Stan Lee has time for true believers <for a price>

[comix4fun]

Lets say I buy land, build a house to flip it. I pay $1M for the land. I pay $1M to the world's best architect to design it. He's an awesome architect, its a stunning house, unlike any other in the world. I pay all my contractors $1M total for the building of it.

 

I expect to sell it for $10M, but sell it for $12M instead. Do I owe my architect or contractor any more money? It'd be nice to throw them a bonus, sure. What if 1999 Antoine Walker comes by and buys for $30M, do I owe architect and contractor any more money? If so, how much? What if the Architect has a gambling problem and is destitute. Do I owe him any more money? if so, how much? What if I have a gambling problem and I'm destitute. Do I owe anyone else money? If so, how much?

 

What if the market crashes and I only sell for $1M, will the architect refund some moneys?

 

Its nice to be nice, but saying people 'should do this' or 'owe that', its a much tougher road.

 

 

 

No...but only because Antoine Walker is a scrub.

[N/A]

Lets say I buy land, build a house to flip it. I pay $1M for the land. I pay $1M to the world's best architect to design it. He's an awesome architect, its a stunning house, unlike any other in the world. I pay all my contractors $1M total for the building of it.

 

I expect to sell it for $10M, but sell it for $12M instead. Do I owe my architect or contractor any more money? It'd be nice to throw them a bonus, sure. What if 1999 Antoine Walker comes by and buys for $30M, do I owe architect and contractor any more money? If so, how much? What if the Architect has a gambling problem and is destitute. Do I owe him any more money? if so, how much? What if I have a gambling problem and I'm destitute. Do I owe anyone else money? If so, how much?

 

What if the market crashes and I only sell for $1M, will the architect refund some moneys?

 

Its nice to be nice, but saying people 'should do this' or 'owe that', its a much tougher road.

 

 

Not only nice but the right thing to do. I read recently of a CEO changing the pay structure of his company so everyone makes $70k. Apparently there is a study that suggested $70k is where people are comfortable. He also cut his pay to $70k. He's made his millions and knew it was enough.

[revat]

 

This is a good point. I've also thought about it from another angle: is it really better for the world in general that the creator retain rights to their creation?

 

Let's take one example: Daredevil. If Lee and Everett owned Daredevil, would we get the Miller and then Miller/Mazzucchelli run? The Bendis/Maleev books? How many jobs were created by that one character since his inception in 1964? Would we see the recent Netflix show if Stan Lee and Bill Everett owned Daredevil? In the ending credits for GotG, it says that something like 50,000 people were employed in some manner during the production of the movie.

 

Now, I'm not arguing for some kind of socialist idea where the gov't or, in this case, company, should have rights to creations. However, I think of this when I hear of artist and writers 'getting the shaft' by not somehow getting more than their contractual rights.

 

this is an interesting point.

 

It just occurred to me that I'm not actually for or against creator rights, but rather FOR not arbitrarily altering the terms of contracts after the fact. If you write into your contract that you get 3% or 99% of all the things you create and everyone agrees, great. If you don't like that Marvel keeps all the rights? Don't sign the contract.

[N/A]

 

Stan Lee was related to Martin Goodman and Robbie Soloman. He NEVER got screwed.

I use to think that too,until I realized those Marvel characters are a multi-billion dollar industry.

Spider-Man alone brought in 1 billion in merchandising last year.

One year= 1 billion.

That`s every year, and that just Spider-Man.

The Avengers must be way up there as well.

So really giving Stan Lee a million dollar a year contract for life is peanuts to what they are raking in.

 

Stan Lee,Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were all screwed in a morally ethical sense.

The only difference is

Stan got screwed, but not as much as Kirby or Ditko did.

 

Imagine if Stan,Jack and Ditko just got half of the pie?

They would all be billionaires today.

 

 

 

How was he or any of those people "hosed"? They created those characters as employees of Marvel. If they wanted to be owners they should have done what McFarlane, et al. did. But they didn't. They chose to remain employees.

 

So they are entitled to nothing more than what the contracts they signed allowed.

 

-J.

Hosed in an ethical sense, and not a business sense.

After Kirby and Ditko left they should have been giving the keys to the kingdom.

