NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge has ordered Marvel Enterprises Inc. to pay the creator of the comic book character Spider-Man 10 percent of Marvel's profits from the "Spider-Man" movies, Marvel said on Wednesday.







Marvel, a comic book publisher that licenses its characters, said the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered it to pay Spider-Man creator Stan Lee a share of proceeds it has received since November 1998 from movies, television shows and movie-related toys manufactured by Marvel.


"Spider-Man," released by Sony in 2002, was one of the top worldwide box office hits of all time.


Marvel said it would appeal the ruling. It said it does not expect the decision to have an impact on financial forecasts for 2004 and beyond.


Marvel said the court rejected a claim by Lee, who is now chief creative officer for POW! Entertainment, to share in proceeds from third-party licensees of movie-related merchandise.


The court left unresolved Lee's claim that he is entitled to a share of profits from Marvel's joint venture with Sony Corp (news - web sites). related to Spider-Man movie merchandise and to a share of Marvel's international profits from the Hulk movie merchandise licensing program with Universal Studios.


Those claims will be heard in a forthcoming jury trial, Marvel said.


Marvel shares fell 48 cents to $17.75.
[Edited 1/19/05 12:22pm]

They should also pay Steve Ditko a cut.

Stan is the man! He deserves every penny!!!!

wait..Stan wasn't getting paid? That is some brand new bullshit. For real. That's like Walt not getting paid for Mickey.

Stan the man.. deserves every fucking cent..

I didn´t even know that he parted ways with Marvel Comics, let alone the fact he didn´t get paid .
Didn´t Joe Siegel and Jerry Shuster also have some financial dispute with their publishing company ? ( AC or DC Comics)

JediMaster said:

word, everyone forgets about that.

jerseykrs said:

The way I heard it, Lee screwed Ditko over royally. I mean, Lee basically owned Marvel after a while, therefore he owned Ditko's work. LOTS of people refused to work for Marvel after a while--John Byrne, Todd McFarlane, etc.

Case said:

Hmmm, that's SORTA right. Stan was the editor, and Ditko did have a dispute with him over the amount of royalties and what-not he was getting paid for the creation of Spidey (and Dr. Strange), but that had nothing to do with him leaving Marvel (in the mid 80s). Ditko's main problem was with the Bullpen staff that were taking over and censoring his work.

As for Lee "owning" Marvel- not true. By the late 1980s, Stan was nothing more than a figurehead, being paid a salary to be the public face for the company, but excluded from making any real decisions. He was certainly not allowed to write any comics (other than once in a blue moon, for a special project). Lee struck out on his own in the late 90s, eventually forming his own media company (it bombed) and even taking part in a DC Comics special project. He is still, somewhat, tied to Marvel in a figurehead sense, but even that has eroded to a point where he is being paid very little for his involvement. You'll note that Lee gets an "executive producer" credit on all the Marvel movies, if for no other reason than to shut him up about royalties. Of course, he feel that he should get a bigger slice of the pie for the Spider-Man, films since they were a huge success, and the plotlines are directly adapted from his original stories (in the case of other Marvel franchises, fewer of his ideas, if any, are on the screen. For example, the Blade films feature no characters or story ideas from Lee at all).

As for Byrne and McFarlane, their splits with Marvel had NOTHING to do with Stan Lee. Byrne had a very public fued with his collaborator, Chris Claremont, and left Marvel to work for the Distinguished Competition. He returned a few years later to do (some really shitty) work on Spider-Man. He later reconciled with Claremont, and they are working on new projects at both Marvel and DC.

By the time McFarlane was at Marvel, Lee was very cemented as the figurehead. McFarlane's rift began when he got into an arguement with the staff over the rights to a (rather lame) character he had created called The Prowler. McFarlane felt he should be allowed to own the character, and take him with him to another company if he so desired. His contract with Marvel stated that any characters he created while within their employ were then owned by the company. This is what led to him leaving the company, alongside fellow Marvel artists Jim Lee, Rob Liefeld and Mark Silvestri to form Image comics. McFarlane has continued his fued with Marvel, DC and just about everyone in the comics industry to this day. It should be noted, however, that Lee got him to participate in a documentary series he was working on, so I really don't think Stan is the problem here.

In recent years, Lee has even made a point of making sure that his collaborators got the co-creator credit they deserved on these films (you'll note that Jack Kirby gets a co-creator credit in X-Men, and Ditko for Spider-Man). He still speaks highly of John Romita Sr., and frequently notes how important to the scripting process these men were. He has, in fact, admitted than many times he came up with a story idea, gave it to Kirby, Ditko or Romita, and they would then flesh it out. The script, when done, would come back to Lee for dialogue and polishing. Sure, he's had his disputes with them, but most artistic partnerships do. Its hardly the screw-job that Bill Finger got from Bob Kane.

