]

Let's all keep in mind that Stan was never in financial control of Marvel. His slights toward Ditko, Kirby, etc. are all from the postition of an employee of Marvel Comics. IIRC, when Kirby was trying to get his his artwork returned, Stan kept his mouth shut- never said no, never said it was a bad idea, but didn't comment on it, probably because he's a company man, brought up in a time where you stayed loyal to your job. While I've heard Stan say he was the creator of Spider-man, the FF, etc., I've never heard him say he was the SOLE creator. As a matter of fact, over the last decade, I've seen several interviews where Stan credited the artists as creating the visuals for characters, which is a big step. As I already pointed out in another thread, in the 60 Minutes interview there's at least one time where Stan mentioned "we" where I would have been an appropriate response. I still think that Stan was crediting Kirby and Ditko and it was edited out.
Stan's no saint, but accusing him of screwing artists doesn't have evidence to back it up. As far as I can tell, Stan's acts against Ditko and Kirby are limited to keeping his mouth shut when he could have helped them (at the possible expense of his position with Marvel) and failing to credit them as co-creators as often as he should. But Stan's never been in a position where he could keep them from getting paid.
And if anyone has provable facts stating otherwise, please let me know. (INVITING FLAMES- DON'T MISS YOUR CHANCE!!!) ;)

[Cliffy]

[quote]Originally posted by San:
<strong>Most of you (with the exeption of Doc Weasel) seem to accept this without any questioning. Without knowing what's in this contract between Marvel and Lee, or how to interpret what's in that contract.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, one important piece of information that you seem to be forgetting is that the relevant contractual provision is quoted in this article. I agree, exactly what constitute "profits" under this agreement may be a tricky question, but it seems very clear that, whatever they may be, Lee is owed them. (Subject, of course, to any defenses Marvel might have, such as a prior breach by Lee.)

--Cliffy

[Barry]

I hope Stan gets every single penny he deserves, both legally and morally. Period.

[Academic]

[quote]Originally posted by brett:
[QB]The only question mark looming over my head is that Mr. Joe Q and Jemas have been sooooooo vocal over the past few years about treating creators right, Marvel has changed, yadda, yadda, yadda, 'Welcome All Ye Creators Who Have Left The Fold -- This Is An All New, All Different Marvel Comics', I can't help but wonder what all those creators who have flocked over to Marvel recently are saying.
<hr></blockquote>

Different situation entirely.

Quesada (and Jemas)'s comments are directed towards the creative side of things. Creators like Steranko and Moore were being screwed by the previous regime on royalties rightly deserved from reprints. Apologizing for wrong acts and promising -- with action -- better treatment of creator royalties in the future is, for Quesada at least, a step towards winning back the possibility of further creations by these writers and artists.

The only sore spot in the mess is John Byrne, but that's a situation of different complication.

In the case of Stan Lee vs. Marvel, it's really a disagreement between Stan and Marvel Enterprises. Marvel Enterprises is the Board of Directors who makes these types of contracts and worries about things like debt repayment and dividends. Quesada doesn't sit on the board -- he's in charge of making sure Marvel Comics has good comics on the shelves and little else.

[Oscar Merkx]

my first post here. anyway, the headline shocked me as well. It is good to see that Steve Ditko got the credit of Co-Creator on the Spider-Man movie which was a big surprise as you never hear from him, only from others.

I watched the Stan Lee Mutants, Monsters & Marvels DVD and only briefly mentions Ditko & others.

I guess we should hear more in the next couple of days, and probable we will not see his cameos in DareDevil and The Hulk either.

One thing I have to say about Tha Man is that he is never shy about publicity.

Excelsior

[Cliffy]

[quote]Originally posted by pifpog:
<strong>Instead, when he worked for Marvel and apparently until recently, he supported the notion that Marvel was a pay-for-hire operation and characters created for Marvel books were Marvel's property.</strong><hr></blockquote>

From what I've seen so far, there is nothing in this suit to suggest that he's changed his position. According to Lee, then and now, Marvel characters are created work-for-hire; the creator is owed only what his contract says he is owed. Here, however, Stan's contract says he's owed 10% of the movie profits. It's not an issue of whether WFH is good or bad; it's an issue of whether Marvel is in fact living up to the agreements it has signed. Even if you're a complete fan of WFH, you have to recognize that the system is only viable when the publisher pays for the work what they say they will. That is the question at issue here.