In fact Ditko is still alive, but I don`t see him being taken care of.

Yes, legally Disney owes him nothing, but ethically Ditko should be compensated.

 

The law ceased being about right and wrong a long time ago.

As we are all finding out as we get older.

It sure ain`t like how they show it on those TV shows we watched!

 

Reminds me a little of dukes of Hazzard.

[chrisco37]

Lets say I buy land, build a house to flip it. I pay $1M for the land. I pay $1M to the world's best architect to design it. He's an awesome architect, its a stunning house, unlike any other in the world. I pay all my contractors $1M total for the building of it.

 

I expect to sell it for $10M, but sell it for $12M instead. Do I owe my architect or contractor any more money? It'd be nice to throw them a bonus, sure. What if 1999 Antoine Walker comes by and buys for $30M, do I owe architect and contractor any more money? If so, how much? What if the Architect has a gambling problem and is destitute. Do I owe him any more money? if so, how much? What if I have a gambling problem and I'm destitute. Do I owe anyone else money? If so, how much?

 

What if the market crashes and I only sell for $1M, will the architect refund some moneys?

 

Its nice to be nice, but saying people 'should do this' or 'owe that', its a much tougher road.

 

 

Not only nice but the right thing to do. I read recently of a CEO changing the pay structure of his company so everyone makes $70k. Apparently there is a study that suggested $70k is where people are comfortable. He also cut his pay to $70k. He's made his millions and knew it was enough.

 

No, it's the nice thing to do only. Not the right thing to do.

 

Revat's previous post was spot on and 100% correct. It applies to this too.

 

The business/owner is the one that is taking all the financial risk. If the property value goes down, they are out that money.

[ComicConnoisseur]

Lets say I buy land, build a house to flip it. I pay $1M for the land. I pay $1M to the world's best architect to design it. He's an awesome architect, its a stunning house, unlike any other in the world. I pay all my contractors $1M total for the building of it.

 

I expect to sell it for $10M, but sell it for $12M instead. Do I owe my architect or contractor any more money? It'd be nice to throw them a bonus, sure. What if 1999 Antoine Walker comes by and buys for $30M, do I owe architect and contractor any more money? If so, how much? What if the Architect has a gambling problem and is destitute. Do I owe him any more money? if so, how much? What if I have a gambling problem and I'm destitute. Do I owe anyone else money? If so, how much?

 

What if the market crashes and I only sell for $1M, will the architect refund some moneys?

 

Its nice to be nice, but saying people 'should do this' or 'owe that', its a much tougher road.

 

Those houses are a different beast.

Houses are a dime a dozen. Creating a character like Spider-Man, Superman or Batman is unique.

In the last 150 years not many IP properties are at a level of Spider-Man, Superman or Batman. They are once in a lifetime characters, and will still be talked about while those McMansions crumble to dust or get torn down over the years.

The right thing is to give Steve Ditko and Stan Lee a bigger piece of the pie before they`re dead. They should be more compensated than what was thrown at them.

This is Disney we`re talking about, and not some local mom and pop down the street.

 

 

 

[N/A]

Lets say I buy land, build a house to flip it. I pay $1M for the land. I pay $1M to the world's best architect to design it. He's an awesome architect, its a stunning house, unlike any other in the world. I pay all my contractors $1M total for the building of it.

 

I expect to sell it for $10M, but sell it for $12M instead. Do I owe my architect or contractor any more money? It'd be nice to throw them a bonus, sure. What if 1999 Antoine Walker comes by and buys for $30M, do I owe architect and contractor any more money? If so, how much? What if the Architect has a gambling problem and is destitute. Do I owe him any more money? if so, how much? What if I have a gambling problem and I'm destitute. Do I owe anyone else money? If so, how much?

 

What if the market crashes and I only sell for $1M, will the architect refund some moneys?

 

Its nice to be nice, but saying people 'should do this' or 'owe that', its a much tougher road.

 

 

Not only nice but the right thing to do. I read recently of a CEO changing the pay structure of his company so everyone makes $70k. Apparently there is a study that suggested $70k is where people are comfortable. He also cut his pay to $70k. He's made his millions and knew it was enough.

 

No, it's the nice thing to do only. Not the right thing to do.

