Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: Fellfrosch on January 19, 2005, 08:48:16 PM
-
I'm putting this in books because of the comicbook connection, though the money itself will come from movies and such:
http://entertainment.msn.com/celebs/article.aspx?news=179077
Stan Lee won a suit granting him 10% of profits from movies and merchandise based on his characters. 10% is enormous. That court decision just gave him more money than most of us will ever see in our entire lives.
-
I'm pleased that Stan Lee was able to get financial acknowledgement for his role in creating Spider-Man, yet on the flip-side, this seems so whiny of Stan Lee.
-
i don't think so. Siegel and Schuster never got anything other than their names on the products for inventing superman, the single most important comic book lisence ever. It's a huge deal.
-
I don't really feel bad for Siegel and Schuster either.
-
Do they define how "profits" will be defined? Usually authors always get a cut of profits in their licensing contract, but never see any money anyway because the studio bookkeeping somehow reports no profits.
-
Well I know the original lawsuite was over the 2 spiderman movie's profits. And since we allready know how much they made compaired to cost Mr. Lee will be getting lots of money.
-
Again, as Ookla said, Hollywood has very creative bookkeeping, Sprig.
Paying off investors is often considered part of costs. The guy who wrote Forest Gump was promised a percentage of profits, and guess what? Nothing. You know how much money that movie made....
(Note, that last story is based on hearsay. Sorry, I don't have anything concrete. However, I've heard about 'profits' in Hollywood from several different sources that I trust.)
-
so 42, it wouldn't bother you at all if you created a character, and got paid almost nothing for it, and then someone else sold usage that character and got amazingly rich from it, and you got jack?
Sorry, I can't understand the ethics in your world.
-
I agree, he definitely deserves the money, but it makes me wonder about the other creators. Who was the artist, Jack Kirby? Does he get anything? I think he has just as much hand in the creation of the character.
-
if they were creators, they deserve mention, at least. However, I'm not that confident about my opinion on estates of the creators. I think that Spidey is considered much more Stan's, while things like the X-Men are considered Stand and Kirby's both.
-
See, in one of my aesthetics classes, we discussed the definition of creator and authorship. The problem with multi-media formats is that there are always multiple creators/authors involved. Movies are not made by one person, neither are comic books (usually). When you start stripping away elements then you have something different.
The main point is that no artist/writer is an island. There is always someone else influencing them or helping them along.
So if Spiderman only had Stan Lee and not Jack Kirby, would it still be Spiderman? Well, reasonably it could be, but it would be just as reasonable to assume it wouldn't be. And there are probably many other people who are responsible for making Spiderman what it is today.
I don't mind Stan Lee getting financial perks from the movies, but I wish he would then turn around and share that financial gift with others that helped create Spiderman. Course, he probably won't.
My beef with Stan Lee is that in every interveiw I see him do, he seems so full of himself.
-
I can see that argument, but I don't think it applies so completely here. The art of Spidey wasn't what originally made it so popurlar. The art of spider-man isn't nearly so important as the story. All of which WAS made by Stan Lee. Same with Daredevil. a little less so with characters like Captain America, and MUCH less so with X-Men. But even with X-Men, what visual elements of Jack Kirby's work are they using? Almost none. All the characters look different, they don't use the same colors even. Again, the main ideas that are being used in nearly all the Marvel films (aside from the Blade ones) so far are almost entirely Stan Lee. I think if there had been different artists doing these stories originally, the movies probably would have been made substantially the same. Thus I think it only fair that Lee gets some recognition in form of part of all this cash everyone is making, because they're using HIS ideas to do it.
And I notice that you avoided my question by trying to alter it. I think the premise of my question still stands. The ideas, esp for Spider-Man, are substantively Stan's and no one else's. I think this is only fair and the charge of whining is way off the mark. Sure he's got some ego, but if you ever read the marvel editorials or letter columns when he was writing them, you'd see that what comes out it mostly just the public personality he always put forth, and it seems much less egotistical than nearly any interview i've seen with writers and directors and actors of successful films.
edit: I talk too fast. I reworded the first few sentences to actually be comprehensible.
in addition, yes, it's fair to note that people like MacFarlane and Ditko carried this characters to new places and were very important in their development, but they're only doing what they did because Stan Lee did first. It's all DIRECTLY traceable to him.
-
so 42, it wouldn't bother you at all if you created a character, and got paid almost nothing for it, and then someone else sold usage that character and got amazingly rich from it, and you got jack?
I guess to answer this question directly. No I wouldn't really have problem with it. If someone else had the idea, skills, and capitol to make more money off of my idea, well good for them. Why should I live off of someone else's work?
