Marvel

Wilt Dasney · Jan 26, 2011

Well, it just occurred to me that wizards5807 might have been simply saying that Universal's film studio had the right to the next few Marvel flicks...and my brain being in theme park mode, I assumed s/he was talking about the Universal parks.

If that's the case, I retract my Inquisition, wizards. :wave:

wizards8507 · Jan 26, 2011

Regarding the theme park rights, the contract term can be extended indefinitely, as a previous poster suggested:

"Our agreement with Marvel stands for as long as we follow the terms of our existing contract and for as long as we want there to be a Marvel Super Hero Island."
-Tom Schroder, Universal Studios Florida

Wilt Dasney said:
Well, it just occurred to me that wizards5807 might have been simply saying that Universal's film studio had the right to the next few Marvel flicks...and my brain being in theme park mode, I assumed s/he was talking about the Universal parks.

If that's the case, I retract my Inquisition, wizards. :wave:

To be honest, I don't know how all the legalese works and it may be the case that the above is true. The reason my statement was vague is because vague knowledge of the situation is really all I have. I do know that my information is at least somewhat correct, even though it's not as detailed as I/we would like it to be.

From the Orlando Sentinal, October 2009

[A] person familiar with Universal's licensing agreements said executives at the resort think they will be able to "work through the business issues involved" with Disney and Marvel, given Universal's experience with licensing contracts. Universal has multiple licensing deals involving its theme parks, for characters ranging from The Cat in the Hat and Popeye to Homer Simpson and Harry Potter.

This seems to indicate that certain issues might require attorneys from both sides (along with some who are neutral) to work through certain issues.

People need to also remember that, when corporations are purchased, they usually aren't dissolved entirely. Pixar, for example, still exists, but it is owned by Disney and their financial results are rolled up into the parent company's financial statements. Marvel still exists, and the contracts that Universal had with Marvel still exist. They didn't have to be reworked just because Disney purchased all of Marvel's rights and obligations. The AGREEMENT between Universal and Marvel is, in effect, now an AGREEMENT between Universal and Disney. Disney merely becomes the beneficiary of royalty and oversight privileges that had been previously been the privileges of Marvel.

EDIT:
I apologize about the "film licensing" confusion. I knew Marvel had already licensed away certain film rights, but they were to Paramount (Viacom), not Universal.

fosse76 · Jan 26, 2011

There have been so many posts on Marvel, I couldn't find what I was looking for. However, a poster here found the actual licensing agreement (it was filed with the SEC apparently) and read through it. Disney cannot introduce any Marvel-themed attractions or characters in the parks. Period. If I am recalling correctly, he said that was all-inclusive, not restricted to only what Universal currently offers (as was initially reported when the merger occurred). While Disney has the right to look at Universal's books, no one associated with the Parks and Resorts division is allowed to review them. The contract is in perpetuity, meaning it does not expire. On my own, I imagine that the payment terms have an expiration date and would need to be re-negotiated. The only way Disney can build a Marvel-based anything is by buying out Universal.

As for film licensing, that is totally different. Many of what we would call a "Disney film" or "Universal film" or "Paramount film", etc., are actually made and produced by a different company and merely distributed by the studio. I believe in a few cases Disney was only able to purchase the distribution rights to those properties.

wizards8507 · Jan 26, 2011

fosse76 said:
There have been so many posts on Marvel, I couldn't find what I was looking for. However, a poster here found the actual licensing agreement (it was filed with the SEC apparently) and read through it. Disney cannot introduce any Marvel-themed attractions or characters in the parks. Period. If I am recalling correctly, he said that was all-inclusive, not restricted to only what Universal currently offers (as was initially reported when the merger occurred). While Disney has the right to look at Universal's books, no one associated with the Parks and Resorts division is allowed to review them. The contract is in perpetuity, meaning it does not expire. On my own, I imagine that the payment terms have an expiration date and would need to be re-negotiated. The only way Disney can build a Marvel-based anything is by buying out Universal.

As for film licensing, that is totally different. Many of what we would call a "Disney film" or "Universal film" or "Paramount film", etc., are actually made and produced by a different company and merely distributed by the studio. I believe in a few cases Disney was only able to purchase the distribution rights to those properties.

You're completely right with one exception. Disney COULD use the attractions in California or overseas without a buyout. The agreement grants exclusivity on the east coast of the United States only. Walt Disney World specifically cannot open any Marvel attractions without buying out Universal.

WDWFREAK53 · Jan 26, 2011

He was strictly talking about movie rights. I thought Sony had the rights to Spider-man (unless that changed with this reboot).