--Cliffy

[Cliffy]

[quote]Originally posted by Demosthenes:
<strong>So my question is this... Isn't marvel still in debt up to it's ass? If so it isn't really making a profit from these moovies until the debt is all gone. So what is 10% of nothing?</strong><hr></blockquote>

This contract may have freaky definitions of "profit" elsewhere in the language that I haven't seen, but typically when you refer to the profit from a given venture, you mean the revenue generated by that venture minus to costs associated with it. Therefore, even if Marvel weren't profitable across the company, if, ignoring license fees (as per the contract), say, Spider-Man brought in more to Marvel than it cost Marvel to make it (which is zero, since Sony made the picture, not Marvel, IIRC), then that additional revenue would typically be considered profit from that venture, even though the money it made would go straight to servicing Marvel's debt.

--Cliffy

[Dumb.]

[quote]Originally posted by D.J. Coffman is your daddy:
<strong>Anyway--- STAN LEE MUST BE STOPPED! If not for anyone, lets do it for Kirby!</strong><hr></blockquote>

I really can't wait for the headline "Brian Lynch sues Angry Naked Comics" in about 40 years time after the Monkeyman movie hits the big screens and he gets screwed out of all the money he should earn.
And then of course the next big artist who seems like he has 8 pairs of hands and never sleeps will start screaming about how Lynch screwed over Coffman, Milazzo et al.

Dumb.

[Academic]

[quote]Originally posted by Doc_Weasel:
<strong>Not to be standing up for Marvel, but there are several things to note here. First, the agreement says Stan is entitled to 10% of the profits Marvel makes from the productions utilizing Marvel characters. This is not the same as 10% of the profits made from those productions. For example, any Marvel share of the profits from Spider-Man will be far, far, FAR less than the $800 million Spidey grossed. After all, it’s Sony Columbia, not Marvel, who is making money hand over fist on the movie.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes and no.

Crash course in Hollywood accounting: when Spider-Man makes $300 million at the box office, it's not really making that much.

Any reported cost of the film does not include the cost of advertising for that film. Advertising routinely doubles the cost of a movie (at least). If, say, Star Wars costs $100 million to make, the cost of the movie can actually be close to $250 million.

Then comes the breakdown of the box office.

First, theatres get a pre-agreed dollar value from each screening of a film of that distributor to cover its costs, such as theatre advertising, rent, insurance and staff.

Second, theatres then get a pre-agreed percentage of the REMAINING gross take at the box office. This is the theatre's "pure" profit.

Third, what's left goes to the distributor. The distributor gets a pre-agreed percentage of the REMAINING gross (which can be based on the total gross) before handing what's left to the production company.

Fourth, the production company pays out the rest of the line according to the pre-agreed order of repayment. The bank the production money is borrowed from is often the person who gets first. Actors that get a cut of the gross get a payment that's a percentage of the total gross irregardless of the previous payments. And so on.

So, in the case of Spider-Man, Marvel's gross percentage comes from the producer (Sony Pictures) while its royalty as a producer on top of that doesn't materialize until later (when DVD sales are counted in after advertising, TV royalties come in, and so on).

[quote]<strong>Also, the agreement expressly states that Stan is not entitled to any percentage of the fees Marvel receives for licensing the characters or to any of the money made from merchandising. I did a quick search of articles written about the Sony Columbia – Marvel deal for Spider-Man and found several interesting items. A Variety article from 1999 discussing the deal contained this quote: “Marvel's Ellenbogen said the deal was significant to his company because ‘we own and control the merchandising rights -- the main source of income for Marvel will be merchandising.’” </strong><hr></blockquote>

Not entirely true. If you read Stan's contract carefully, it reads: "This participation is not to be derived from the fee charged by Marvel for the licensing of the product or of the characters for merchandise or otherwise."

Stan doesn't get money when company x pays Marvel for the rights to produce a product based on a Marvel character in film or on television.