-
that still doesn't really directly answer my question without altering it. I'm asking if YOU created a character, would you have a problem. That's how Stan looks at it, and i pretty much agree with him. as I said above, it's HIS ideas, not kirby's, not the editor's, not the colorist's, that are being used. The other contributions are very inconsequential to the film.
but let me nod at your conditions. You create a character, then someone else adds several ideas that establish a custom for use of that character. You get paid very little for what you did. But then the character takes off and starts doing really well. Over time, all the ideas that the other contributers added become less important to anyone's use of it, until there are only vague nods that those traditions were ever there at all. YOUR core ideas for the character, however, are still used, and they are what everyone identifies as the only important aspects of the character. You still think that you shouldn't get at least a significant recognition of the use of that character besides having your name buried in the credits somewhere?
Because I fail to see where your ideas differ from taking your painting, putting it in a new frame, putting it under better light, and advertising the hell out of it and charging admission after just giving you a few bucks for the paints and canvas and $5 and hour for your labor. Seriously, it's the same thing you're saying with someone else using the idea, spending more money, and repackaging it.
Why should I live off of someone else's work?
Simple, because they are living off YOURS. That's why.
-
You just described an art museum, SE. That happens all the time.
-
Forgice me my ignorance. Was Stan Lee not employed by Marvel to make Spiderman (among all the other comic work he did)?
If he was then I'm amazed that he won any kind of settlement. And it's a really bad precedent and needs to be reversed by a judge with a brain in his head. Marvel owns his work, not him. They paid him a salary so he could spend his days coming up with spiderman.
If he developed spiderman on his own then sold it to Marvel then they still own it and can reasonably make all the money they want off of it without giving him a red cent.
If he worked in some sort of contractual relationship with Marvel where he was owed 10 percent of royalties made from products that used his work and they were in breach of contract then he got them dead to rights.
Which is it, comic gurus?
-
yeah, i realized I gave an astoundingly bad example.
the point, Skar, actually, at least, the point I believe should be operated, is that stan lee, siegel, and all the others, were working under archaic business practices. few legitimate publishers these days give the kinds of deals that were used normally wehn Superman, Captain America, and Spider-Man were created. Maybe it's legal, but the arrangement is not one that would be made today by someone with any sort of long range thinking.
I think the judgement is in part trying to rectify this wrong, and in part looking at legal precedents we don't know about.
-
Harry Harrison never saw a dime of royalties from Soylent Green, but at least he got to be very much involved in the creation of the movie (though he couldn't prevent them changing the original Soybean-Lentil food into the supposed-plankton "Soylent Green is made from people!")
-
I don't really know any of the details, so I couldn't really say whether he deserves it or not. But personally, if someone stole one of my characters, I'd be pretty ticked about it. Like if someone stole Jax Ryan from me, they better spend some of that cash on security, cause I'd bust their skull. But if I sold the rights to him or whatever, that's a different story. I'm guessing he felt that Spiderman was his character, and I don't blame him from trying to get his piece. If he won, then he obviously had some kind of a case.
-
Well, obviously Stan Lee had some kind of case. My argument is that Stan Lee didn't make all of the money. Most of the work done of the Spiderman films were done by other people. In fact, Stan Lee's innvolvement was minimal. And the right were sold, not stolen.
The deal the Stan Lee made is actually very common today. I know when I signed on at PDC they made me sign a contract say that all art work I produced at PDC belonged to them, exclusively. This didn't include work I did outside of office hours. Places like Disney, however, make their artists sign a contract that gives them exclusive rights to everything the artist produce both during office hours and off hours, and they maintain those rights, to all of your work, for a couple of years after you leave their employment. If you don't agree to those terms then you can't work for them.
So it is a trade-off, potential earnings versus job-security. To many people, the job security is worth it, since they may never see the potential earnings if left to their own devices.
-
Surely all you do is never give in any of the stuff you do during office hours, and after the 2 years is up, wait for another year and then say it was all done in that year? It's not like they can claim you didn't do it that way.
-
Former Disney artists have found ways to get around the contracts. Or at least some have. But when you think about it, you have the risk of not making any money from your work by holding it back. Working through Disney gives you a great distribution, advertising, and marketing network that you probably wouldn't be able to get on your own.
-
Even so, I can't imagine ever signing that contract. It boils down to, Disney owns your talents. Read too much cyberpunk to accept that :|
-
Well, your talents is what they are purchasing. It actually what any employer is buying when they hire someone.
-
Sure if you willingly sign away the rights that's a different story. But if you didn't, or were tricked into it, then they are stealing from you. I don't know what he did or didn't sign, but seeing that he won, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I hear otherwise. And lots of people did make the movie, but I'm guessing they got paid for their part... and I'm sure some of those people get royalties on top of that based on how well the movie did.
-
When what happens, they get famous and worth a lot? Heh, so don't be a painter. Naw, there are painters who make pretty good, you just got to be good.