Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Stan Lee Sues Marvel Comics

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the profit-always-an-ephemeral-concept dept.

The Almighty Buck 680

night_flyer writes "In a story that demonstrates the way the entertainment industry manipulates its artists, Marvel is claiming that the 400 Million dollar blockbuster movie Spiderman produced no profits, and they are trying to weasel out of their contract that gives Stan Lee 10% of the profits from his creations. Nuff Said!"

cancel ×

680 comments

wow (-1, Redundant)

GearType2 (614552) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658044)

....wow. who'd a thunk it?

/.ed already (-1, Redundant)

chocolatetrumpet (73058) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658046)

7am, 1 comment, already /.ed

amazing.

Re:/.ed already (0, Offtopic)

szo (7842) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658061)

1 pm, already slashdotted. It's a round world, you know...

Szo

Re:/.ed already (5, Informative)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658093)

Then here you go:

Spider-Man creator sues Marvel

NEW YORK, Nov. 12 -- The creative force behind Spider-Man, the Incredible Hulk and the X-Men filed a $10 million lawsuit Tuesday, charging his old comic book company is cheating him out of millions of dollars in movie profits. Stan Lee, who crafted a menagerie of superpowered heroes with very human flaws, now claims Marvel Entertainment Inc. has tried to shut him out of the "jackpot" success of this summer's "Spider-Man" movie.

LEE'S ATTORNEYS filed court papers in Manhattan federal court, claiming that Marvel signed a deal to give their client 10 percent of any profits from his characters used in films and television shows.
"Spider-Man" has been the year's biggest hit, grossing more than $400 million domestically -- but the 80-year-old Lee says he hasn't seen a penny.
"Despite reaping enormous benefits from Mr. Lee's creations, defendants have failed and refused to honor their commitments to him," the lawsuit charges.
Marvel has reported millions of dollars in earnings from the film but has told Lee the company has seen no "profits" as defined by their contract.
Lee hopes a judge will intervene and make sure he gets a percentage of profits from the Ben Affleck movie "Daredevil," based on another of his creations, scheduled for release in February.
He also seeks a share of profits from the upcoming movie "The Hulk," and the sequels to "X-Men" and "Spider-Man."

The lawsuit demands damages and a court order forcing Marvel to turn over Lee's share in any profits from movies about characters he created.
Marvel issued a statement saying Lee "continues to be well-compensated" for his contributions to the industry. It said the company is "in full compliance with, and current on all payments due under, terms of Mr. Lee's employment agreement."
"Spider-Man" stars Tobey Maguire as the teenage superhero, Willem Dafoe as the villainous Green Goblin and Kirsten Dunst as love interest Mary Jane Watson. A sequel is due out in 2004.

What about X-Men? (3, Insightful)

Belgand (14099) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658236)

The article clearly mentions X2, the Hulk, and Daredevil, but no mention is made of the first X-Men film. Did Lee ever recieve his royalties from this? If so wouldn't this seem to be a precedent in his favor... it didn't do as well as Spider-Man, but it did do rather well nonetheless. If he didn't recieve his well-deserved 10% then why has he waited until now to file suit over it?

Huh?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658109)

Works fine for me. Of course I'm running IE on a Windows box so that might explain it.

Aint that just a load (5, Insightful)

ONOIML8 (23262) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658047)

That's a load of crap. You pay a man an honest wage for an honest days work.

Seems like these things have been going on in the comic book industry from the beginning tho.

Re:Aint that just a load (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658106)

You pay a man an honest wage for an honest days work.

But... but, that's not the American way! The American way is all about pleasing the shareholders.

Um, No. (5, Insightful)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658220)

You pay a man an honest wage for an honest days work.

But... but, that's not the American way! The American way is all about pleasing the shareholders.


Um, no. That is the corporate way. The American way is an honest wage for an honest day's work. The fact that America let large corporations hijack its government and undermine its constitution during the anti-communist ferver of the cold war may mean America kneels beneath their jackbooted heels, but it does not mean that corporatism is the ideal to which the country aspires.

Quite the opposite, in fact, and a backlash to this sort of crap is brewing.

Re:Aint that just a load (-1)

613746 (613746) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658126)

Exactly how is drawing comics an honest day's work? You have got to be kidding me.

The fact that the guy makes any money is amazing, and he should shut his mouth and quit complaining.

Re:Aint that just a load (2, Informative)

pfurlong (174363) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658186)

Read December's Wizard magazine for more information on this sort of industry practice.

The article discusses the situation of Bill Finger, the man who co-created Batman with Bob Kane. Mr. Finger apparently did more of the creating, making Batman what he is today, yet died penniless.

Good luck to Stan Lee! Excelsior!

MY SPIDEY SENSE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658049)

FIRSt POSt SPIDEy SENSE BABY!

It TINGLED LIKE MY MASSIVE COCK!!

No Profits (5, Insightful)

Mr_Dyqik (156524) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658050)

Surely the studio should cut its losses, and not make the proposed sequel then.

Shareholders should be complaining to the board as you read this.

Re:No Profits (2)

rovingeyes (575063) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658168)

Shareholders should be complaining to the board as you read this

As long as the share prices are going north no share holder will even bother. Hey don't blame me it's natural human tendency.

Re:No Profits (3, Insightful)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658195)

Music industry follows a grand screw-up plan.
The profits reported are after these cuts :
Producers Pay
Actors/Director/etc pay
Cut for the guy who put in money
++++++
Some inflated expences. There is no way Stan is going to win. Marvel can easily show that the movie made a loss, well it did only after the producer took his 200 Million $ fee

Re:No Profits (3, Insightful)

Mr_Dyqik (156524) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658227)

The parent was sarcastic.

If no movies make profit, then how do studios make profit? Surely they must, or you'd hear about it on financial news etc. Or are they using the Enron method of financial reporting?

In other words, isn't claiming that a movie makes no profit a deliberate mistatement of financial earnings (ok, so it's not an official statement of earnings, but it is a statement), possibly punishable by the SEC. If they claim to have made no profit in court (and I'm sure a decent lawyer would ask about all the other movies they made as well), and then report an overall profit to the SEC, then they would be guilty of something. This should be part of Stan Lee's case, at least to the press, if not to the court.

Re:No Profits (5, Interesting)

coupland (160334) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658201)

This is similar to the little pie chart you see on gas pumps claiming only 5% profit on gas sales. The problem is that profit is purely subjective since all expenses are subtracted from profit. Send the entire company on a 1-week vacation in Hawaii? It gets deducted from profits. Hire a hundred people to act as a permanent "think-tank"? Deducted. Free beer in the cafeteria? Deducted. You can burn hundred-dollar bills for warmth but still claim no profits. When a company cries poor due to low profits you need to take a closer look. Operating losses, declining sales, or decreased revenue are better indicators of corporate health. Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and now Marvel comics all cry poor in profits but are throwing buckets of money into a woodchipper 'cause they've run out of places to stack it...

