MARVEL SUES SONY

**MattBrady** · 02-25-2003, 09:03 PM

Press Release

Marvel Enterprises, Inc. today issued the following statement in conjunction with its ongoing effort to aggressively protect its intellectual property rights.

"Earlier today Marvel Characters, Inc. a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marvel Enterprises, filed a suit in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles concerning a licensing agreement with Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. and SPE Spider-Man GP Inc. The suit was filed under seal pursuant to California Rule Of Court 243.2 and confidentiality provisions in the companies' agreement.

"The complaint is not an attempt to stop production of the Spider-Man sequel slated for May 2004 nor is it an attempt to change or upset any of the merchandising/licensing deals that are in place for the sequel. Additionally, while the litigation is not expected to have any material negative impact on Marvel's financial results or on its guidance for 2003 and beyond, a successful resolution of the matter would be anticipated to have a positive financial effect upon Marvel's future operations. Given confidentiality requirements related to the agreement, Marvel is unable to comment further on the matter."

pifpog · 02-25-2003, 09:11 PM

Anyone know what this is about? You'd think it have to do with money, but with Stan Lee's suit out there Marvel is dancing a thin line.

Graeme McMillan · 02-25-2003, 09:19 PM

Interesting.

What's the suit actually about?

arthur pendragon · 02-25-2003, 09:46 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Graeme McMillan:
Interesting.

What's the suit actually about?

Gue$$.

Cloak & Dagger · 02-25-2003, 10:10 PM

Guess Sony didn't pay money that Marvel was owed due to licensing Spider-Man to Sony...well, at least that's what Marvel thinks.

Barry · 02-25-2003, 10:11 PM

quote:
Originally posted by MattBrady:
Press Release

Marvel Enterprises, Inc. today issued the following statement in conjunction with its ongoing effort to aggressively protect its intellectual property rights.

"Earlier today Marvel Characters, Inc. a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marvel Enterprises, filed a suit in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles concerning a licensing agreement with Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. and SPE Spider-Man GP Inc. The suit was filed under seal pursuant to California Rule Of Court 243.2 and confidentiality provisions in the companies' agreement.

"The complaint is not an attempt to stop production of the Spider-Man sequel slated for May 2004 nor is it an attempt to change or upset any of the merchandising/licensing deals that are in place for the sequel. Additionally, while the litigation is not expected to have any material negative impact on Marvel's financial results or on its guidance for 2003 and beyond, a successful resolution of the matter would be anticipated to have a positive financial effect upon Marvel's future operations. Given confidentiality requirements related to the agreement, Marvel is unable to comment further on the matter."
I wonder if this has any connection to the rumors of Sony buying out Marvel...

Chris Hunter · 02-25-2003, 11:29 PM

No sequel now.

Figures.

arthur pendragon · 02-26-2003, 12:02 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Chris Hunter:
No sequel now.

Figures.

Didn't you read, "The complaint is not an attempt to stop production of the Spider-Man sequel slated for May 2004 nor is it an attempt to change or upset any of the merchandising/licensing deals that are in place for the sequel."?

Granted the suit could have unintended consequnces, but neither Marvel or Sony want to see their cash cow delayed. Just like Stan Lee is still Chairman Emeritus at Marvel, what's a multi milllion dollar lawsuit between friends? [Wink]

pah25 · 02-26-2003, 02:58 AM

I'm sure sony are just after screwing Marvel like they did with the big N.

Stratus · 02-26-2003, 03:01 AM

Filming for the sequel is set to begin in April this year. There's too much money already invested in Spider-Man 2, by both Marvel and Sony I'm sure, for it to be dropped now.

Regards,
Stratus

Kerouac · 02-26-2003, 04:00 AM

Kinda makes you wonder about the rumors that Sony is looking to buy out Marvel. You don't generally go buying people that are actively filing suits against you, but then again, maybe that's all the more reason to do so. Hell, Vince McMahon bought WCW...

Matt

Michael Eidson · 02-26-2003, 07:54 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Graeme McMillan:
Interesting.

What's the suit actually about?

Um... I think it has to do with Sony's unauthorized use of Spider-Man artwork on a recent DVD cartoon collection. There was a story about it here at Newsarama some time last year. At least, I think it was Sony....

Jason Seaver · 02-26-2003, 08:40 AM

No, actually, I think it was Buena Vista (Disney) who used something on the Spider-Man Animated DVDs. I imagine Sony has just been using Spider-Man characters somewhere other than where they've explicitly agreed.

**MattBrady** · 02-26-2003, 08:47 AM

yeah - that was Buena Vista.

MattB

Hank Wirtz · 02-26-2003, 10:16 AM

I'd guess Sony's understaing profits to reduce Marvel's take, just like Marvel's doing to Stan.

"Honest! There are no profits yet!"