The contract doesn't disclude royalties company x has to pay Marvel for each unit sold on top of that initial fee.

[quote]<strong>Further, it is entirely possible that Marvel has no “profit interest” in the success of Spider-Man or other films. I can find no mention of Marvel sharing in any of the films profits in any of the articles I’ve just read. The closest thing I’ve found is a LA Times story which says Marvel’s licensing fee for Spider-Man depends on how much the movie grosses. The higher the gross, the more Marvel gets paid for licensing rights, with the amount topping out around $15 million. While this means the fee is tied to the profits, it would appear that the contract has been written so technically Marvel makes no profit from the movie. (This may have been done expressly to screw over Stan and others and may be a result of the Blade-Marv Wolfman situation.)
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Under the Hollywood accounting system, Marvel -- as one of the production companies behind SPIDER-MAN -- gets a percentage of the profits after all other payments are made. This means that, after the theatres and Sony Distribution (along with, if contract has it, Sam Raimi), Marvel gets a small cut of what's left once the other expenses are paid.

Marvel also gets 1.5% of the box office gross as immediate payment before long term profits thanks to the deal they signed with Sony. Now, nothing I've read states whether this 1.5% revenue will be subtracted from later payments or not, but based on other Hollywood deals I've examined I sincerely doubt it.

[quote]<strong>Finally, the agreement contains this sentence: “Marvel will compute, account and pay to you your participation due, if any, on account of said profits, for the annual period ending each March 31 during your life, on an annual basis within a reasonable time after the end of each such period.” Considering that Spider-Man was released in May 2002, the accounting period for paying Stan any share of profits from Spider-Man would end in March 2003. Marvel could easily make the argument that Stan hasn’t received anything from Spider-Man yet because the accounting period hasn’t closed yet.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Again: yes and no.

Television rights deals are often signed on blockbusters before they are released, and these might have come in before March 31st. If so, Marvel (as one of the production companies) gets a small percentage of that.

In either case, there's still X-Men to worry about. The contract covers any film-related revenue and Marvel not only got 500k flat for all of the X-Men film rights from Fox, Marvel also profited extremely well from the film in their Toy Biz division. If this contract is with Marvel Enterprises, the Toy Biz division is included under that umbrella.

Marvel's big challenge may be that it allocated the revenue against liabilities or had leins on the revenue which precludes this being determined as profits.

[quote]<strong>I realize none of the Spider-Man specifics apply to any of the other Marvel movies, but I would be surprised if the details of those contracts are substantially different…</strong><hr></blockquote>

Be surprised then.

Marvel Studios' first strategy (when the company was run by Stan Lee) was that other studios purchased the rights to produce a film with that character for a certain length of time, after which the film rights reverted back to Marvel. This allowed Marvel to keep charging market rates for their characters (which peaked in 1989 and then dropped like everyone else's in 1990), allowed Marvel to renogetiate with sequels, and to retain the rights on their characters completely.

It was under that system that Howard The Duck (86), Captain America (90), The Punisher (90) and -- IIRC -- Blade (98) were made. Given that Cap wasn't shown on North American screens and Punisher was barely shown, Marvel couldn't expect many license royalties from those films.

It was also under that system that Fantastic Four was made and shelved.

Avi Arad, however, saw things differently. He understood that a success at Marvel would sell more Marvel films -- especially since Iron Man, Spider-Man and the Hulk were all being tied up with disputes and concerns about profits.

Arad's Marvel Studios sold the rights of three characters to Fox for a flat amount -- the X-Men, the Fantastic Four and the Silver Surfer. If Fox did nothing with those characters within a set amount of time, the rights reverted back to Marvel (which happened when Fox dropped Silver Surfer from its slate).

For $500k flat, Fox got the rights to make the first X-Men feature as well as any sequels of that franchise. Marvel ISN'T listed as a producer of that film, so all it would get is character licenses (if the deal didn't include those as well), and those payments will be long in coming.

The same amount was paid for Fantastic Four.

Spider-Man was the first film Marvel got anything beyond a basic percentage of.

[AForceOfOne]

Wow...you people really disgust me. For all your complaining about everything and anything that isn't DC related, and with comics being your lives...you guys don't even know that there's two Marvel companies.