Re:No Profits (1)

Pentagon13 (166309) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658241)

Okay, so lets say right now, the studio's have broken even. Shouldn't all future sales then be posting a profit?? Much of the overhead is up front for making a movie right (hiring actors, special effects, filming, etc)? Maybe the studio fudged their numbers, maybe not .. but if they just broke even right now, then Stan Lee should get 10% of all future profits. Surely the movie studio wouldn't keep pressing more DVDs if it would cost them profits!? If they are spending more than $20 to press, ship, and advertise for a DVD then something is seriously wrong.

And in other news (5, Funny)

youngerpants (255314) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658051)

Pop stars are getting ripped off, developers are getting ripped off, fishermen are getting ripped off, the fire department are getting ripped off, etc, etc, etc

Dont mean to sound despotic, but Stan, join the queue

Re:And in other news (2, Insightful)

mark_lybarger (199098) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658133)

developers are getting ripped off

isn't /. holding up its end of the bargin and providing plenty of interesting reading material between the "idle" times at the office? comon, we were recently enlightened about a spanish book about neanderthals [slashdot.org]

ripped off indeed.

Why should Stan Lee get anything? (5, Funny)

JSC (9187) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658055)

After all, he didn't do anything important re: Spiderman. All he did was develop the idea in print, nurse it along for years, pour his sweat and blood into it, bring respectability to a substandard art, etc.

The studio did the hard part. They hired the lawyer to screw Stan! If that isn't worth the 10% I don't know what is.

Re:Why should Stan Lee get anything? (4, Funny)

jonr (1130) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658094)

Yeah, he only drawed the thing. I mean, I could do that! Corporations have rights, too you know. Anybody can dabble wit pencils and paper, but it takes real work to create all those special effects...
J:

Re:Why should Stan Lee get anything? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658155)

Corporations have expensive debts, including lavish coke parties, and renting out small islands. It is Stan's responsibility to support the actors with 9 digit salaries. If they can't make an honest living, who can?

Re:Why should Stan Lee get anything? (5, Insightful)

rovingeyes (575063) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658182)

but it takes real work to create all those special effects...

The irony is that even those are done by artists.

This is why you never deal in profits (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658065)

If you liscence something for a peice of the action always, ALWAYS try and do it based on revenues. Yes, you'll have to settle for a lesser percentage BUT you it is much harder for them to screw you. Basically, you get paid based on a percentage of sales, not profits.

The problem is, it's easy for acountants to find creative ways of including more "expenses" to make it look as though there were no profits. If that happens, then you have to fight it out in court. Revenues are much mroe straight forward, and harder to fudge, so it's much harder to screw you on them.

Re:This is why you never deal in profits (2)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658099)

No surprizes here.

Kinda reminds me of a certain energy company that disappeared not too long ago.

=Smidge=

This is EXACTLY how terrorists get started! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658103)

So, would it be WRONG if Stan Lee duped the daredevil and spidey 2 movies and released them on the P2P network before the lousy studio make a mockery of their revenue streams again?

Either way, there are supporters of Stan Lee out there who have NO TOLERANCE for such criminal behaviour, and they will make sure that Hollowood get their rewards.

Re:This is why you never deal in profits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658116)

Screw aging comics creator.
????
Profit!!!

Re:This is why you never deal in profits (5, Funny)

ComaVN (325750) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658216)

That should be:

- Make blockbuster movie
- ????
- No Profit!
- Profit!!!!

Re:This is why you never deal in profits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658130)

Once again, things that should have been brought to my attention... YESTERDAY!

I completly agree (5, Interesting)

Gekko (45112) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658211)

This is usually how rookie unproven writers get screwed, especially authors who have had succesful novels. This is unfortuantly very common in the movie industry. Established names usually never have a problem getting Gross Points instead of Net Points, they are real tight with Gross Points because there are only so many of them to go around (Gross Points also count as an expense driving down the pool available to Net Points). I don't get why Stan didn't have a better entertainment lawyer.

censorware.net should sue... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658068)

Name a similarity between censorware.org [censorware.org] and whitehouse.com [whitehouse.com] ?

Answer:They're both run by a dirty squatter to lure people in instead of the real [censorware.net] sites [whitehouse.gov] .

Name a difference between the two sites mentioned in the beginning?

Well, at least whitehouse.com [whitehouse.com] gives me a hard-on...

Hah! (4, Insightful)

BJH (11355) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658069)

The part that really gets me is this: ...the company is "in full compliance with, and current on all payments due under, terms of Mr. Lee's employment agreement."

As if Stan Lee were just some burger flipper, instead of the person who created the character that they made $400 millions dollars from.

I've had it up to here with people that seem to think that a corporate lunch every now and then with their buddies makes them "creative".

Big companies, big lawyers, screw everyone else (4, Funny)

GnomeKing (564248) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658071)

After reading the article, it seems that this is another case of a large company screwing the people who work for them out of their money...

Marvel has reported millions of dollars in earnings from the film but has told Lee the company has seen no "profits" as defined by their contract.

I guess they got to define "profits" in the same was as microsoft got to define "remedy" (its a joke!)

Not that unusual (4, Interesting)

Pike65 (454932) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658072)

According to my Accounting lecturer (don't look at me like that - it's compulsive for my ComSci Masters course) this isn't that uncommon. He pointed us to this from the Guardian . . .

"Robert Carlyle, star of the internationally popular film The Full Monty, was puzzled because he had not received any of his share of the profits from the film. 'Surely a film that cost £5 million and has taken hundreds of millions must be showing some in profits?' he asked the film's distributers. 'No', they replied 'in Hollywood no film ever makes a profit. It's all in the overheads.'"

Remember kids, "tidal waves couldn't save the world from Californication . . ."

Re:Not that unusual (4, Interesting)

Temporal (96070) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658234)

And according to my economics textbook, in perfect competition, no company ever makes a profit. After all, if one company was selling their goods at a price that brought them a profit, than some other company should be able to sell for less, and naturally everyone would buy from the cheaper company.

Well, of course that's all theory and it's hard to apply to practice, especially in the case of intellectual property (which, IMO, really needs a completely different economic system to support it, although I don't pretend to know the solution)... but that's the theory. And if you think about it long enough, it makes sense that no good company would ever actually have "profits", although I'm having trouble coming up with a good way to explain why...

I think the real question here is, first of all, how evil was it for them to even offer a percentage of profits to this guy when they knew full well that "profits" don't really exist, and second, how dumb was this guy to accept a deal based on profits rather than revenue?

Lesson to everyone: When negotiating with big companies, never accept a percentage of profits in return for anything. Always ask for revenue, or a set dollar amount.

I wonder how "profits" is determined. (2, Interesting)

Epesh (2854) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658073)

That's the thing the story's missing: it doesn't say what the terms are. It just says "10% of profits as defined." That's not very good: maybe "profits" was defined as "stuff left over after we paid everything out," which would always be $0, since they probably don't manage a reservoir of cash to pay 10% from...

