Stan Lee Media sues Disney for billions over Marvel rights

[MODOK]

(Reuters) - Stan Lee Media, a company that says it controls the rights to Marvel characters including Spider Man and Iron Man, has filed suit in U.S. District Court in Colorado against the Walt Disney Co seeking "billions of dollars of profits."

 

Stan Lee, no longer associated with the company, created many of Marvel's stable of comic book characters. The company claims Lee assigned it his rights to those characters in 1998 but then agreed a month later to assign the same rights to Marvel Enterprises.

 

Disney acquired Marvel Enterprises, which had been renamed Marvel Entertainment, in 2009 for $4.3 billion.

 

"The Walt Disney Company has represented to the public that it, in fact, owns the copyright to these characters as well as hundreds of other characters created by Stan Lee," the suit alleges. "Those representations made to the public by the Walt Disney Company are false."

 

The lawsuit focuses on successful movies based on Marvel characters that Disney has released since its Marvel acquisition. Those films include "The Avengers," which has grossed more than $1.5 billion in worldwide sales and is second only to "Avatar" and "Titanic," according to movie site Box Office Mojo.

 

"This lawsuit is without merit," Walt Disney said in a statement. "It arises out of the same core facts and legal claims that have been rejected by three federal district court judges."

 

Stan Lee Media, which said it was created in 1999 to "sue to recover damages to its assets," has been involved in what it called a "somewhat tortured history" of litigation dating from 2001 over corporate governance issues and the characters rights in cases filed in Colorado, New York and California.

 

They include suits between the company, its shareholders and Lee.

 

The latest suit claims that Stan Lee Media owns the rights "to the billions of dollars that Disney has generated, or allowed others to generate". It cites more than $3.5 billion from motion pictures, and what it calculates is more than $2 billion from "other media," merchandising and the Broadway show "Spiderman: Turn off the Dark."

 

...........................................

 

For $4.3 billion dollars, I thought Disney got a steal. I thought Marvel was worth 10 times what they paid.

 

Regarding Stan Lee Media, where were they in 2009, when Disney acquired the rights to the characters?

 

If you didn't object then, it's too late to object now.

[mikenyc]

If you thought Tony Moore was bitter, I introduce to you, Stan Lee.

[He11blazer]

I'm generally contemptuous of corporate entities that never produced anything themselves screaming that they own intellectual property and deserve the profits of everyone else's hard work. Screw them.

[mrwoogieman]

Stan Lee Media, Inc. - .Tirelessly improving the win/loss record of dozens of attorneys all across the land!

 

 

[MagnusX]

 

[font:Book Antiqua]That company its a Joke...[/font]

 

[Ares]

I'm generally contemptuous of corporate entities that never produced anything themselves screaming that they own intellectual property and deserve the profits of everyone else's hard work. Screw them.

 

Sounds like some artists Heirs

[Senormac]

I was kinda hoping Lee would retire with dignity and grace, but I guess thats not going to happen

[comicwiz]

If you thought Tony Moore was bitter, I introduce to you, Stan Lee.

 

I thought when stories of the numerous lawsuits first started to surface, it was the board/corporate governors of SLM that were claiming they had rights, but Stan Lee wasn't in agreement. Has this story taken a different direction since, or did the writer of the article just exclude the part about Stan's non-involvement/agreement with the SLM character rights claims?

[comix4fun]

If you thought Tony Moore was bitter, I introduce to you, Stan Lee.

 

"Stan Lee Media" isn't Stan Lee.

[comicwiz]

If you thought Tony Moore was bitter, I introduce to you, Stan Lee.

 

"Stan Lee Media" isn't Stan Lee.

 

Right. And I recall that when SLM was throwing around lawsuits like rice at a wedding, there were suits against Stan Lee as well.

 

As a statement of correction, the writers should make it clear that Stan's not involved, as it seems the backlash to what SLM is doing is having a negative trickle effect on Stan's personal brand and reputation.

[mrwoogieman]

If you thought Tony Moore was bitter, I introduce to you, Stan Lee.

 

"Stan Lee Media" isn't Stan Lee.

 

Right. And I recall that when SLM was throwing around lawsuits like rice at a wedding, there were suits against Stan Lee as well.

 

As a statement of correction, the writers should make it clear that Stan's not involved, as it seems the backlash to what SLM is doing is having a negative trickle effect on Stan's personal brand and reputation.