 

Revat's previous post was spot on and 100% correct. It applies to this too.

 

The business/owner is the one that is taking all the financial risk. If the property value goes down, they are out that money.

 

 

There is a point where enough is enough.

[revat]

Lets say I buy land, build a house to flip it. I pay $1M for the land. I pay $1M to the world's best architect to design it. He's an awesome architect, its a stunning house, unlike any other in the world. I pay all my contractors $1M total for the building of it.

 

I expect to sell it for $10M, but sell it for $12M instead. Do I owe my architect or contractor any more money? It'd be nice to throw them a bonus, sure. What if 1999 Antoine Walker comes by and buys for $30M, do I owe architect and contractor any more money? If so, how much? What if the Architect has a gambling problem and is destitute. Do I owe him any more money? if so, how much? What if I have a gambling problem and I'm destitute. Do I owe anyone else money? If so, how much?

 

What if the market crashes and I only sell for $1M, will the architect refund some moneys?

 

Its nice to be nice, but saying people 'should do this' or 'owe that', its a much tougher road.

 

 

Not only nice but the right thing to do. I read recently of a CEO changing the pay structure of his company so everyone makes $70k. Apparently there is a study that suggested $70k is where people are comfortable. He also cut his pay to $70k. He's made his millions and knew it was enough.

 

Nothing wrong with that, and its sounds nice. But I wouldn't have thought it 'wrong' not to do that. And I don't think its that EVERYONE makes 70K, just that the minimum pay there is 70K. And his salary is also 70K.

 

There's nothing 'wrong' with voluntarily entering into an agreement, abiding by just the terms of that agreement, and then moving happily on your way either.

 

It'd be nice if they gave me coffee at work, wouldn't cost them too much, given how much money they make. But its not 'wrong' that they don't.

[comix4fun]

Lets say I buy land, build a house to flip it. I pay $1M for the land. I pay $1M to the world's best architect to design it. He's an awesome architect, its a stunning house, unlike any other in the world. I pay all my contractors $1M total for the building of it.

 

I expect to sell it for $10M, but sell it for $12M instead. Do I owe my architect or contractor any more money? It'd be nice to throw them a bonus, sure. What if 1999 Antoine Walker comes by and buys for $30M, do I owe architect and contractor any more money? If so, how much? What if the Architect has a gambling problem and is destitute. Do I owe him any more money? if so, how much? What if I have a gambling problem and I'm destitute. Do I owe anyone else money? If so, how much?

 

What if the market crashes and I only sell for $1M, will the architect refund some moneys?

 

Its nice to be nice, but saying people 'should do this' or 'owe that', its a much tougher road.

 

 

Not only nice but the right thing to do. I read recently of a CEO changing the pay structure of his company so everyone makes $70k. Apparently there is a study that suggested $70k is where people are comfortable. He also cut his pay to $70k. He's made his millions and knew it was enough.

 

No, it's the nice thing to do only. Not the right thing to do.

 

Revat's previous post was spot on and 100% correct. It applies to this too.

 

The business/owner is the one that is taking all the financial risk. If the property value goes down, they are out that money.

 

 

There is a point where enough is enough.

 

 

"Enough if Enough" is the enemy of innovation in the business world.

 

"Enough is Enough" has destroyed more than one titan of industry...Polaroid, Kodak....

 

If you had the top 500 CEO's analyzed for a psych profile I think you'd discover that "enough is enough" is a part of their DNA strand that's missing.

[revat]

Lets say I buy land, build a house to flip it. I pay $1M for the land. I pay $1M to the world's best architect to design it. He's an awesome architect, its a stunning house, unlike any other in the world. I pay all my contractors $1M total for the building of it.

 

I expect to sell it for $10M, but sell it for $12M instead. Do I owe my architect or contractor any more money? It'd be nice to throw them a bonus, sure. What if 1999 Antoine Walker comes by and buys for $30M, do I owe architect and contractor any more money? If so, how much? What if the Architect has a gambling problem and is destitute. Do I owe him any more money? if so, how much? What if I have a gambling problem and I'm destitute. Do I owe anyone else money? If so, how much?

 

What if the market crashes and I only sell for $1M, will the architect refund some moneys?