Wilt Dasney said:
I'm curious what you mean by Universal having the rights to those movies. The right to do what exactly? Spider-Man and Wolverine are already represented in IoA (one by way of a somewhat well known attraction, the other with a giant "cutout" just across the street).

If you mean the right to depict the movie versions of those characters in their parks, I guess I don't follow. The entire Marvel area of IoA is comic-based (no Hugh Jackman or Tobey Maguire, although if any theme park would have had the rights to those depictions, one would think it would have been Uni).

Also, is the implication that Disney could use a future Spider-Man for an attraction or a M&G in Florida, as long as it was specified that it was MOVIE Spider-Man and not the COMICS Spider-Man that IoA uses?

I hope this doesn't come off hectoring, but I'm really trying to make sense of what you're suggesting...and make sure I haven't missed a potentially big loophole in this Disney/Universal/Marvel drama!

I wish we knew the details of the contract Universal had with Marvel, so we could know how relevant Disney's ownership is for future re-ups. If it contains language that basically says Universal can have first dibs on the characters for all eternity barring some massive misuse of the properties, then Disney might be in the position of having no more power than rubber-stamping Universal's renewal.

On the other hand, if Marvel was given the right to review the arrangement from time to time and terminate the agreement for basically no good reason, then Disney's ownership *might* become much more important.

I say *might* because assuming Marvel still has the same top staff in place that it did prior to the merger, the long-time comics guys might not be too keen on Disney — with no real knowledge or appreciation of what they do — trying to tell them how to handle their own contracts. Basically, it might not be as simple as Bob Iger snatching back Spider-Man with a wicked laugh, if doing so would pi$$ off people with their own egos like Stan Lee or Joe Quesada (is he still running the show over at Marvel? He was back when I read comics).

Basically I'm still waiting to see what Disney "owning" Marvel really MEANS...whether the agreement stipulated that Disney would cash the checks and keep its nose (and lawyers) out of Marvel's well-established comics and licensing business, or whether the marriage will allow for Disney to take a more active role in Marvel's internal decisions.

So many questions about this arrangement, and I would love to have more details.

CDavid · Jan 26, 2011

RSoxNo1 said:
Universal owns the theme park rights for all of the characters currently in their park. These rights are for all parks east of the Mississippi river. Disney can use other Marvel characters not currently represented in Islands of Adventure, but while there are hundreds of Marvel characters not currently being used, Islands of Adventure is already using the most prominant ones.

As I've never been to Island of Adventure, does anyone have a list somewhere of all characters currently represented in IOA, and for which Disney does not have eastern U.S. theme park rights? Characters like Spider-Man and the Hulk are obvious, but what I'm curious about is a list of all represented Marvel characters; For instance, any otherwise unused (by IOA) characters featured in attraction or land theming, artwork or ride marquees, etc.; Essentially just a complete, thorough listing, if one exists.

Disney cannot introduce any Marvel-themed attractions or characters in the parks. Period. If I am recalling correctly, he said that was all-inclusive, not restricted to only what Universal currently offers (as was initially reported when the merger occurred).

If accurate, that would render my above curiosity pointless (but I'm still interested if anyone has a list). Of course, the key point here would seem to be "in the parks". Presumably a Spider-Man character dinner or M&G would contractually be possible in Downtown Disney (not that Disney is interested in advertising for IOA).

Krack · Jan 26, 2011

wizards8507 said:
I'm not sure how the merch contract works, but I believe the "east coast exclusivity" only applies to attractions.

Nope.

stphnbogert said:
If they were to renew they would have to go through Disney.

Nope.

Disday said:
I've heard that they are working on getting the complete Marvel rights back. There is also a Marvel theme park planned for WDW in the future. Trust me, Disney's lawyers can handle any contract Universal may currently have.:wave:

Yes, Universal is a tiny company. All their lawyers come from Bob's Law School.

Wilt Dasney said:
I wish we knew the details of the contract Universal had with Marvel, so we could know how relevant Disney's ownership is for future re-ups.

Hooray!

fosse76 said:
There have been so many posts on Marvel, I couldn't find what I was looking for. However, a poster here found the actual licensing agreement (it was filed with the SEC apparently) and read through it. Disney cannot introduce any Marvel-themed attractions or characters in the parks. Period. If I am recalling correctly, he said that was all-inclusive, not restricted to only what Universal currently offers (as was initially reported when the merger occurred). While Disney has the right to look at Universal's books, no one associated with the Parks and Resorts division is allowed to review them. The contract is in perpetuity, meaning it does not expire. On my own, I imagine that the payment terms have an expiration date and would need to be re-negotiated. The only way Disney can build a Marvel-based anything is by buying out Universal.