Steve Ditko (5, Informative)

alexc (37361) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658076)

the artist steve ditko should receive some credit and money too. Unfortunately, none of the press seems to care that he is a co creator.

Film returns should be made public! (4, Informative)

krazyninja (447747) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658077)

This is somewhat similar to the way Simon was trying to reclaim Captain America way back, as in this link [teako170.com] . To avoid issues like this, all data relating to money accruals for all films should be public. If the MPAA can support RIAA for taking action against copyright violators, why cant it do this??

Re:Film returns should be made public! (3, Insightful)

abe ferlman (205607) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658159)

Because nobody with money wants it to happen. Duh.

What, did you think you lived in a democracy?

Captain America indeed.

Re:Film returns should be made public! (5, Informative)

NewbieV (568310) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658187)

Some public information from Marvel's 10-Q SEC filing in this PDF: [marvel.com]

"7. SPIDER-MAN: THE MOVIE
During 1999, the Company entered into a license agreement with Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., ("Sony") providing for the licensing of the Spider-Man characters in exchange for a gross participation in the marketing of the Spider-Man: The Movie (which was commercially released on May 3, 2002) and related releases on DVD/VHS and likely other revenue sources (e.g., syndication sales, etc.), and established an equally owned joint venture for the merchandise licensing of the Spider-Man: The Movie characters.
Earnings associated with the Company's participation in the gross proceeds of the movie have been recognized as non-refundable advance royalty payments as received, which amounted to $10 million in 1999, and $2.5 million in the second quarter of 2002. During the quarter ended September 30, 2002, Sony reported Marvel's participation through such date at approximately $2.0 million in excess of advances previously received - which amount was subsequently collected from Sony. Prospectively, additional movie royalties will be recognized as revenue - as reported by Sony. Earnings associated with our merchandising joint venture (accounted for under the equity method of accounting) amounted to approximately $1.8 million during the three month period ended September 30, 2002, and $7.1 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2002, and represent the Company's share of merchandising royalties, net of expenses. The Company's share of the joint venture's earlier losses were $0.3 million in each of the years 2000 and 2001."

Millions in revenue, but no profits?

Hmm... (0)

Chexsum (583832) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658079)

Spiderman has been made into a movie?

Why didnt Stan Lee *spidermans daddy?* complain about this?

Re:Hmm... (1)

MjDascombe (549226) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658092)

Have you /any/ idea whats going on? Read the article?

Re:Hmm... (1)

mark_lybarger (199098) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658161)

Read the article?

bite your vile tongue!

psst. that's a completely different site [kuro5hin.org] you must be thinking of ;)

This is how it works. (3, Informative)

shani (1674) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658080)

My understanding is that this is SOP for scriptwriters, for instance. No matter what the sales are, the net profit magically ends up being zero, so they never get any royalties.

Boycott? (2, Interesting)

aagha (130742) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658086)

Why Not? There's enought comic buyers in the US, not to mention the world, that $40M might actually be worth paying to avoid a boycott.

Time for the hulk! (2, Funny)

colonelteddy (556564) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658090)

ME LOSE MONEY??
that makes me angry, You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

Damn, gotta find a new superhero (1)

jki (624756) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658091)

"Marvel has reported millions of dollars in earnings from the film but has told Lee the company has seen no "profits" as defined by their contract."

Haha! I was planning to buy my son Spiderman related stuff for the christmas, but not I will have to find a new super hero. Any suggestions, how about the dust puppy [userfriendly.org] from user friendly [userfriendly.org] ? :))

Re:Damn, gotta find a new superhero (2)

CptLogic (207776) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658198)

Actually you don't.

If you buy Spiderman merchandise Stan Lee gets his 10% of the profits of that.

Now bearing in mind Marvel is owned by a toy company, they really can't fudge the profits on merchandise. It's what pulled them out of Chapter 11.

Spiderman movie Merch is about the only way Stan Lee is guaranteed to see money from that film.

Chris.

Re:Damn, gotta find a new superhero (1)

jki (624756) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658210)

Spiderman movie Merch is about the only way Stan Lee is guaranteed to see money from that film.

Thanks for posting that :) this is definitely good news for my son :)

Fuck you Slashdot!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658095)

Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, comment posting has temporarily been disabled. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner. If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, please email jamie@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID

Fuck you janitors!

Re:Fuck you Slashdot!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658147)

Taco Snotting FAQ

By J. Wipo Troll, Esq. [slashdot.org] , $Revision: 1.16 $
[This article attempts to document a vile, ungodly practice that runs rampant through the homosexual geek and hacker community, a practice known as Taco-snotting, or simply snotting. Taco-snotting is something that few geeks dare talk about in free or open conversation, but it is nonetheless a widely-practiced and dangerous form of homosexuality. If you or anyone you know has ever engaged in Taco-snotting, please get professional help [adequacy.org] before it is too late. ed.]

Why do I keep receiving emails from an individual calling himself CmdrTaco?

You have been receiving unsolicited mailings from a certain
Robert CmdrTaco Malda [cmdrtaco.net] , owner of the popular technology website slashdot.org [slashdot.org] . Actually, its not a very popular site in the common sense of the word; the site is rife with pimply, antisocial geeks and hackers, zit-faced nerds, communists, dirty GNU hippies [yahoo.com] , and other societal rejects and outcasts. Its also home to one of the worlds largest suspected pdophile rings, the infamous Slashdot crew.
Whenever Mr. Malda gets bored (and who wouldnt, running a site like
Slashdot all day), he roams through the user database, penis in hand, looking for people who might enjoy engaging in homosexual activities with him. How he determines this is anyones guess; but if you have a homosexual-sounding nickname, or a nick with a letter of the English alphabet in it, youre a potential candidate.
This time, he found
you. Lucky you.

Mr. Malda seems to be speaking in some sort of code. Do you know what it means?

CmdrTacos code language is relatively easy to decipher. This pervert prefers to speak in thinly-veiled sexual innuendo (yes, thats right: he wants you) to evade the watchful eye of Slashdots parent corporation,
VA Software [yahoo.com] . Mr. Maldas Commander is, of course, his penis: a small, withered little thing that lives in his pants and only comes out in the presence of other male geeks or at the beck and call of Maldas own lubed-up right hand. His Taco bells [sonymusic.com] are the shriveled testicles that droop beneath his Commander, and his Taco sauce is his thin, runny semen. It should be more than obvious to you now what he means if he asked you to ring his Taco bells or taste his gourmet Taco sauce.
I would also guess CmdrTaco asked you to engage in a practice known as Taco-snotting and, if he was in a particularly depraved mood at the time, a circle-snot.

Good Lord. And, yes, he did. What is Taco-snotting?