One does comics...based in NYC...the other does Movies and Media on the west coast. Not too hard to understand is it? Joe Quesada and Bill Jemas have nothing to do with the West Coast branch and if they do...it sure as hell has nothing to do with the movies.

<a href="http://www.marveldirectory.com/marvelmovies.htm" target="_blank">http://www.marveldirectory.com/marvelmovies.htm</a>

That and the fact movie studios produce actual sites for the movies such as Spidey, X-Men, DD and Hulk...they're not mini sites off of marvel.com just because.

You would think that all the pro DC anti Marvel, Anit-Quesada, Anti-Jemas people here would at least know that. :rolleyes:

But maybe reality hasn't set in yet.

--
Anthony Schiavino
Designer and Webmaster
Blinding Force Productions
<a href="http://www.blindingforceprod.com" target="_blank">http://www.blindingforceprod.com</a>

[D.J. Coffman is your daddy]

[quote]Originally posted by Warren V. Wind:
<strong>

Either way I think Stan is screwed, but
he doesn't deserve to be called a cocksucker!

...and for that, I guess you shouldn't be called one either.
I am truly sorry about that!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is the internet. Everyone deserves to be called a cocksucker-- heheh

[Scott Senay]

Stan Lee Presents.........LAWSUIT!!!!!
Can he get Matt Murdock as his attorney or Harvy Birdman? The puns keep-a-comin'.

[San]

[quote]Originally posted by Cliffy:
<strong>

Well, one important piece of information that you seem to be forgetting is that the relevant contractual provision is quoted in this article.

--Cliffy</strong><hr></blockquote>

I can "quote" a contract here that states I'm entitled to all the profits of the Spiderman movie and furthermore, all women who went to see it are legally bound to have sex with me. It doesn't prove a thing...

Otherwise, a courtcase wouldn't be necessary, now would it :)

San

[pifpog]

[quote]Originally posted by JimHughs4:
<strong>Let's all keep in mind that Stan was never in financial control of Marvel. His slights toward Ditko, Kirby, etc. are all from the postition of an employee of Marvel Comics. IIRC, when Kirby was trying to get his his artwork returned, Stan kept his mouth shut- never said no, never said it was a bad idea, but didn't comment on it, probably because he's a company man, brought up in a time where you stayed loyal to your job. While I've heard Stan say he was the creator of Spider-man, the FF, etc., I've never heard him say he was the SOLE creator. As a matter of fact, over the last decade, I've seen several interviews where Stan credited the artists as creating the visuals for characters, which is a big step. As I already pointed out in another thread, in the 60 Minutes interview there's at least one time where Stan mentioned "we" where I would have been an appropriate response. I still think that Stan was crediting Kirby and Ditko and it was edited out.
Stan's no saint, but accusing him of screwing artists doesn't have evidence to back it up. As far as I can tell, Stan's acts against Ditko and Kirby are limited to keeping his mouth shut when he could have helped them (at the possible expense of his position with Marvel) and failing to credit them as co-creators as often as he should. But Stan's never been in a position where he could keep them from getting paid.
And if anyone has provable facts stating otherwise, please let me know. (INVITING FLAMES- DON'T MISS YOUR CHANCE!!!) ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

Again, I certainly don't want anything I say to be construed as less than... well, reverent to the genius that created so many wonderful characters, places and situations. BUT....

Stan Lee has only acknowledged that Ditko was a co-creator in the last few years. He did so in a letter to Ditko, which he also conveniently released to a public that was crying out for more recognition of these early creators. It doesn't seem like such a big step that he is giving credit to these people, particularly when you recall that early issues listed Lee as editor and writer in the early issues while Ditko is listed for plot and pencils.

I think for me it is a sin of omission. While he never said he was the sole creator, he also never acknowledged others when he could have. Take a listen to his interview on Fresh Air in 1991 (freshair.npr.org). At one point, when talking about costumes, he says "I told the artist I wanted them wearing street clothes". Would it have killed him to say "I told the artist, Jack Kirby...". I'd also be happy to provide numerous introductions, articles, etc., where he is credited as the creator. Obviously he could have spoken up and said "co-creator" at any time or asked to be listed as "a creator". To put in it perspective, it is like Woodward saying "I authored All the President's Men." It seems true, but only gives half the story.