Yeah, that was me. Practically speaking, this is correct. Universal has the right to renew the contract for the same fees/costs for as long as they desire; an option they will always choose to do because the property (Marvel characters) are worth more now than they were when it was originally signed - this is a result of the success of the recent Marvel films. Universal has full control of these characters for theme park purposes, for as long as they want it, at a rock-bottom price.

wizards8507 said:
You're completely right with one exception. Disney COULD use the attractions in California or overseas without a buyout. The agreement grants exclusivity on the east coast of the United States only. Walt Disney World specifically cannot open any Marvel attractions without buying out Universal.

Again, this is essentially correct. Disney could build a ride based on a Marvel character, or have a Marvel character walking around for Meet & Greets in the California parks. However, they may not advertise it or allude to "Marvel" or a cohesive "Marvel Universe" or build a "Marvel Land".

Just to head off the stampede, other popular misconceptions are that:

1. Universal can't use any new characters to their park (no, they can),
2. Universal can't build any new attractions in Marvel Land (no, they can),
3. Disney has complete access to Universal Orlando's financial documents (no, they just have access to information regarding the amount of merchandise sales regarding items featuring a Marvel character happening in the park),
4. Disney can lease the Marvel rights to someone else to build Marvel attractions (not east of the Mississippi, and not within 60 miles of Universal Orlando, and the 3rd party would not be able to advertise it)

slappy magoo · Jan 26, 2011

WDWFREAK53 said:
He was strictly talking about movie rights. I thought Sony had the rights to Spider-man (unless that changed with this reboot).

Sony has the rights to make Spiderman movies. Universal has the rights to use any and all Marvel characters in the parks. The only conflict twixt the two would be if Uni's IoA wanted to use footage from the Spiderman movies in their attractions or anywhere in the parks. Then they'd have to work something out with Sony, as well as possibly with Disney.

fosse76 · Jan 26, 2011

wizards8507 said:
You're completely right with one exception. Disney COULD use the attractions in California or overseas without a buyout. The agreement grants exclusivity on the east coast of the United States only. Walt Disney World specifically cannot open any Marvel attractions without buying out Universal.

Totally correct! I inadvertently left that out. :brick:

slappy magoo said:
Sony has the rights to make Spiderman movies. Universal has the rights to use any and all Marvel characters in the parks. The only conflict twixt the two would be if Uni's IoA wanted to use footage from the Spiderman movies in their attractions or anywhere in the parks. Then they'd have to work something out with Sony, as well as possibly with Disney.

I remember reading, not long after the merger was made public, that Universal went ahead and pushed a reboot of the film series to avoid delayed negotiations with the original films' stars, which could have delayed the start of filming too long and allowed Disney to regain the rights.

Wilt Dasney · Jan 26, 2011

Krack said:
Hooray!

Thank you so much! After over a year of speculation and spin on this topic, that was a very clarifying read.

So based on that contract, it sounds like Marvel really gave Universal a blank check on using the properties.

The only termination clause requires a "material breach" in which one company (i.e., Disney) would have to notify Universal in writing that they were in violation and give them a good faith chance to rectify. Disney can't just say "contract expired now" and snap up the properties.

Based on my reading, though, it sounds like Universal's East-of-Mississippi rights to characters are not absolute. My understanding of the terms:

* Any character prominently displayed at IoA — and any character normally associated with that character as part of a team or villain — is Universal's. (This would seem to mean ALL the Spider-Man/Hulk/X-Men properties are spoken for, and possibly others. I have not looked carefully around IoA to see which characters are represented, and the word "incidental" might also be up for debate.) (See 9-a-1-i)

* Characters not covered by those terms can be used by another licensee (i.e., Disney) provided the characters aren't advertised within 300 miles of Orlando...a killer provision! (See 12-(b))

This would seem to imply that Disney would have very limited rights to use Marvel characters at WDW, provided

a.) the characters were not being used by Universal. Once you eliminate the entire Spidey/Hulk/X-Men line, you're not left with a lot of top-tier names, but maybe Captain America, Thor and Iron Man would be available? It would seem to depend on whether Uni ever uses them as costumed walk-arounds, or in marketing, or utilizes their images in non-"incidental" ways.

b.) WDW wouldn't be able to promote their use of the characters locally. This kills any chance of an attraction, because Disney would never build a ride it couldn't advertise to locals, but it could leave open the door to character M&G's...assuming Disney only did it for the benefit of guests who happened to be around and for word of mouth, since they wouldn't be able to promote it themselves.