Taco-snotting is the term used by Robert Malda to refer to the depraved act of fellating another man (homo- or heterosexual; CmdrTaco is rumoured to prefer raping unwilling victims), then blowing the semen out his nose and back onto the face and body of his victim. Naturally, a long, bubbly stream of milky-white semen is
left on CmdrTacos face [go.com] , dribbling out of his nose and down his cheek: hence the term, Taco-snotting.
And if thats not bad enough
A circle-snot is a Taco-snotting
circle-jerk, another practice common among the Slashdot crew [bastardgenres.com] . CmdrTaco, CowboiKneel [aol.com] , and Homos get together and snot each other with their gooey, sticky cum spooging their jizz-snot all over each others faces and pasty, white bodies, until theyre covered head to toe with their own and each others man juice. This vile, ungodly ritual can go on for hours. For the homosexual penetration that follows this lengthy foreplay, Roblowme is usually there to provide plenty of anal lubricant; he owns a limousine service and has ample supplies of motor oil and axle grease ready to go.
To complete this perverted orgy, fellow faggots Michael, Timothy, and Jamie will usually join in, dressed in tight leather mock-S.S. uniforms, jack boots, and leather gloves. The homosexual shenanigans that follow are nearly beyond description. The whole group begins to snot each others spunk and whip each others pudgy asses with riding crops and chains until their pale, white geek bodies are exhausted and soaked in stinking sweat from the hours of passionate, homosexual revelry.

Ewwwwww. So, can I stop receiving these emails?

Hopefully, but I wouldnt count on it.
To begin with, you most likely forgot to uncheck the Willing to Snot checkbox in your account preferences. CmdrTaco has probably already got the hots for your wad (do you have a homosexual-sounding nick?), and hes probably already been lurking outside your bathroom window for weeks with a camera, some tissues and lube, just waiting to pounce and declare you his new bitch. Theres no escaping a geek in heat (trust me), so its probably too late for you, but you can possibly rectify this situation. To remove yourself from CmdrTacos sights, log into your Slashdot account, go to your user page, click on
Messages, and uncheck the box next to Willing to Snot. Maybe hell ignore you. Probably not.

I cant stop receiving these emails from CmdrTaco!?

If you indulge him in a Taco-snot or two, he
might leave you alone. You might also want to look into mail filtering, restraining orders, or purchasing a heavy, blunt object capable of warding off rampaging homosexual geeks in heat. Trust me, when they charge oh, the humanity. If he gets you, and you let him Taco-snot all over you, you will most likely end up tied up in his basement to be used as his sex slave for the rest of your life (or until he accidentally drowns you in spunk in a circle-snot).

Have you ever been Taco-snotted?

Unfortunately, yes. I first met Mr. Malda at an
Open Source Convention [amazon.com] . He invited me back to his room for a game of Quake and some gourmet Tacos, but when I got there, the perverted geek jumped me and handcuffed me to his bed, stripping me. After taking his Commander out of his pants, Mr. Taco made me suck the withered thing six times, virtually nonstop. He then performed his vile Taco-snotting ritual on me three times over the next two hours, bringing me to orgasm after orgasm after sweaty, mind-numbing orgasm then he snotted my own thick, gooey jizz back onto my face out of his nostrils! He snotted me two more times, first into my mouth, then again on my exposed belly.
CmdrTaco invited several of his Open Source (or rather, Open Sauce man sauce) buddies over to continue their ungodly snotfest. European hacker and known berfaggot Linux Torvalds
raped my ass [yahoo.com] with his monolithic kernel [yahoo.com] ; his partner-in-crime Anal Cox used their network stack in a multitude of unspeakable ways on and in every orifice of my defenseless, tender, young body. Michael Sims was there in his leather Nazi uniform, caning my previously-virginal ass with a bamboo pole and ranting about all those Censorware [spectacle.org] freaks out to get him.

That is so disgusting! How did you finally escape?

After about 16 hours of countless unholy, homosexual atrocities perpetrated against my restrained body, they all finally went to sleep on top of me, sweat-soaked and exhausted. I was left there, completely covered in bubbly, translucent jizz-snot, chained to the bed, with half a dozen fat, pasty-white fags lying around and on top of me. Fortunately the spooge coating my flesh worked wonderfully as a lubricant I was able to squirm my way out of the handcuffs and slip out the back door (of the apartment, not their back doors). Im just glad I survived the awful ordeal. These sexually-repressed hackers had a
lot of built-up spunk in their wads I couldve easily been drowned!

Thats horrible. Does Taco-snotting have anything to do with CmdrTacos special taco?

No, thats a different disgusting perversion CmdrTaco indulges himself in. Mr. Malda is usually not satisfied with merely snotting your own jizz back onto your face, he most often enjoys involving his own bodily fluids in his twisted games.
WeatherTroll [slashdot.org] has spent some time trying to educate the Slashdot readership [slashdot.org] about this vile practice (emphasis added):
You may be wondering what CmdrTacos special taco is. You will be wishing that you hadnt been wondering after you finish reading this post. To make his special taco, CmdrTaco takes a taco shell and
shits on it. He then adds lettuce, takes out his tiny withered dick (otherwise known as his Commander), puts his special taco sauce on it which means he jacks off on the taco, and adds a compound to make the person who eats the taco unconscious. Of course, the compound does not make the person unconscious until the taco is fully eaten. Thus CmdrTaco force-feeds the taco to the unsuspecting victim. After all, who would knowingly eat shit and CmdrTacos jizz?
After the victim is unconscious, he is held against his will and used for CmdrTacos nefarious homosexual purposes. This includes shoving taco shells up the victims ass, Taco-snotting, and getting Jon Katz involved. Trust me, you do not want Jon Katz anywhere near your unconscious body. Also, rumor has it CmdrTaco is looking for a new
goatse.cx guy [goatse.cx] . Dont let it be you!
Different ungodly perversion, yet no less revolting. It should be clear to you now that Robert CmdrTaco Malda is a very, very sick individual, as are most of the Slashdot editors.

Does Jon Katz get involved in any of this? I thought he was a pdophile, not a homosexual.

Actually, Jon Katz is a
homosexual pdophile. Hes also a coprophiliac, and, many suspect, a zoophile.
Mr. Katz is somewhat of a loner and doesnt involve himself in the circle-snots, but that doest mean hes any less of a freak than the rest of the Slashdot crew. Katz often engages in a game called
juicy-douching [aol.com] with a harem of little-boy slaves that he has collected over the years: yet another vile practice which involves administering an enema to himself of the little boys urine (forced out of them with a pair of pincers), spooging the vile muck from his ass back into the enema bag, then dribbling and slathering the goo all over himself and the boys chained, naked bodies. If hes in the mood, he will sometimes skip refilling the enema bag from his distended anus and just squirt it from his ass [microsoft.com] onto the crying, terrified boys. Unwilling boys are further tortured with the pincers until they comply and allow Mr. Katz to juicy-douche them at will. A boy will usually last about two years before Mr. Katz either accidentally drowns them in diarrhea or kills them once they get too old, usually around 13 or 14.
Not content with being a pdophilic coprophile, Mr. Katz is
also quite the zoophile. As if the sexual escapades with the helpless little boys arent enough, Jon usually enjoys his juicy-douches best when his penis is firmly planted in a female goats anus [yahoo.com] . He is also rumoured to get off on watching his little boys eat the goats small, bean-like turds, and he often kills his older boys by letting his goats trample them.

