Stan Lee Media Suing Founder and Namesake, Stan Lee
- Thread starter Scott Bullock
- Start date
Hopefully, Thor. Thor's badass and his blessing would carry a lot of weight. >.>Asuka Soryu said:
Actually, depending on who's telling the truth, it's two other even more bizarre scenarios.bojac6 said:
If he's telling the truth, he made something, sold it to someone else, those people went bankrupt and had to sell all their assets (including the "something he made"), and then THOSE PEOPLE are suing HIM for those assets they had to sell when they went bankrupt.
If they're telling the truth, he made something, sold it to someone else, those people went bankrupt and had to sell all their assets, (but not the "something he made", because that had been transferred to one of their subsidiaries that were not liquidated), but they sold off the "something he made" as one of the assets included in the bankruptcy even though it didn't belong to the parent company, and now the shareholders of that subsidiary are suing him for those assets.
Either way, I don't understand how he, personally, could be liable. Unless he was the majority shareholder of Stan Lee Media (in which case he would've had controlling interest in Stan Lee Media, Inc. anyway), it sounds like Stan Lee Media's shareholders are the ones who screwed the shareholders of Stand Lee Media, Inc. if this is true. Besides, if they think they can avoid Disney and Marvel's lawyers by suing him, they're probably sorely mistaken. Disney will not allow these characters to remain contested just when they've figured out the formula to turn them into a money printing machine. This will be settled, quickly, or bodies will start turning up in the swamps of Orlando.
I wholeheartedly agree that copyright is too long; additionally I feel that the type of media should be a factor in the length it is valid. (music is a performance art - go perform it once in a while instead of getting paid from one performance for 70 years + 50 after death + 70 years after corporate renewal + ad infinatum.)SaintWaldo said:
However hard a sell current length is to society; short term copyright is a harder sell to artists and creative corporations a writer only gets one shot at writing a book and they may take years of research and re-writing to be happy with their next work. You may consider an artist of any form only as good as their last work but who's to say how long they are allowed to take between works, especially if your proposing something as short as..say... ten years.
How about.... all works are protected for 10 years, after which works by an individual can be renewed for an additional 10 years (companies have made their money, moved on and just keep old works for brand identity and merchandising. No need to let them re-apply.) All works are none-transferable and end when the creator dies or the company is dissolved; however credit is to be given on re-use.
I think that would serve both society, give a fair chance to make a living from an individual work and preserve the artists literary (musical, blah) immortality.
edit: being dyslexic this recaptcha system is really ticking me off. Cycling through several illegible none-words is bloody annoying
I think of myself as a pretty smart man, i can find logic in most things and i read and watch books and movies that are somewhat complicated, but this article just had too many stan lees in it for me to get what is going on, i'm just hoping that the right stan lee thing wins.
Stan Lee has sued Stan Lee over the ownership of Stan Lee that Stan Lee has stolen from Stan Lee.
What if the lawyer is She-Hulk?Orcus_35 said:
This could get ugly...
Also, shouldn't the CREATOR have the right to give HIS creations to whomever he wishes? Even more so considering the suing company is named after him. This just doesn't seem right.
This is partly what I hate about the legal system, either you have a piece of paper with Stan Lee's signature on it, saying he's sold all rights and claims to his work, or you don't and he still owns them.
Unfortunately now, legal claims are so expensive, that if you have a lot of money and want something, you just take a poorer person to court, and wait for them to run out of money, then you win. (Not actually factual, but too damn close to fact to be comfortable.)
I just hope that if Stan Lee the creator is getting screwed, then any future product based on his character absolutely bombs and sells almost nothing.
Also I fear:
If you think it wouldn't happen, think of an average guy. Half the world are less moral and caring than him.
Unfortunately now, legal claims are so expensive, that if you have a lot of money and want something, you just take a poorer person to court, and wait for them to run out of money, then you win. (Not actually factual, but too damn close to fact to be comfortable.)
I just hope that if Stan Lee the creator is getting screwed, then any future product based on his character absolutely bombs and sells almost nothing.
Also I fear:
I'd suggest this is going to lead to families keeping dying artists on life support for decades, just to keep raking in the royalties.Unrulyhandbag said:
If you think it wouldn't happen, think of an average guy. Half the world are less moral and caring than him.
[joke]Or worse, corporate hit-men hunting down rights holders just to free up their works.[/joke]SenseOfTumour said:
Sure it may happen but it's only going to be the truly despicable that even attempt to do these things.
Keeping a relative alive who has fallen into a permanently vegetative state is socially debatable but has merits but done long enough still ends in a brain-dead relative. Once someone's in brain death it's a none issue; they are legally dead, no amount of machinery will change that.
Hmmm... actually the corporate hit-men ARE more of an issue.
Yep. Deal with it, pink boy.anonymity88 said:
I'm kidding about that.
Because, actually, no I didn't make that comparison. Read it again. I said that if we have the MORAL CERTITUDE to kill ourselves over the argument of slavery, we can find the MORAL CERTITUDE to unchain our culture as well.
See the difference? Little less shocked, yet?