 

Its nice to be nice, but saying people 'should do this' or 'owe that', its a much tougher road.

 

 

Not only nice but the right thing to do. I read recently of a CEO changing the pay structure of his company so everyone makes $70k. Apparently there is a study that suggested $70k is where people are comfortable. He also cut his pay to $70k. He's made his millions and knew it was enough.

 

No, it's the nice thing to do only. Not the right thing to do.

 

Revat's previous post was spot on and 100% correct. It applies to this too.

 

The business/owner is the one that is taking all the financial risk. If the property value goes down, they are out that money.

 

 

There is a point where enough is enough.

 

But how can anyone possibly decide? That's the point of having contracts, and that's why you follow them.

[bb8]

Lets say I buy land, build a house to flip it. I pay $1M for the land. I pay $1M to the world's best architect to design it. He's an awesome architect, its a stunning house, unlike any other in the world. I pay all my contractors $1M total for the building of it.

 

I expect to sell it for $10M, but sell it for $12M instead. Do I owe my architect or contractor any more money? It'd be nice to throw them a bonus, sure. What if 1999 Antoine Walker comes by and buys for $30M, do I owe architect and contractor any more money? If so, how much? What if the Architect has a gambling problem and is destitute. Do I owe him any more money? if so, how much? What if I have a gambling problem and I'm destitute. Do I owe anyone else money? If so, how much?

 

What if the market crashes and I only sell for $1M, will the architect refund some moneys?

 

Its nice to be nice, but saying people 'should do this' or 'owe that', its a much tougher road.

 

 

Not only nice but the right thing to do. I read recently of a CEO changing the pay structure of his company so everyone makes $70k. Apparently there is a study that suggested $70k is where people are comfortable. He also cut his pay to $70k. He's made his millions and knew it was enough.

 

No, it's the nice thing to do only. Not the right thing to do.

 

Revat's previous post was spot on and 100% correct. It applies to this too.

 

The business/owner is the one that is taking all the financial risk. If the property value goes down, they are out that money.

 

 

There is a point where enough is enough.

 

You mean like the point at which Stan Lee had 'made his millions'?

[Chip Cataldo]

What if 1999 Antoine Walker comes by and buys for $30M...

BWAH-HAH-HA!

 

 

Thanks man, I needed the laugh today.

[N/A]

Lets say I buy land, build a house to flip it. I pay $1M for the land. I pay $1M to the world's best architect to design it. He's an awesome architect, its a stunning house, unlike any other in the world. I pay all my contractors $1M total for the building of it.

 

I expect to sell it for $10M, but sell it for $12M instead. Do I owe my architect or contractor any more money? It'd be nice to throw them a bonus, sure. What if 1999 Antoine Walker comes by and buys for $30M, do I owe architect and contractor any more money? If so, how much? What if the Architect has a gambling problem and is destitute. Do I owe him any more money? if so, how much? What if I have a gambling problem and I'm destitute. Do I owe anyone else money? If so, how much?

 

What if the market crashes and I only sell for $1M, will the architect refund some moneys?

 

Its nice to be nice, but saying people 'should do this' or 'owe that', its a much tougher road.

 

 

Not only nice but the right thing to do. I read recently of a CEO changing the pay structure of his company so everyone makes $70k. Apparently there is a study that suggested $70k is where people are comfortable. He also cut his pay to $70k. He's made his millions and knew it was enough.

 

No, it's the nice thing to do only. Not the right thing to do.

 

Revat's previous post was spot on and 100% correct. It applies to this too.

 

The business/owner is the one that is taking all the financial risk. If the property value goes down, they are out that money.

 

 

There is a point where enough is enough.

 

But how can anyone possibly decide? That's the point of having contracts, and that's why you follow them.

 

By changing attitudes. I am often asked if I can show someone how to make money in comics. My 1st questions is always "how much are you looking to make?". Usually the answer is "as much as I can". I walk away.

 

I would like to see contracts like this act more like patents. There is a window to make the money for the investor and then the terms are revisited. This just reminds me of shark tank. In perpetuity!

[N/A]

Lets say I buy land, build a house to flip it. I pay $1M for the land. I pay $1M to the world's best architect to design it. He's an awesome architect, its a stunning house, unlike any other in the world. I pay all my contractors $1M total for the building of it.