Are you getting hard writing this?

Why, yes. :) Join me in a WIPO-snot?

No, thanks. Im already CmdrTacos boi toi.

Alec Guiness?? (1)

marsbarboy (625406) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658096)

Didn't Sir alec guiness (may he rest in peace) request some percentage of the star wars profits, and recieve them? Correct me if i'm wrong.. This very unfair to the original creator of material used by a studio to make pots of dough?

Re:Alec Guiness?? (5, Insightful)

mccalli (323026) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658146)

Didn't Sir alec guiness (may he rest in peace) request some percentage of the star wars profits, and recieve them?

Remember young Jedi..."percentage of the gross".

That's how Sir Alec Guiness, a man well used to the ins and outs of the film industry, managed to get his money. I believe Peter Cushing got the same deal, although I may be wrong in that. Percentage of the gross, not percentage of the profits.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Alec Guiness?? (2)

ostiguy (63618) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658165)

Jack Nicholson made about 75mill off of the first batman that way, IIRC.

Lee doesn't stand a chance in hell (-1, Troll)

The_Jazzman (45650) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658097)

As a lawyer myself, I can state that Stan Lee hasn't a hope in hell of winning anything. Were I to be defending the film studio, there is a very simple line of defense that could be used:

It's fair use - A film as bad as Spiderman could in no way, shape nor form be mistaken for a genuine Spiderman product.

Perhaps if Mr. Lee had given his say from the start and had actually worked with the studio to produce a "proper" Spiderman movie then things would be different.

Re:Lee doesn't stand a chance in hell (1)

gokulpod (558749) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658151)

Apparently, you arent too good a lawyer. Read the article again, it says that the studios and Mr. Lee had an agreement all along.

Re:Lee doesn't stand a chance in hell (0)

The_Jazzman (45650) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658164)

What? Are you seriously suggesting that I trust a Microsoft-affliated website?

Re:Lee doesn't stand a chance in hell (2)

Phosphor3k (542747) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658177)

Biggest.....Troll.....EVAR!

Step 1) Become Lawyer
Step 2) Become Troll
Step 3) Profit!!!!!

Re:Lee doesn't stand a chance in hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658217)

It's actually like this:

Step 1) Become Lawyer
Step 2) Forget Morals
Step 3) Profit!!!!!

Typical Spidey Plotline (5, Funny)

LittleGuy (267282) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658100)

Huge Economic Success due to Spiderman, but Peter Parker can't benefit because:

* Check written in Spiderman's Name
* False agency
* Peter's sense of morality (and flashbacks of Uncle Ben) prevents him from accepting check.
* Etc etc.

Sounds familiar... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658101)

I remember a story [click46.com] here about the creator of Superman having similar qualms with the producer of the movie starring Christopher Reeve.

In the same fashion, one of the co-creators, Jerry Siegel, who has since died, found that he had received very little compensation for the large amount of money compared to that of which the film had taken in. There's some interesting parallels here; unfortunately, things today are a bit more money-oriented than they were 25 years ago. Worth a read.

Quick, someone tell him (1)

asb (1909) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658102)

10% of $400M is 40M.

And, BTW, the name of the movie is "Spider-man".

L.O.A.D. of C.R.A.P. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658108)

Who gives a stinking fuck about some fucking fantasy character, Spiderman? Get real! CmdrTaco is still a child? I remember I liked Spiderman when I was like 9 years old.

Re:L.O.A.D. of C.R.A.P. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658123)

CmdrTaco and all the other janitors like to watch men in tights fighting each other. Just to remind you of their perversity...

Taco Snotting FAQ

By J. Wipo Troll, Esq. [slashdot.org] , $Revision: 1.16 $
[This article attempts to document a vile, ungodly practice that runs rampant through the homosexual geek and hacker community, a practice known as Taco-snotting, or simply snotting. Taco-snotting is something that few geeks dare talk about in free or open conversation, but it is nonetheless a widely-practiced and dangerous form of homosexuality. If you or anyone you know has ever engaged in Taco-snotting, please get professional help [adequacy.org] before it is too late. ed.]

Why do I keep receiving emails from an individual calling himself CmdrTaco?

You have been receiving unsolicited mailings from a certain
Robert CmdrTaco Malda [cmdrtaco.net] , owner of the popular technology website slashdot.org [slashdot.org] . Actually, its not a very popular site in the common sense of the word; the site is rife with pimply, antisocial geeks and hackers, zit-faced nerds, communists, dirty GNU hippies [yahoo.com] , and other societal rejects and outcasts. Its also home to one of the worlds largest suspected pdophile rings, the infamous Slashdot crew.
Whenever Mr. Malda gets bored (and who wouldnt, running a site like
Slashdot all day), he roams through the user database, penis in hand, looking for people who might enjoy engaging in homosexual activities with him. How he determines this is anyones guess; but if you have a homosexual-sounding nickname, or a nick with a letter of the English alphabet in it, youre a potential candidate.
This time, he found
you. Lucky you.

Mr. Malda seems to be speaking in some sort of code. Do you know what it means?

CmdrTacos code language is relatively easy to decipher. This pervert prefers to speak in thinly-veiled sexual innuendo (yes, thats right: he wants you) to evade the watchful eye of Slashdots parent corporation,
VA Software [yahoo.com] . Mr. Maldas Commander is, of course, his penis: a small, withered little thing that lives in his pants and only comes out in the presence of other male geeks or at the beck and call of Maldas own lubed-up right hand. His Taco bells [sonymusic.com] are the shriveled testicles that droop beneath his Commander, and his Taco sauce is his thin, runny semen. It should be more than obvious to you now what he means if he asked you to ring his Taco bells or taste his gourmet Taco sauce.
I would also guess CmdrTaco asked you to engage in a practice known as Taco-snotting and, if he was in a particularly depraved mood at the time, a circle-snot.

Good Lord. And, yes, he did. What is Taco-snotting?

Taco-snotting is the term used by Robert Malda to refer to the depraved act of fellating another man (homo- or heterosexual; CmdrTaco is rumoured to prefer raping unwilling victims), then blowing the semen out his nose and back onto the face and body of his victim. Naturally, a long, bubbly stream of milky-white semen is
left on CmdrTacos face [go.com] , dribbling out of his nose and down his cheek: hence the term, Taco-snotting.
And if thats not bad enough
A circle-snot is a Taco-snotting
circle-jerk, another practice common among the Slashdot crew [bastardgenres.com] . CmdrTaco, CowboiKneel [aol.com] , and Homos get together and snot each other with their gooey, sticky cum spooging their jizz-snot all over each others faces and pasty, white bodies, until theyre covered head to toe with their own and each others man juice. This vile, ungodly ritual can go on for hours. For the homosexual penetration that follows this lengthy foreplay, Roblowme is usually there to provide plenty of anal lubricant; he owns a limousine service and has ample supplies of motor oil and axle grease ready to go.
To complete this perverted orgy, fellow faggots Michael, Timothy, and Jamie will usually join in, dressed in tight leather mock-S.S. uniforms, jack boots, and leather gloves. The homosexual shenanigans that follow are nearly beyond description. The whole group begins to snot each others spunk and whip each others pudgy asses with riding crops and chains until their pale, white geek bodies are exhausted and soaked in stinking sweat from the hours of passionate, homosexual revelry.

