Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Dispute over Spider-Man ownership
BBC NEWS: "Stan Lee Media, which has re-emerged from bankruptcy six years ago, claims Lee signed away his rights to the comic book characters in 1998 when the company launched, in exchange for a salary and company stock."
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
this kind of case always makes me wonder what the real motives are. bviously there is money involved but it seems ridiculous that people would go to that much trouble to possibly end up back where they started...i also dont think there would be such a hooplah over this had the movie not been coming out for the past few years and in the near future...greedy greedy greedy, it's so upsetting. they are messing with the sanctity of comics
I definetly agree with Lydia, you never know what any of their motives are. The movie has definelty caused a much greater interest in the issue which I don't think would be there if the film wasn't so popular. Its sad when money gets in the way of these kind of creative ventures.
It seems weird to me that the company would wait this long to file a claim to the usage rights. I mean, the other movies made millions of dollars, why wait until now to be bringing this up if they are entitled to it as well. This just sounds like a company that's on a downfall looking for possible loop holes to stay alive to me.
Being the avid comic fan that I am, I express my dissatisfaction with this entire issue by saying that money can't buy the twinkle in an eye.. It's sad to me that it's not about the movie or the character just the revenue it brings in and the numbers in the box office. Selling rights to characters is a touchy subject and many times the artists/creators are left with nothing anyway but I thought Stan Lee was smart about it for the most part. Sometimes you just have to do what you have to do but this lawsuit is, like the article says, "baseless" and completely uncalled for.
4 comments:
this kind of case always makes me wonder what the real motives are. bviously there is money involved but it seems ridiculous that people would go to that much trouble to possibly end up back where they started...i also dont think there would be such a hooplah over this had the movie not been coming out for the past few years and in the near future...greedy greedy greedy, it's so upsetting. they are messing with the sanctity of comics
I definetly agree with Lydia, you never know what any of their motives are. The movie has definelty caused a much greater interest in the issue which I don't think would be there if the film wasn't so popular. Its sad when money gets in the way of these kind of creative ventures.
It seems weird to me that the company would wait this long to file a claim to the usage rights. I mean, the other movies made millions of dollars, why wait until now to be bringing this up if they are entitled to it as well. This just sounds like a company that's on a downfall looking for possible loop holes to stay alive to me.
Being the avid comic fan that I am, I express my dissatisfaction with this entire issue by saying that money can't buy the twinkle in an eye.. It's sad to me that it's not about the movie or the character just the revenue it brings in and the numbers in the box office. Selling rights to characters is a touchy subject and many times the artists/creators are left with nothing anyway but I thought Stan Lee was smart about it for the most part. Sometimes you just have to do what you have to do but this lawsuit is, like the article says, "baseless" and completely uncalled for.
Post a Comment