Falkner · 02-26-2003, 11:18 AM

quote:
No, actually, I think it was Buena Vista (Disney) who used something on the Spider-Man Animated DVDs.

Actually, if I remember correctly, it was more ridiculously specific than that. I believe Disney had used the artwork seen on the original Spidey Playstation game (also on a Spidey annual) for a poster advertising the Spidey animated DVDs. The horror.

Still, even with no agreement to use Marvel artwork, why does the cover art of Disney's Spidey DVDs look so terrible? Don't they employ artists?

Cliffy · 02-26-2003, 11:39 AM

Please don't just guess at what the suit is about -- as clearly noted in the release, it is under seal. That means the proceedings are going to be confidential, although who knows how that change or become relaxed as time passes. Courts are generally loath to seal complaints -- they are meant to be public records, and the sealing thereof is in tension with the First Amendment -- so I'd be surprised if this were simply a run of the mill quibble over licensing fees, but without more information it's anybody's guess. As for the Buena Vista artwork issue, I don't know much about trademark law, but I might expect that kind of a case in federal court, not state court.

--Cliffy, Esq.

Michael P · 02-26-2003, 11:46 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Hank Wirtz:
I'd guess Sony's understaing profits to reduce Marvel's take, just like Marvel's doing to Stan.

"Honest! There are no profits yet!"

Or maybe Sony's understating of profits is the reason why Marvel hasn't been able to pay Stan yet.

arthur pendragon · 02-26-2003, 12:27 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Michael P:

Or maybe Sony's understating of profits is the reason why Marvel hasn't been able to pay Stan yet.

From Marvel's own press release regarding Stan's suit, "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."

I don't think Marvel believes they owe Stan a damn thing more than he already gets.

Kerouac · 02-27-2003, 02:44 AM

quote:
I don't think Marvel believes they owe Stan a damn thing more than he already gets.

Marvel also believed that they didn't have to accept returns, but that didn't necessarily make it so. [Wink]

Matt

Graeme McMillan · 02-27-2003, 10:48 AM

Best theory I've seen so far...

"Among the news items in the press, there was but one bullshit theory to be heard, but it was in the headlines: "Marvel sues Sony". If you read the actual press release from Marvel, there isn't even enough information to support that one. Here's the closest the release comes to identifying the defendent:

Earlier today Marvel Characters, Inc. a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marvel Enterprises, filed a suit in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles concerning a licensing agreement with Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. and SPE Spider-Man GP Inc.

It's easy to see why everyone was so quick to connect Tab A to Slot B, but all the above sentence really says is that a lawsuit was filed that had something to do with a licensing agreement; it leads you up to the idea that Marvel's suing Sony, but never quite gets around to stating so out loud. I puzzled briefly over this last night -- Why the vague wording? Who else would Marvel sue over an agreement with Sony, anyway? As it turns out, there is someone else with his hand reaching for the cookie jar: Stan Lee. The notion struck me as vaguely ludicrous, but then I realized that there was nothing in Marvel's press release that actually contradicted it. A suit against Lee wouldn't halt the production of the Spider-Man sequel, nor would it alter any licensing arrangements. The suit itself doesn't impact any financial statements, but a resolution in Marvel's favor would in fact improve Marvel's financial outlook -- by exactly 10% of the film revenues."

You know, it kind of makes sense to me...

arthur pendragon · 02-27-2003, 11:09 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Kerouac:

quote:
I don't think Marvel believes they owe Stan a damn thing more than he already gets.
Marvel also believed that they didn't have to accept returns, but that didn't necessarily make it so.

Matt

I agree. I was just pointing out that Marvel isn't suing anybody so they can pay Stan Lee.

Cliffy · 02-27-2003, 02:46 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Graeme McMillan:
As it turns out, there is someone else with his hand reaching for the cookie jar: Stan Lee. The notion struck me as vaguely ludicrous, but then I realized that there was nothing in Marvel's press release that actually contradicted it.

(It's a good idea to cite stuff like this that you pull from another source -- in this case Dirk Deppey's Journalista! blog on the Comics Journal site.)

I agree with Deppey that there is not enough information released so far (unless Reuters has off the record information they aren't reporting) to justify the assumption that Sony is the defendant in this action. However, whomever is being sued, it isn't Stan Lee. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any claim Marvel has against Lee would have to be brought as a counterclaim in the Lee v. Marvel suit currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

--Cliffy

Graeme McMillan · 02-27-2003, 05:10 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Cliffy:
It's a good idea to cite stuff like this that you pull from another source -- in this case Dirk Deppey's Journalista! blog on the Comics Journal site.

The first line of that post was a link to the original article. I wasn't attempting to pass it off as an original theory...

dollman · 02-27-2003, 06:42 PM

quote:
Originally posted by pah25:
I'm sure sony are just after screwing Marvel like they did with the big N.

Who's the big N?