Ewwwwww. So, can I stop receiving these emails?

Hopefully, but I wouldnt count on it.
To begin with, you most likely forgot to uncheck the Willing to Snot checkbox in your account preferences. CmdrTaco has probably already got the hots for your wad (do you have a homosexual-sounding nick?), and hes probably already been lurking outside your bathroom window for weeks with a camera, some tissues and lube, just waiting to pounce and declare you his new bitch. Theres no escaping a geek in heat (trust me), so its probably too late for you, but you can possibly rectify this situation. To remove yourself from CmdrTacos sights, log into your Slashdot account, go to your user page, click on
Messages, and uncheck the box next to Willing to Snot. Maybe hell ignore you. Probably not.

I cant stop receiving these emails from CmdrTaco!?

If you indulge him in a Taco-snot or two, he
might leave you alone. You might also want to look into mail filtering, restraining orders, or purchasing a heavy, blunt object capable of warding off rampaging homosexual geeks in heat. Trust me, when they charge oh, the humanity. If he gets you, and you let him Taco-snot all over you, you will most likely end up tied up in his basement to be used as his sex slave for the rest of your life (or until he accidentally drowns you in spunk in a circle-snot).

Have you ever been Taco-snotted?

Unfortunately, yes. I first met Mr. Malda at an
Open Source Convention [amazon.com] . He invited me back to his room for a game of Quake and some gourmet Tacos, but when I got there, the perverted geek jumped me and handcuffed me to his bed, stripping me. After taking his Commander out of his pants, Mr. Taco made me suck the withered thing six times, virtually nonstop. He then performed his vile Taco-snotting ritual on me three times over the next two hours, bringing me to orgasm after orgasm after sweaty, mind-numbing orgasm then he snotted my own thick, gooey jizz back onto my face out of his nostrils! He snotted me two more times, first into my mouth, then again on my exposed belly.
CmdrTaco invited several of his Open Source (or rather, Open Sauce man sauce) buddies over to continue their ungodly snotfest. European hacker and known berfaggot Linux Torvalds
raped my ass [yahoo.com] with his monolithic kernel [yahoo.com] ; his partner-in-crime Anal Cox used their network stack in a multitude of unspeakable ways on and in every orifice of my defenseless, tender, young body. Michael Sims was there in his leather Nazi uniform, caning my previously-virginal ass with a bamboo pole and ranting about all those Censorware [spectacle.org] freaks out to get him.

That is so disgusting! How did you finally escape?

After about 16 hours of countless unholy, homosexual atrocities perpetrated against my restrained body, they all finally went to sleep on top of me, sweat-soaked and exhausted. I was left there, completely covered in bubbly, translucent jizz-snot, chained to the bed, with half a dozen fat, pasty-white fags lying around and on top of me. Fortunately the spooge coating my flesh worked wonderfully as a lubricant I was able to squirm my way out of the handcuffs and slip out the back door (of the apartment, not their back doors). Im just glad I survived the awful ordeal. These sexually-repressed hackers had a
lot of built-up spunk in their wads I couldve easily been drowned!

Thats horrible. Does Taco-snotting have anything to do with CmdrTacos special taco?

No, thats a different disgusting perversion CmdrTaco indulges himself in. Mr. Malda is usually not satisfied with merely snotting your own jizz back onto your face, he most often enjoys involving his own bodily fluids in his twisted games.
WeatherTroll [slashdot.org] has spent some time trying to educate the Slashdot readership [slashdot.org] about this vile practice (emphasis added):
You may be wondering what CmdrTacos special taco is. You will be wishing that you hadnt been wondering after you finish reading this post. To make his special taco, CmdrTaco takes a taco shell and
shits on it. He then adds lettuce, takes out his tiny withered dick (otherwise known as his Commander), puts his special taco sauce on it which means he jacks off on the taco, and adds a compound to make the person who eats the taco unconscious. Of course, the compound does not make the person unconscious until the taco is fully eaten. Thus CmdrTaco force-feeds the taco to the unsuspecting victim. After all, who would knowingly eat shit and CmdrTacos jizz?
After the victim is unconscious, he is held against his will and used for CmdrTacos nefarious homosexual purposes. This includes shoving taco shells up the victims ass, Taco-snotting, and getting Jon Katz involved. Trust me, you do not want Jon Katz anywhere near your unconscious body. Also, rumor has it CmdrTaco is looking for a new
goatse.cx guy [goatse.cx] . Dont let it be you!
Different ungodly perversion, yet no less revolting. It should be clear to you now that Robert CmdrTaco Malda is a very, very sick individual, as are most of the Slashdot editors.

Does Jon Katz get involved in any of this? I thought he was a pdophile, not a homosexual.

Actually, Jon Katz is a
homosexual pdophile. Hes also a coprophiliac, and, many suspect, a zoophile.
Mr. Katz is somewhat of a loner and doesnt involve himself in the circle-snots, but that doest mean hes any less of a freak than the rest of the Slashdot crew. Katz often engages in a game called
juicy-douching [aol.com] with a harem of little-boy slaves that he has collected over the years: yet another vile practice which involves administering an enema to himself of the little boys urine (forced out of them with a pair of pincers), spooging the vile muck from his ass back into the enema bag, then dribbling and slathering the goo all over himself and the boys chained, naked bodies. If hes in the mood, he will sometimes skip refilling the enema bag from his distended anus and just squirt it from his ass [microsoft.com] onto the crying, terrified boys. Unwilling boys are further tortured with the pincers until they comply and allow Mr. Katz to juicy-douche them at will. A boy will usually last about two years before Mr. Katz either accidentally drowns them in diarrhea or kills them once they get too old, usually around 13 or 14.
Not content with being a pdophilic coprophile, Mr. Katz is
also quite the zoophile. As if the sexual escapades with the helpless little boys arent enough, Jon usually enjoys his juicy-douches best when his penis is firmly planted in a female goats anus [yahoo.com] . He is also rumoured to get off on watching his little boys eat the goats small, bean-like turds, and he often kills his older boys by letting his goats trample them.

Are you getting hard writing this?

Why, yes. :) Join me in a WIPO-snot?

No, thanks. Im already CmdrTacos boi toi.

They have disd the man? (1, Redundant)

Forge (2456) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658120)

Stan "The Man" Lee is one of the greatest artist on the planet. In the comic book business he is equivalent to the likes of; Davinchy, Motzart, Marley, Shakespear etc...