 

I expect to sell it for $10M, but sell it for $12M instead. Do I owe my architect or contractor any more money? It'd be nice to throw them a bonus, sure. What if 1999 Antoine Walker comes by and buys for $30M, do I owe architect and contractor any more money? If so, how much? What if the Architect has a gambling problem and is destitute. Do I owe him any more money? if so, how much? What if I have a gambling problem and I'm destitute. Do I owe anyone else money? If so, how much?

 

What if the market crashes and I only sell for $1M, will the architect refund some moneys?

 

Its nice to be nice, but saying people 'should do this' or 'owe that', its a much tougher road.

 

 

Not only nice but the right thing to do. I read recently of a CEO changing the pay structure of his company so everyone makes $70k. Apparently there is a study that suggested $70k is where people are comfortable. He also cut his pay to $70k. He's made his millions and knew it was enough.

 

No, it's the nice thing to do only. Not the right thing to do.

 

Revat's previous post was spot on and 100% correct. It applies to this too.

 

The business/owner is the one that is taking all the financial risk. If the property value goes down, they are out that money.

 

 

There is a point where enough is enough.

 

You mean like the point at which Stan Lee had 'made his millions'?

 

(thumbs u

[bb8]

By changing attitudes. I am often asked if I can show someone how to make money in comics. My 1st questions is always "how much are you looking to make?". Usually the answer is "as much as I can". I walk away.

 

What if I said, "Enough to see my enemies driven before me and to hear the lamentations of their women"?

[revat]

Lets say I buy land, build a house to flip it. I pay $1M for the land. I pay $1M to the world's best architect to design it. He's an awesome architect, its a stunning house, unlike any other in the world. I pay all my contractors $1M total for the building of it.

 

I expect to sell it for $10M, but sell it for $12M instead. Do I owe my architect or contractor any more money? It'd be nice to throw them a bonus, sure. What if 1999 Antoine Walker comes by and buys for $30M, do I owe architect and contractor any more money? If so, how much? What if the Architect has a gambling problem and is destitute. Do I owe him any more money? if so, how much? What if I have a gambling problem and I'm destitute. Do I owe anyone else money? If so, how much?

 

What if the market crashes and I only sell for $1M, will the architect refund some moneys?

 

Its nice to be nice, but saying people 'should do this' or 'owe that', its a much tougher road.

 

 

Not only nice but the right thing to do. I read recently of a CEO changing the pay structure of his company so everyone makes $70k. Apparently there is a study that suggested $70k is where people are comfortable. He also cut his pay to $70k. He's made his millions and knew it was enough.

 

No, it's the nice thing to do only. Not the right thing to do.

 

Revat's previous post was spot on and 100% correct. It applies to this too.

 

The business/owner is the one that is taking all the financial risk. If the property value goes down, they are out that money.

 

 

There is a point where enough is enough.

 

But how can anyone possibly decide? That's the point of having contracts, and that's why you follow them.

 

By changing attitudes. I am often asked if I can show someone how to make money in comics. My 1st questions is always "how much are you looking to make?". Usually the answer is "as much as I can". I walk away.

 

I would like to see contracts like this act more like patents. There is a window to make the money for the investor and then the terms are revisited. This just reminds me of shark tank. In perpetuity!

 

There's nothing wrong with this, but you gotta write everything out and set the rules ahead of time, otherwise its just the wild west.

[ComicConnoisseur]

Lets say I buy land, build a house to flip it. I pay $1M for the land. I pay $1M to the world's best architect to design it. He's an awesome architect, its a stunning house, unlike any other in the world. I pay all my contractors $1M total for the building of it.

 

I expect to sell it for $10M, but sell it for $12M instead. Do I owe my architect or contractor any more money? It'd be nice to throw them a bonus, sure. What if 1999 Antoine Walker comes by and buys for $30M, do I owe architect and contractor any more money? If so, how much? What if the Architect has a gambling problem and is destitute. Do I owe him any more money? if so, how much? What if I have a gambling problem and I'm destitute. Do I owe anyone else money? If so, how much?

 

What if the market crashes and I only sell for $1M, will the architect refund some moneys?