 

It's unfortunate that "Stan Lee Media, Inc." a bankrupt, defunct entity with which Stan Lee is no longer associated (and has not been for over a decade) is muddying up the Stan Lee brand, but there's really not much to be done about it. It is what it is. These "news stories" are just press-endorsed press releases by the people propping up the dead company and they are only too happy to see a little market confusion on Stan's role in their legal maneuvering resulting in negative blowback on Stan.

 

But hey, when your ringleader is a twice convicted felon currently serving a stretch in federal prison, well then, gentlemanly conduct cannot be expected.

 

 

 

 

[Transplant]

If you thought Tony Moore was bitter, I introduce to you, Stan Lee.

 

"Stan Lee Media" isn't Stan Lee.

You would think after multiple posts on this topic, including one in the last week, that people would stop getting a rage-on toward Stan over this mess.

[MODOK]

 

Right. And I recall that when SLM was throwing around lawsuits like rice at a wedding, there were suits against Stan Lee as well.

 

As a statement of correction, the writers should make it clear that Stan's not involved, as it seems the backlash to what SLM is doing is having a negative trickle effect on Stan's personal brand and reputation.

 

Actually, the writer did mention something to that effect early in the article:

 

Stan Lee, no longer associated with the company, created many of Marvel's stable of comic book characters.

[Ares]

To bad they cant change name of company

 

[comicwiz]

If you thought Tony Moore was bitter, I introduce to you, Stan Lee.

 

"Stan Lee Media" isn't Stan Lee.

You would think after multiple posts on this topic, including one in the last week, that people would stop getting a rage-on toward Stan over this mess.

 

Even that article (which I read) never made any mention of Stan's non-involvement. What's the Gerber rating these days on the scarcity of ethics and responsible journalism?

[comicwiz]

 

Right. And I recall that when SLM was throwing around lawsuits like rice at a wedding, there were suits against Stan Lee as well.

 

As a statement of correction, the writers should make it clear that Stan's not involved, as it seems the backlash to what SLM is doing is having a negative trickle effect on Stan's personal brand and reputation.

 

Actually, the writer did mention something to that effect early in the article:

 

Stan Lee, no longer associated with the company, created many of Marvel's stable of comic book characters.

 

That doesn't properly address the confusion these articles are creating about whose behind these lawsuits.

[comicwiz]

Hilary Busis shows how it's done:

 

Stan Lee Media -- but not Stan Lee -- sues Disney over superhero rights

[MODOK]

 

That doesn't properly address the confusion these articles are creating about whose behind these lawsuits.

 

I concur that a cursory mention won't let the majority of readers understand the players behind these lawsuits. In fact, I'm pretty sure most people who read the Reuters article never even saw that one line regarding Stan's non-involvement.

 

Public perception is often shaped by erroneous propoganda.

 

Regrettably, Stan may be perceived by the uninformed masses as being a sour grapes money grubber bummed out he could've gotten a better deal with Disney.

 

In reality has nothing to do with this fiasco.

 

I'm certain he never dreamt this would happen when he first started the Stan Lee Media venture. What a bummer for old Stan. He certainly doesn't deserve this negative blowback at his age of 90! Especially right after getting a pacemaker implanted in his chest!

[comicwiz]

If you thought Tony Moore was bitter, I introduce to you, Stan Lee.

 

"Stan Lee Media" isn't Stan Lee.

 

Right. And I recall that when SLM was throwing around lawsuits like rice at a wedding, there were suits against Stan Lee as well.

 

As a statement of correction, the writers should make it clear that Stan's not involved, as it seems the backlash to what SLM is doing is having a negative trickle effect on Stan's personal brand and reputation.

 

It's unfortunate that "Stan Lee Media, Inc." a bankrupt, defunct entity with which Stan Lee is no longer associated (and has not been for over a decade) is muddying up the Stan Lee brand, but there's really not much to be done about it. It is what it is. These "news stories" are just press-endorsed press releases by the people propping up the dead company and they are only too happy to see a little market confusion on Stan's role in their legal maneuvering resulting in negative blowback on Stan.

 

But hey, when your ringleader is a twice convicted felon currently serving a stretch in federal prison, well then, gentlemanly conduct cannot be expected.

 

Interesting mrwoogie - I hadn't heard the latter part of your comment about the the ringleader.

[BlowUpTheMoon]

You would think after multiple posts on this topic, including one in the last week, that people would stop getting a rage-on toward Stan over this mess.

 

I wouldn't think that of Comics General.