When he neads to sue over a movie that cost $75 million to make and $50 million to market and is now claming it made no profits after $400 million in sales, that grates against my sanity.

What next? Are they going to scrap the Deardevil project because these little Stan Lee characters are unprofiteble? Fat @#$%^ing chance.

Re:They have disd the man? (1)

Blackneto (516458) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658185)

Stan wasn't the artist he was the writer.
Steve ditko was the artist.

Re:They have disd the man? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658233)

Hahaha, "Deardevil"? WTF is that, a Pokemon character?

Re:They have disd the man? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658237)

CmdrTaco? Is that you?

Re:They have disd the man? (2)

gvonk (107719) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658240)

See, the thing is, Billy, that Marvel Entertainment didn't make a Spider-Man movie.

It's a little more complex than that. It's the same reason you wouldn't reasonably claim that a band made $15 million in profits because their $20 cd sold a million copies and cost $5 million to make. Columbia/Tristar or whoever the fuck made the movie bought the movie rights from Marvel Entertainment for $12 million or so.
So, even if that were mostly profit, they would owe Mr. Lee a cool million, or exactly what they've paid him every year since he signed his contract.

Remove copyrights on fictional works? (5, Insightful)

Jeppe Salvesen (101622) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658121)

Maybe we should remove all copyrights on fictional written works for a while? The industry is creating a false sense for would-be-artists that they can make a good living doing what they excel at, but most of them don't get anywhere due to mismanagment and greed. So - copyrights have largely ceased to benefit those who create the works of art.

Why then should we feed the corporations with gullible, naive people out to change the world?

I also get increasinly mad at people who continuously get money because their granddad was a good writer. That somehow is very wrong - as in, all people should have equal opportunity and equal responsibility.

Copyrights on factual works is a bit of a different story. We have not understood the world sufficiently well to do something that drastical to the science community. However, patent reform is direly needed if our industry is going to start growing again - with real growth, not just growth based upon more effective court-room tactics.

Reminiscent of Alan Moore and DC comic's Watchmen (5, Interesting)

Rinikusu (28164) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658122)

This sounds a lot like DC's dispute with Alan Moore over Watchmen. (Doesn't DC own Marvel now?). Basically, Alan Moore (one of comics writing gems) created a wonderful story that made DC millions. Posters, T-shirts, coffee mugs sold like hotcakes, and Alan Moore got zilch (even though he was entitled to royalties and such). DC said the Posters, et al were "advertising" and thus were not subject to the royalty clause, thus legally screwing Alan Moore. It was that event that caused Alan Moore (a UK citizen) to quit writing for US based comics altogether for a good long while (until the advent of some of the more independent labels who actually treat their artists right). I may have some details a bit fuzzy, but I believe that's the gist of the story. (There were apparently other factors that also led to his "retirement" from US comics, as well).

A google search didn't come up with anything substantial, but I seem to recall an interview with him in Comic Shop News or the other big weekly comic paper, maybe I'm just smoking crack regarding this. Might be best to disregard this. :P

Movies NEVER make a profit.... (5, Interesting)

Anna Merikin (529843) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658127)

The Supreme Court of the US ruled more than ten years ago that the tradition of the US movie industry is well-known to cheat its stockholders and others by accounting tricks that reduce `profit' to zero -- at least on the books.

It's a little like Enron in reverse -- cooking the books to remove all traces of return.

It's quite legal and easy for them to do, and it has been the tradition in Hollywood since it began. And that's how the SC ruled in a case brought by a(n other) writer of one of the Predator series of Movies IIRC. In that case, like this one, Stan seems to have gotten percentage `points' (in Hollywood jargon) instead of real dollars.

The studios find it easy to do this, as they can charge whatever they like for stock footage (stuff they've already shot and used in other movies) since they are the true producers, whatever the credits might say. And all movies use stock footage somewhere. F'rexample, the fire scenes in Gone with the Wind have been used (and charged for at inflated prices) in hundreds of movies.

This and `distribution costs' allow them the room to reduce the booked profits on any and all projects to zero.

The Predator movie the Court ruled on was, at the time, the largest grossing (worldwide) movie in history. And it never made a profit.

Neither did Goodwill Hunting or Titanic.

Re:Movies NEVER make a profit.... (2, Interesting)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658243)

In the director's commentary to Fight Club, they point out that "Jack's" cold breath in the ice cave is actually Leonardo di Caprio's from Titanic. I wonder if this is why.

The old adage (1, Funny)

TrollBurger (575126) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658128)

Publishers will never pay you enough to successfully sue them

applies here I think :)

NOT A TROLL - MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658226)

hehehehe. Wasnt that one of those slashdot quotes at the bottom of the page a while ago?

Typical Hollywood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658136)

This is nothing new in Hollywood and Stan should have known better than to sign a contract based on profits, which can be easily manipulated. That being said, Stan is easy owed at least $10 million. The amount he is seeking is 10% of $100 million in profits, meaning he is giving the studio the benefit of the doubt by assuming it cost $300 million to produce and promote the movie.

Source of the Claim (5, Informative)

theduck (101668) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658139)

OK, there's a little more info here [comics2film.com] .

Namely, that the source of the claim is not from any copyright or other rights as creator of the characters, but from a 1998 contract giving him royalties for the licensing of his creations, but not the actual comic book sales.

Looks like it's going to be a legal wrangle over whether movie profits can be considered to be royalties.

The Contract (5, Informative)

theduck (101668) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658169)

Sorry, should've held the parent post until I found the contract [sec.gov] .

The pertinent clause is:

(ii) You also continue to have the benefit of a single full-time assistant. (f) 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. This participation is not to be derived from the fee charged by Marvel for the licensing of the product or of the characters for merchandise or otherwise. Marvel will compute, account and pay to you your participation due, if any, on account of said profits, for the annual period ending each March 31 during your life, on an annual basis within a reasonable time after the end of each such period.

Note that profits are explicitly mentioned.

spidey sense (1)

katalyst (618126) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658145)

Look's like Stan can do with a lil bit of spidey's own spidey sense ;) I hope contracts for "The Amazing Spiderman" (the sequel to the original) are more in favour of Stan. Stan must have been paid more for his cameo in MallRats than for this movie !!! :o

This is (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658149)

The most absurd thing I could think of.

I have spent more $$ than I care to remember on the Marvel franchise in comic books. I just can't believe that the multi-media machine is this heartless. Stan Lee was the anchor for comic book editing. (And is credited with saving the comic book industry. BTW) (look it up yourself) And this is how the industry treats him? This is the sort of outrage that the current media corporations foists on their artists on a day by day basis. No wonder artists are trying to bail on restrictive contracts in droves.

I say: Save Stan Lee!

you get what you pay your lawyers (1)

junky (22650) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658160)

a *slight* amount of research would have revealed something like this was possible, or even likely. ask winston groom.

if mr lee had anywhere close to a competant lawyer and took said lawyers advice, something this would not be happening.

i have sympathy for people getting ripped off for their hard work, but if you want your creation to come to life and you "comprimise" to make that happen, then you've got nothing to bitch about.