And even when he acknowledges the contribution, there is a hint of insincerity to it. In his recent biography, he writes: [quote]“I’ve had a long-running, philosophical argument with Steve Ditko over whether I created Spider-Man or ‘we’ created him. Steve feels that, although the original idea, the original story, and the original description of all the characters were mine, it would never have come to fruition without his illustrations. Well, despite my own opinion of what constitutes a character’s ‘creation,’ my respect for Steve is so great, and his contribution to the strip was so important, that I’m willing to share the credit and call myself the co-creator. In fact, I’m willing to call myself co-creator of all the characters I’ve dreamed up, thereby sharing a grateful world’s plaudits and accolades with the artists who did me so proud.”<hr></blockquote>
For me, and this is just my opinion, there is something condescending about his use of language here. To be "willing" to be something sounds like a grudging acceptance, rather than tacit agreement that, hey, the person who designed the visuals and co-plotted deserves some credit.

As for whether Stan Lee could have directly helped out in payments, maybe not now, but certainly then. Jack Kirby left in 1970 because he felt he was not receiving adequate pay or credit. At that time, Marvel Comics was pretty much under Stan Lee's control as Editor and almost sole writer. If Stan Lee had pressed for Kirby to receive more money or had touted him more in the press or on his Soapbox, who knows how many more stories we would have had?

As someone mentioned, Stan Lee has always done what was best for Stan Lee. It suited his ego to have people view him as the father of all things Marvel, rather than the collaborative effort it obviously was. He has made some efforts to rectify this situation, but only because he was the last one in the room saying he did it all. When he felt he was well compensated by the company (in money and most likely stock), we never heard anything about Kirby's efforts or Simon's suit (despite his continually referring to them as friends). Yet he doesn't even bat an eye about publically suing the company he founded, the one that paid him a $1 million a year to play nice even while stockholders got left holding the bag, when 60 Minutes suggests he might not be getting his fair share.

And before you say anything, I realize that Mr. Lee's suit doesn't have anything to do with creator rights directly. It is all about a breach of contract. I'm simply commenting on the ethical underpinings of his suit. Regardless of the legal outcome, it is astonishing to me he is fighting for still more money from his past creations while remaining silent on other people's attempt to get a piece of the pie.

[Spikey_Jim]

Sigh. Everyone that seems obsessed with constantly bringing up Kirby and Ditko, what relevance does that have to Stan not getting paid what his contract says he should be paid? If your boss didn't pay you what you were supposed to get, but you still had enough money, would you keep quiet? Bollocks.

If Marvel is using characters that Stan created (or co-created), then why should he not gain from it. The difference between him and Ditko is that Stan has a contract, and Ditko doesn't. Plus, whyever Ditko did leave with 39(?), Stan wrote over a hundred issues of Spidey. He defined him as a character.

Spikey_Jim

[pifpog]

[quote]Originally posted by Spikey_Jim:
<strong>Sigh. Everyone that seems obsessed with constantly bringing up Kirby and Ditko, what relevance does that have to Stan not getting paid what his contract says he should be paid? If your boss didn't pay you what you were supposed to get, but you still had enough money, would you keep quiet? Bollocks.

If Marvel is using characters that Stan created (or co-created), then why should he not gain from it. The difference between him and Ditko is that Stan has a contract, and Ditko doesn't. Plus, whyever Ditko did leave with 39(?), Stan wrote over a hundred issues of Spidey. He defined him as a character.

Spikey_Jim</strong><hr></blockquote>

Stan Lee should get paid every dollar that his contract calls for. Doesn't matter how much he has right now, how long he is going to live, or anything else. No disagreement here.

My only reason in raising Kirby and Ditko is pretty much an agreement with your fourth sentence: if someone co-created a character, shouldn't they get a piece of the pie? Lee wrote the words for those early Spider-man issues, but Ditko set the scene through the plot line and artistry. But Lee's relentless self-promotion put him in a position to get the sweet deals for himself, while ignoring the cries for equity (in terms of money and laurels) from his co-creators.