TheBatman said:

Amen to that.

glamslamkid said:

Geez, you try to tell people the truth...

Good! I don't know why there should be any question. Without the man's creations there would be no money! It shouldn't take a lawsuit for people to do what's right.

TheBatman said:

Actually, I just recently read an article about this.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

JediMaster said:

Thanks for the full info.

for starters...Jack Kirby should be credited for creating the Spider-Man character...
somehow, throughout the years and through layers of Stan "The Bullshit Man" Lee's crap, this little tidbit has slipped through the cracks...
Kirby created the character, but passed it on to Ditko...because, Ditko had a better sense of what the character should be...
it should also be noted that Stan never created any of the classic Marvel characters...all he did was put words on the page...he barely had a hand in shaping these characters as we know and love them...
in the Marvel way of making a comic book, the artist and writer plot out the story, the artist draws it, then...and only then...does the writer add the dialogue...
I will give Stan "Bragg" (see early Angel And The Ape comics for that reference) credit for being there and having a small hand in creating these characters...but, he DOES NOT deserve nearly as much credit as he says he does...
All he really is, is a glory-seeking backstabbing asshole...

One final thought...
Has it come to no one's attention that he's waited until Jack and Roz Kirby have passed on before he started claiming creator's rights for all these characters?
Think about that...

...addenda...

And, yes, Steve Ditko should also receive a cut for his brilliant work in making Spider-Man the pop cultural icon he is today...

TheMadMonkey said:

I've heard this argument before, but I've yet to hear it from a reputable source. Romita SR. has always vehemently defended Stan, and Ditko has never really spoke out against Stan IN THIS REGARD (he has other issues with him that he is quite vocal about). I DEFINITELY think that Ditko and Kirby deserve waaaaay more recognition than they receive, but I don't think that Stan is completely lacking when it comes to the input in the creation of these characters. Also, your argument about creator rights doesn't really wash. Sure, Jack & Roz are dead, but Ditko is still quite alive. Personally, I think Stan should be campaigning to get both him AND Ditko a bigger cut.

As for the creation of Spider-Man, I do agree that Kirby should get recognition for the character, although I always heard a very different version of what happened: Stan had come up with a character called "The Human Fly", which was basically the same character only with the powers of a fly instead (I'm positive that the reference in the first Spidey movie to "The Human Spider" in the wrestling sequence was a nod to this). He went to Kirby with it, who suggested that he change it to a spider instead (a radioactive fly biting you just doesn't seem quite as cool, does it). He named him "Spider-Man", and also suggested the concept of "spider-sense" (the web-shooters came about later, in a brainstorming session between Ditko and Lee, and the whole walking on walls thing was already Stan's concept with "The Human Fly"). Kirby tried to come up with character designs, but was never happy with them. Eventually, he sent the character over to Ditko, because he felt he was better suited to come up with a visual for the web-slinger. Ditko came up with the design of ALL the major characters (with the exception of Mary Jane Watson. That honor goes to Romita Sr). He also plotted many of the original issues, then gave them to Stan to write the script, so most of the story ideas were his, even if he wasn't the actual writer.

Anyhoo, that's what I've always heard. I don't dispute at all that Ditko and Kirby need to be acknowledged more for their contributions. Marvel Comics would NEVER have been what it is without them.

Sure, my argument for creative rights works...
Stan never said a single thing about who created what while Jack and Roz were still around...because he knew that they would both shoot him down.
I agree with your statement about Ditko, however.
If anyone were to be awarded money for creative rights, it's the Kirby Estate, Ditko, and Romita, Sr. Yes, Stan can get some for his limited input, but not nearly what the others deserve.
Stan has always been a backstabbing liar and will always be one.
But, admittedly, we'll never know the whole truth now...Jack and Roz have passed on, Ditko doesn't talk, and Romita, Sr. just seems to want to stay out of it (can't say as I blame him)...all we have are the words of a "man" (I use the term loosely) who habitually lies to make himself look good.

BTW, i met romita sr. a couple years ago at a con, he drew me this great head shot of spidey, great guy.....

jerseykrs said:

Romita SR is, to me, the perfect example of a comic legend. The guy's fucking humble, yet he DEFINED the look of comics for decades. Too bad his son doesn't have half his talent.

JediMaster said:

John Jr. has said more than once that he wishes he had his dad's talent.
...and...
I agree wholeheartedly...Mr. Romita Sr. is definitely a true legend in comics.
I have never heard/read anyone ever say a bad word about him.
Admittedly, I've never been a big fan of his style, but his and (the late) John Buscema's art styles were used as Marvel's in-house look for almost as long as there's been a Marvel Comics (proper). And, hell, that's gotta say something...