Not about creator rights, it's about Contracts. (5, Informative)

CptLogic (207776) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658163)

My mate Al is going to kill me for slashdotting his site but:

This is one of the best articles I've read on this situation. It helps if you have some idea of the US Comics industry but Paul O'Brien is a good enough writer to make it all crystal clear. FWIW, Paul is a UK Lawyer.

http://www.ninthart.com/display.php?article=428

The Same Old Villain Strikes Again! (5, Funny)

Steve B (42864) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658172)

Marvel is claiming that the 400 Million dollar blockbuster movie Spiderman produced no profits

The "piracy" problem must be even worse than they're admitting....

Corporations and the Lost Age(s) of comics (1, Flamebait)

Faizdog (243703) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658174)

You know, this is what happens when companies become corporations. When the original driving forces leave/are driven out and money mongers come in whose only goal is profit and they really don't care about the rich history behind a company.

I mean, Marvel comics actually used to be a great company. They produced rich, complex and intriguing characters that you could really get behind. Anyone remember the No Prize? That was a great time.

Now, they just rehash the old stuff, don't even come up with new characters/situations. How many more alternate universes/reset scenarios/Ultimate series will we have so that the same old stories get re-served? CREATE, INNOVATE, Stan Lee had great characters and stories, but was always working on new ones, introducing us to new inviting personas and worlds.

This is a place where DC has actually been doing well over the past decade or so. The characters have undergone changes, matured, and we've been along for the ride. Lois and Clark got married. Dick Grayson grew up, Robins have come and gone. There is a new Green Lantern.

I am a HUGE comic fan, I have TONS lying around. Sometimes I just wish they would stop trying to make money through shocking/special editions, etc and just tell good stories. That's why I started reading 'em in the first place!

yipee freakin do for corporate america (3, Insightful)

f00zbll (526151) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658175)

People should stop buying this line of BS about how publicly traded corporations are here to build value for it's share holders.

That might have been the original idea, but get real people. If one were to look at the behavior of the top 100 corporations, does that rule hold true? As corporations weild more political power, they are becoming the equivalent of the ruling class. The only difference now is the rich get to hide behind some corporate name and not subject themself to public scrutiney. The more things change, the more they stay the same people.

By Marvel's reasoning... (2, Funny)

nmnilsson (549442) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658178)

Stan should be happy that they didn't lose money on the movie, or he'd have ended up owing them money...

art : fart with out the f... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658181)

now back to reality!

Profit?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658183)

What does a slashdot janitor know about profits?

Business is business (4, Insightful)

The Mutant (167716) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658189)

I've been pretty amused in the past reading all of the comments (some on /. as well) that talked about how the film business "got it" (usually argued from the position of all the extra features and additional content DVDs come with), and how the RIAA, music biz, etal were "out of touch".

This just proves business is business, and the entertainment industry is - what a surprise - very adept at sugar coating their activties until, of course, the lawsuits start flying.

Business is business, and anyone sticking their head in the jaw of the corporate machine has gotta watch out for themselves. I'm sure Stan had attorneys looking after his interests so I don't know what happened there, but I do know that most companies will do anything they can to screw you should the need arise.

And yep; I've got a Masters in Finance so I know of what I speak. A few of our case studies at Uni directly factored in litigation as a "cost of doing business".

Good luck Stan! I've always enjoyed your work and genuinely wish you the best!

Here we go........again again again (4, Insightful)

buss_error (142273) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658192)

When are we going to stop giving money to RIAA and MPAA? I can tell you when I'm going to start boycotting them.... I've been at it for almost 2 years now. I haven't seen Spider Man, didn't buy the new CD from that band, didn't check out that Pay Per View move, or any thing like that. I buy my books from Baen, off of their webscription site, because the authors get double the money than from paperback sales.

I trade a lot with friends. I buy a movie, when I do, second hand from a second hand store (Hollywood doesn't get their cut that way.) I've given to causes that are willing to fight RIAA and MPAA.

So, what have YOU done? Obviously quite a few of you went to see Spider Man.

Definitely.. no profit (2)

uncleFester (29998) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658193)

The devil's in the details... [boxofficemojo.com] :) .. which now has me torn. I loved DareDevil as a kid, but am not crazy throwing money at the moviehaus if Stan may see no funds from that either. *sigh*

-fester

Why should he get anything? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658204)

I thought copyright stiffled creation? Did he do anything on the film itself? No - well why should he get anything?

There have been enough discussions on slashdot arguing for the restriction of authors copyright - so what is different here?

reminds me so much of 'The Producers'.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658215)

So... will Mell Brooks sue the studio now for stealing his idea.. ?

(http://us.imdb.com/Title?0063462 [imdb.com] )

Nothing new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658221)

They did the same thing to the author of Forest Gump by inflating the production costs.

Business 101 (5, Insightful)

saider (177166) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658230)

That's why you NEVER agree to take a cut of the profits. You take a cut of the gross revenue. That way there can be no accounting games.

Stan Lee is lucky he has a way to talk about this. (3, Informative)

Qender (318699) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658231)

This is the most common practice in the film industry. My family works in the film industry. The distribution companies never return "profits", as a few people have already noted, all of their costs for distribution are determines by themselves. They choose their own salaries, the cost of making the prints, the internal costs of advertising, etc... It's very common for filmmakers to get ripped off in this manner. It's happened to my father several times.

Stan lee is very lucky he has an avenue of complaint, as this happens with most every feature film. Hopefully this will be some kind of a wake-up call to filmmakers.

Typical (1)

nittibang (621093) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658232)

The reason that Marvel is saying there was no profit is because they have to pay the overpaid executives who did nothing more than sign papers that gave the go ahead. This is just as typical as the goal oriented employees who work for board driven company. While the employees get the job done the board makes the decisions then the board feels as if the employee is happy. While the employees drive and motivation go down the tubes for the company and those employees focus their attention on pursuing a new position to better themselves and not the employer. Stan- Sue the (insert any fitting cussword here) out of them and make sure the media keeps on this!! I know a few coorperate people who might feel the same way..... (Enron, worlcom, etc..) You have a legitimate case!!

but... (2, Funny)

thoolihan (611712) | more than 11 years ago | (#4658235)

are trying to weasel out of their contract

Weasiling your way out of things it what separates man from animals. Except the weasel.

-Homer J. Simpson

Slashdotters Will Cry & Moan But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4658246)

...they'll keep buying those DVDs and tapes. They'll keep going to the theater. And the MPAA, the studios and etc. will just keep doing pretty much whatever they want. As will the RIAA.

These people have learned well from MS and the monopolists that came before them. If you can corner the market, keep enough of the government in your pocket and keep offering product that's *just* cheap enough and *just* good enough to keep the vast majority tranquilized, most of the rest of the public will follow--rather than do without. And what few won't are statistically insignificant.

(IMO, Spiderman wasn't all that great anyway. But that's beside the point.)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...