 

Its nice to be nice, but saying people 'should do this' or 'owe that', its a much tougher road.

 

 

 

No...but only because Antoine Walker is a scrub.

As a Celtics fan we knew him for his wiggle.

[chrisco37]

 

I would like to see contracts like this act more like patents. There is a window to make the money for the investor and then the terms are revisited. This just reminds me of shark tank. In perpetuity!

 

That's perfectly reasonable IF the contract is/was written this way.

 

The contract is there for a reason. It's not a "guideline". It's the agreement. It (should) spell out exactly what each party that signs the contract is committed to do.

[chrisco37]

Lets say I buy land, build a house to flip it. I pay $1M for the land. I pay $1M to the world's best architect to design it. He's an awesome architect, its a stunning house, unlike any other in the world. I pay all my contractors $1M total for the building of it.

 

I expect to sell it for $10M, but sell it for $12M instead. Do I owe my architect or contractor any more money? It'd be nice to throw them a bonus, sure. What if 1999 Antoine Walker comes by and buys for $30M, do I owe architect and contractor any more money? If so, how much? What if the Architect has a gambling problem and is destitute. Do I owe him any more money? if so, how much? What if I have a gambling problem and I'm destitute. Do I owe anyone else money? If so, how much?

 

What if the market crashes and I only sell for $1M, will the architect refund some moneys?

 

Its nice to be nice, but saying people 'should do this' or 'owe that', its a much tougher road.

 

 

Not only nice but the right thing to do. I read recently of a CEO changing the pay structure of his company so everyone makes $70k. Apparently there is a study that suggested $70k is where people are comfortable. He also cut his pay to $70k. He's made his millions and knew it was enough.

 

No, it's the nice thing to do only. Not the right thing to do.

 

Revat's previous post was spot on and 100% correct. It applies to this too.

 

The business/owner is the one that is taking all the financial risk. If the property value goes down, they are out that money.

 

 

There is a point where enough is enough.

 

But how can anyone possibly decide? That's the point of having contracts, and that's why you follow them.

 

By changing attitudes. I am often asked if I can show someone how to make money in comics. My 1st questions is always "how much are you looking to make?". Usually the answer is "as much as I can". I walk away.

 

I would like to see contracts like this act more like patents. There is a window to make the money for the investor and then the terms are revisited. This just reminds me of shark tank. In perpetuity!

 

There's nothing wrong with this, but you gotta write everything out and set the rules ahead of time, otherwise its just the wild west.

 

Bingo.

[ComicConnoisseur]

Lets say I buy land, build a house to flip it. I pay $1M for the land. I pay $1M to the world's best architect to design it. He's an awesome architect, its a stunning house, unlike any other in the world. I pay all my contractors $1M total for the building of it.

 

I expect to sell it for $10M, but sell it for $12M instead. Do I owe my architect or contractor any more money? It'd be nice to throw them a bonus, sure. What if 1999 Antoine Walker comes by and buys for $30M, do I owe architect and contractor any more money? If so, how much? What if the Architect has a gambling problem and is destitute. Do I owe him any more money? if so, how much? What if I have a gambling problem and I'm destitute. Do I owe anyone else money? If so, how much?

 

What if the market crashes and I only sell for $1M, will the architect refund some moneys?

 

Its nice to be nice, but saying people 'should do this' or 'owe that', its a much tougher road.

 

 

Not only nice but the right thing to do. I read recently of a CEO changing the pay structure of his company so everyone makes $70k. Apparently there is a study that suggested $70k is where people are comfortable. He also cut his pay to $70k. He's made his millions and knew it was enough.

 

No, it's the nice thing to do only. Not the right thing to do.

 

Revat's previous post was spot on and 100% correct. It applies to this too.

 

The business/owner is the one that is taking all the financial risk. If the property value goes down, they are out that money.

 

 

There is a point where enough is enough.

 

You mean like the point at which Stan Lee had 'made his millions'?

Millions are so small when he could have made billions.

He got hosed if we look at it from that perspective.

Yep, he did much better than Kirby and Ditko, but all three should have done better.

If the owners of Angry Birds are worth at least 2 billion, Angry Birds value.

then we can bet Lee,Kirby and Ditko would be worth much more than that.

If I`m Stan I`m doing this