The comic sites are buzzin' about former Marvel honcho Stan Lee's lawsuit against Marvel Comics: Tuesday, he filed a $10 million lawsuit charging that the company is cheating him out of his share of lucrative movie profits. With the movie versions of Daredevil and X-Men II on the event horizon (and blockbuster Spider-Man currently entering Xmas gift-giving season w./ two different DVD sets) that's probably a nice chunk of change.
It's the type of story guaranteed to appeal to the press: comic book superheroes are supposed to be about fairness, about fighting the good fight for truth and justice. Now, here we've got what appears to be a corporate entity screwing an 80-year-old man out of his fair share. This is based on an agreement signed between Lee and the company in 1988, which includes this pertinent sentence:
"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."
Marvel's response has been to assert that the $400 million spider hit hasn't seen any "profits" as defined by the contract. The entertainment industry is filled with tales of creative accounting, so it's possible they might have a legal case here, but it's still a public relations nightmare for the comics company. During the Spider-Man movie's p.r. blitz, Lee was all over the media as the "Man Who Created Spider-Man" (w./ a little help from artist and collaborator Steve Ditko, of course). And now this genial old guy is the public victim of slippery corporate types.
Lee's lawsuit demands damages and a court order forcing Marvel to turn over his share in any profits from movies about characters he created. In reply, Marvel has issued a statement saying Lee "continues to be well-compensated" for his contributions to the industry. In comparison with the piss-poor treatment that fellow collaborators Ditko or Jack (Hulk, Fantastic Four and more) Kirby received from the company, this is doubtless true. But it doesn't make that contract any less binding.
As someone who grew up reading Marvels when Stan Lee was the comics line's most vocal voice (as scripter for most of the early titles, it was Lee who personalized comics writing in a way that is still being felt today), I'm rooting for the guy. The comics industry has had a long and sordid history of mistreating its creative people. And while this case won't redress all the earlier grievances (some of which Lee himself at least tacitly supported) between creators and company, you still can't help wondering if a dose of korporate karma isn't being doled out. . .
(For more on this story, click here.)
UPDATE: Per Journalista!, Marvel's third quarter report is - as Chris Puzak notes in the comments section below - claiming two mil in profits from the movie. (This doesn't include merchandising profits, which add a few more bucks to the till.)
Article comments
1 - Chris Puzak
True, Spider-Man has made 400 million dollars, but Lee's not getting a percentage of money from that. Lee's supposed to get a percentage of the money Marvel comics itself made. And Marvel, when they announced their Q3 earnings on October 31,had only made two million dollars off the movie. Marvel doesn't have a lot of business sense when it comes to licensing their characters to the movies. So even if Stan Lee wins this case, the amount of money he'll get will probbaly be so small he won't even be able to cover the lawyer's fees.
2 - Amber Nussbaum
That sucks.
3 - Bill Sherman
I tend to favor writer Mark Evanier's prognostication that the whole thing'll be settled out of court - but not before it's given Marvel a few squirmy moments in the press.
The whole story can't help but conjure up memories of Art Buchwald's famous lawsuit against the producers of Coming to America. Though the Eddie Murphy comedy made over $350 million, after Buchwald won writer's credit and a piece of the profits, the studio claimed the flick had made zero "net profit." To this day, it serves as a symbol of Hollywood bookkeeping at its snakiest. . .
4 - Al Barger
The Buchwald case looked totally bogus from what I could tell of it, though. That movie was all about Eddie Murphy doing Eddie Murphy stuff. What did Buchwald supposedly contribute? He had some kind of a treatment about a Prince going undercover as a commoner. Whoop de frickin' doo! Anybody ever hear of The Prince and the Flippin' Pauper?
I don't know what money he ever actually collected, but I hope it weren't much.
5 - eddiehaskell
FYI On the Buchwald thing... One of the studio's main witnesses was UCLA screenwriting guru Richard Walters who said that all Mr. Buchwald gave to the studio was an idea and they get 1000s every day. The only problem was that the "idea" discussed was specifically of a black prince Coming To America. The jurors didn't buy it. Mr. Buchwald won a $900,000 judgement.
6 - richard kaplan
i have an idea for Stan Lee.I would like to email him. do you have an address?