Again, Stan Lee was a genius and he deserves every penny he is legally entitled to. I just wish he had been as fiece an advocate for others as he seems to be willing to be for himself.

[Academic]

[quote]Originally posted by pifpog:
<strong>
Again, Stan Lee was a genius and he deserves every penny he is legally entitled to. I just wish he had been as fiece an advocate for others as he seems to be willing to be for himself.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then again, we're seeing things through the wonderful 20/20 vision of hindsight. Individual creators didn't get credit in every issue during the forties and fifties -- the Superman strip, for example, said "Seagal & Shuster" but they stopped drawing it early on. Marvel was -- I believe -- one of the few major companies to have a credit box in every issue, and was the first to portray its staff as a happy group of people working together in the "nuthouse" of the Bullpen.

Kirby and Ditko left Marvel in the sixties. Stan stayed with the company longer, and has remained a father figure that every editor in chief or every writer has tried (at one point or another) to make proud of the way they've treated the characters. That's what makes Stan the father of Marvel... Kirby and Ditko have, unfortunately, never been in the public's mind as much as Stan was nor in the mind of Marvel (especially since Kirby did plenty of work with DC as well).

[Graeme McMillan]

[quote]Originally posted by AForceOfOne:
<strong>Wow...you people really disgust me. For all your complaining about everything and anything that isn't DC related, and with comics being your lives...you guys don't even know that there's two Marvel companies.

One does comics...based in NYC...the other does Movies and Media on the west coast. Not too hard to understand is it?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apparently it is for you.

The Comics and Movie offices of Marvel Enterprises, Inc. are just that... two offices of THE SAME COMPANY. They are different divisions, Marvel Comics and Marvel Studios, yes, but different divisions of THE SAME COMPANY. NOT TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES.

It's not even as if the West Coast office has final say over movie (or any other licensing) deals... the main office is the one in New York.

So, you know, check your facts before you go on about people "disgusting" you with ill-informed opinions...

[TTROY]

this guy was serious right?

AForce of One you really didn't know that Marvel West Coast is just a division of Marvel enterprises?
And you were ranting on about ill informed opinions?


Again this thread shouldn't be this long.
Fact of the matter is....it doesn't matter who created what
What does matter is that for the purposes of this lawsuit--which in effect(if you read the complaint) is a breach of contract suit.

Marvel agreed to pay Stan lee 3 bananas a year for the duration of his life and the agredd to give him 10 grapes out of a bunch of 100 based on the fact that stan helped plant the vineyard...

That was signed in a contract by marvel and stan....

Yes ditko helped plant the vineyard but he didn't stay to make the wine. And that is what Stan Lee's contract with Marvel is all about.

[Matt Hawes]

The recent COMICS BUYER'S GUIDE has a front page article that speculates that MARVEL may stop using Stan Lee's famous catchphrases, such as "`Nuff Said" due to the lawsuit. They are basing this on the news that WIZ KIDS decided at the last minute to NOT title the new MARVEL HERO CLIX expansion "X-CELSIOR."

<a href="http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/comicsunlimited@aol.com/" target="_blank">X-MEN, TOYS, & MORE FUN STUFF!</a>

[semprini]

---snip---
(This may have been done expressly to screw over Stan and others and may be a result of the Blade-Marv Wolfman situation.)
---snap---

Which situation is this? Did Marv actually make MONEY from a character he created??? :eek:

[MattBrady]

[quote]Originally posted by Matt Hawes:
<strong>The recent COMICS BUYER'S GUIDE has a front page article that speculates that MARVEL may stop using Stan Lee's famous catchphrases, such as "`Nuff Said" due to the lawsuit. They are basing this on the news that WIZ KIDS decided at the last minute to NOT title the new MARVEL HERO CLIX expansion "X-CELSIOR."</strong><hr></blockquote>

Which is pretty wild speculation at best, as the agreement between Marvel and Lee stipulates that Marvel can use those phrases in a non-exlusive manner. Also, WizKids hasn't commented on it one way or the other...

I prefer to go along with the line of reasoning that X-Celsior was a very lame moniker for a game add-on which is supposed to be about action and adventure...

MattB