Tom Spurgeon analyzes Lee vs. Marvel

Pulse contributor Tom Spurgeon gives some superb analysis on Stan Lee's recent court victory against his current employer, Marvel Enterprises, Inc.:

The dispute between Lee and Marvel can in some ways be seen as the ultimate, unintended hangover from the company's 1990s financial turmoil.

Lee's contract was renegotiated seven years ago because Marvel's chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings had voided his then-existing agreement. Lee, perhaps at his lowest ebb in terms of perceived value to the company, was at first offered a low-end contract to last a period of only two years. This forced Lee to cut off friendlier negotiations and bring his lawyers into the mix.

Marvel entered into the existing contract with Lee out of a concern that by terminating his agreement with the company, Lee could then sue and say that the termination extended to the he permission he had granted through employment to use his characters. It's a case Lee might have lost, and subsequent court cases indicate it's a case he probably would have lost, but the litigation would have put the rights to many Marvel properties in at least some doubt for several years of court battles, which is hardly attractive to movie studios.
The resulting contract contained the clause on which today's legal action is based, a clause that has baffled outside observers with its clarity and how much it could potentially cost Marvel.

I know a lot of people are worked up by this, but two things need to be kept in mind: This isn't about creator rights/ownership of Marvel characters. It's just about monies owed from movies and related media. Also, this is just one step in what is shaping up to be a really long and drawn-out court battle. The latter is precisely why I'm not getting very worked up by it. In the end, either Marvel or Lee is going to see this money, Marvel will still own the characters and not much will change. How 'bout that Jack Kirby co-creator credit? Hello? Anyone?