Disney doesn't own the Marvel IPs??!?!

electric_mayhem

http://www.deadline.com/2012/10/stan-lee-media-lawsuit-walt-disney-marvel-superheroes-copyright-infringement/#more-350808

Stan Lee Media, Inc. wants the profits from the $5.5 billion it says the Walt Disney Company has made from superhero movies and merchandise based on characters created by Stan Lee. Those characters include Iron Man, Spider-Man, most of The Avengers, The X-Men and more. “Defendant The Walt Disney Company has represented to the public that it, in fact, owns the copyright to these characters as well as to hundreds of other characters created by Stan Lee. Those representations made to the public by The Walt Disney Company are false,” says the company’s copyright infringement complaint filed today (read it here) in a Colorado court. SLMI is seeking “the maximum statutory damages allowable” plus full control over Iron Man, Spider-Man and other characters. SLMI also is seeking a jury trial.

In its suit, SLMI says that Lee signed over the rights to comic book characters that he created or would create to its corporate predecessor in October 1998. The comic writer and publisher was paid for the rights in shares in Stan Lee Media, Inc. The shares later proved worthless when the dot-com bubble burst at the end of the 1990s, leaving the company to unsuccessfully seek bankruptcy protection in 2001. In its complaint today, SLMI says an amended version of that October 1998 agreement was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in March 2000, clearly indicating its rights. “Oddly, in November, 1998, Stan Lee signed a written agreement with Marvel Enterprises, Inc. in which he purportedly assigned to Marvel the rights to the Characters. However, Lee no longer owned those rights since they had been assigned to SLEI previously. Accordingly, the Marvel agreement actually assigned nothing,” the suit notes. Disney bought Marvel for $4 billion in August 2009 with the deal confirmed at the end of that year. Stan Lee Media Inc. is represented by John McDermott of Denver’s Brownstein Hyatt Faber Schreck and Robert Chapan and Jon-Jamison Hill of Beverly Hills’ Eisner, Kahan & Gorry.

What?!? crazy..

Think a judge will buy this?

David_D

A quick bit of context-- Stan Lee Media, despite continuing to bear his name, has not been associated with Stan Lee himself in years. And they even sued Lee a few years back. They have tried all sorts of lawsuits, and my impression is that no one takes them very seriously. But they always get headlines, probably more than other nuisance suits, because of the name of their company.

Greg

All of SLM's previous suits were lost or thrown out. I don't understand how any of this keeps gettin back into the courts. Like Kirby, wasn't Stan's work, "work for hire?" I don't see how had and legal standing to sign away any ownership or copryrights of the characters.

WetRats

Greg said:

All of SLM's previous suits were lost or thrown out. I don't understand how any of this keeps gettin back into the courts.

With the millions at stake, I'm sure SLM has no problem finding attorneys willing to take a stab.

Greg said:

Like Kirby, wasn't Stan's work, "work for hire?" I don't see how had and legal standing to sign away any ownership or copryrights of the characters.

Stan having a double-standard involving his chance to make a buck? Perish the thought?

Greg

I'm not surprised one bit that Stan would have done this.

I'm sure there is no shortage of lawyers willing to try, but doesn't a judge have to agree to hear the case for it to get into court? With all of the previous suits having been lost by SLM on record, any judge should have access to that and toss it out. I'm just confuzzled how with so many lost suits on file, how SLM getting these claims back into court.

WetRats

Greg said:

I'm sure there is no shortage of lawyers willing to try, but doesn't a judge have to agree to hear the case for it to get into court? With all of the previous suits having been lost by SLM on record, any judge should have access to that and toss it out. I'm just confuzzled how with so many lost suits on file, how SLM getting these claims back into court.

Because the system was designed by attorneys.

Greg

True, true.

David_D

@Greg just as a point of information, you may not be surprised that Stan Lee would do this, but to be clear, Stan Lee is not doing this.

WetRats

David_D said:

@Greg just as a point of information, you may not be surprised that Stan Lee would do this, but to be clear, Stan Lee is not doing this.

This time.

But didn't he try something similar a while back? I thought his settlement with Marvel was the basis for SLM's claims.

Greg

David_D said:

@Greg just as a point of information, you may not be surprised that Stan Lee would do this, but to be clear, Stan Lee is not doing this.

I know, I knew all about SLM when it reared its ugly head the first time around. I don't think I implied Stan himself was doing this, if I did I didn't mean to. I did question Stan signing over rights that he didn't own to Stan Lee Media (SLM) in the first place. Didn't mean to cause any confusion.

David_D

WetRats said:

David_D said:

@Greg just as a point of information, you may not be surprised that Stan Lee would do this, but to be clear, Stan Lee is not doing this.

This time.

But didn't he try something similar a while back? I thought his settlement with Marvel was the basis for SLM's claims.

I honestly don't remember. I am not sure of the legal history and arrangement between Lee and Marvel. And, as I implied, I am not arguing that this is not the sort of thing he may feel within his rights to do, or that he would do for himself but not for others. That may be. But just that this specific case is not him. I only emphasize that as this tends to get confused when SLM suits happen. (And it doesn't help that entertainment reports, like the one in the original post, don't make that distinction.)

WetRats

David_D said:

I only emphasize that as this tends to get confused when SLM suits happen. (And it doesn't help that entertainment reports, like the one in the original post, don't make that distinction.)

And an important emphasis indeed.