Comments on: MARVEL STARTED A SCREENWRITING SWEATSHOP

By: cmay

cmay — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:07:38 +0000

Unfortunately, I am a lawyer. The enforceability of “Noncompete Clauses” as they are known in the biz vary from state to state – each state has their own rules on what restrictions on future employment don’t violate the constitution, which is funny in its own right. Enforceability depends on the geographic reasonability (throughout the entire world would be too broad, and, for the most part, the “State of California” would also be too broad), time frame (I’ve seen 4 years found enforceable), and the type of business to which the restriction applies. However, it does not appear that what Marvel is doing here is a noncompete clause or a restriction on future employment (though I barely read the post). It is a right of first refusal to PURCHASE any new material these writers create during the first two years after the end of the employment. If Marvel doesn’t buy it, the writers can sell to another shop.

By: Vince Mancini

Vince Mancini — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:38:17 +0000

See, I knew the answer to any legal question was “Pay me and I’ll find out.”

By: carlitosantiagodoe

carlitosantiagodoe — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:35:57 +0000

/gets hole burn from all the crawling in and out, in and out; reminds him of last weekend

There is most likely something in the agreement that deals with the writer’s future work if he is fired or he quits. Plus assuming it isn’t addressed in the contract, if the writer leaves, then that likely means either the writer or Marvel breached the agreement. Then there is an argument that the writer doesn’t have to give Marvel the right to shite even if the writer was the one in the wrong.

By: Vince Mancini

Vince Mancini — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:25:58 +0000

The difference being that in the Marvel case, they’re claiming the right to anything from 24 months after the writer leaves. I could see signing over my rights to something for 24 months from TODAY, but to me it’s fucked that they stipulate 24 months after the person quits. The whole point of quitting is that you want to dissolve your partnership with someone.

I’m not saying I don’t understand the LOGIC of the agreement (especially for Marvel), I just don’t think that it’s reasonable to ask of an employee. If employer and employee don’t get along, employee is basically at employer’s mercy even after employee has ceased to be employee. It’s basically asking someone for the right to fuck them over just in case you feel like it.

By: carlitosantiagodoe

carlitosantiagodoe — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:15:50 +0000

/hears some commotion; crawls back out of hole

vince, think about it like this. I am going to give you 1 million dollars. In exchange for this 1 million dollars, you are going to give me (1) possession of the photos you took when you f’d the donkey last week, (2) one week worth of blow jobs everyday at 6p.m., and (3) the right to any donkey f’ing photos you may take in the next 6 months. Putting aside the whole “legal hangup” certain individuals may have over the sex for money (what?!?) and scenes of beastiality. You have agreed to do a certain thing over a period of about 6 1/2 months in exchange for 1 million dollars.

The writers did the same thing . . . actually, if you think about it, except for the time differences, the agreement is you just made is identical. Btw, I don’t get home until around 5:45, so don’t be hangin’ around on the front porch, the neighbors might talk.

/back in the hole

By: NoMoPolenta

NoMoPolenta — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:59:44 +0000

/relaxes in big chair
/dabs forehead with a handkerchief

Nowwww….I’m not a big city lawyer, but even I can tell that this company has impugned upon my client. I ask that all charges be dismissed.

/takes sip of mint julip

By: Vince Mancini

Vince Mancini — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:01:59 +0000

I get what it’s supposed to protect against, and it wouldn’t be an issue if you’re only working with pre-existing characters, but for TWO YEARS on EVERY PROJECT? How does that work?

By: GoGoya

GoGoya — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:55:43 +0000

*lawyer hat on* Sounds good to me. Essentially it sounds like a variation of a non-compete agreement. Interpretation is a little different because the product being created is intellectual property so it’s not just general contract law. It’s to protect Marvel from having a writer coming in and using the creative juices flowing in that office to beef up any preexisting projects or to develop some later.
*lawyer hat off*

By: SmokeEmIfYouGotEm

SmokeEmIfYouGotEm — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:01:34 +0000

What do you call 100 lawyer at the bottom of the ocean?

Fucking dead ass lawyer man. Jeeze you’re stupid.

By: Pauly Dangerously

Pauly Dangerously — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:54:07 +0000

My lawyer said to take the plea bargain.