That's a very limited range of options, assuming my reading is correct, and I can see why Disney hasn't rushed to put the characters in its parks.

I'm also happy to see that Universal is not in the weak sister position that so many Disney fans seem to have presumed. The Marvel area at IoA is very enjoyable, and I would hate to see it damaged through some petty corporate hardball tactics by Disney.

Krack · Jan 26, 2011

Wilt Dasney said:
This would seem to imply that Disney would have very limited rights to use Marvel characters at WDW, provided

a.) the characters were not being used by Universal. Once you eliminate the entire Spidey/Hulk/X-Men line, you're not left with a lot of top-tier names, but maybe Captain America, Thor and Iron Man would be available? It would seem to depend on whether Uni ever uses them as costumed walk-arounds, or in marketing, or utilizes their images in non-"incidental" ways.

Universal wasn't stupid. Every single character you (or I) have ever heard of is in use somewhere in IOA; I'm certain this is by design. This includes villains.

Wilt Dasney · Jan 26, 2011

Krack said:
Universal wasn't stupid. Every single character you (or I) have ever heard of is in use somewhere in IOA; I'm certain this is by design. This includes villains.

Gotcha. I guess what I was getting at is that, based on the contract and the specifics of the IoA usage, Disney might have the right to challenge that some characters' use is "incidental" and try to win their rights that way...but given that all they would potentially win would be some characters they couldn't build a ride around or advertise anyway, I can't see it being worth the trouble.

Another thought: Even if WDW were able to trot out some B-grade Marvel characters for autographs, it might just remind people that there's this kick-@ss Marvel area not too far up the road, with better characters and full Marvel attractions. Not the outcome Disney would prefer, I'm sure.

Krack · Jan 26, 2011

Wilt Dasney said:
Gotcha. I guess what I was getting at is that, based on the contract and the specifics of the IoA usage, Disney might have the right to challenge that some characters' use is "incidental" and try to win their rights that way...but given that all they would potentially win would be some characters they couldn't build a ride around or advertise anyway, I can't see it being worth the trouble.

Another thought: Even if WDW were able to trot out some B-grade Marvel characters for autographs, it might just remind people that there's this kick-@ss Marvel area not too far up the road, with better characters and full Marvel attractions. Not the outcome Disney would prefer, I'm sure.

That's exactly right. Anything Disney does now with the Marvel characters (including films, television, etc) makes them more valuable. In turn, this only makes it more difficult/expensive for Disney to buy Universal out of the parks contract. They are not in a good position.

Disneyfanatic!! · Jan 27, 2011

Disney has bought the distribution rights for The Avengers film (2012) and Iron Man 3 (2013) from Paramount Pictures. Paramount gets a base of $115M from these films as a part of the deal. Disney definitley sees profit in the Marvel heroes getting movies as of late (Iron Man, Captain America, etc.)

Only problem is that Iron Man is featured on posters in The Amazing Adventures of Spiderman as an easter egg. Captain America does appear as a walk-around. The Hulk obviously has it's coaser.

I know The Black Panther is supposedly getting a film (currently in development) and I don't recall him appearing at IoA at all...

cheezbat · Jan 27, 2011

Wilt Dasney said:
Thank you so much! After over a year of speculation and spin on this topic, that was a very clarifying read.

So based on that contract, it sounds like Marvel really gave Universal a blank check on using the properties.

The only termination clause requires a "material breach" in which one company (i.e., Disney) would have to notify Universal in writing that they were in violation and give them a good faith chance to rectify. Disney can't just say "contract expired now" and snap up the properties.

Based on my reading, though, it sounds like Universal's East-of-Mississippi rights to characters are not absolute. My understanding of the terms:

* Any character prominently displayed at IoA — and any character normally associated with that character as part of a team or villain — is Universal's. (This would seem to mean ALL the Spider-Man/Hulk/X-Men properties are spoken for, and possibly others. I have not looked carefully around IoA to see which characters are represented, and the word "incidental" might also be up for debate.) (See 9-a-1-i)

* Characters not covered by those terms can be used by another licensee (i.e., Disney) provided the characters aren't advertised within 300 miles of Orlando...a killer provision! (See 12-(b))

This would seem to imply that Disney would have very limited rights to use Marvel characters at WDW, provided

a.) the characters were not being used by Universal. Once you eliminate the entire Spidey/Hulk/X-Men line, you're not left with a lot of top-tier names, but maybe Captain America, Thor and Iron Man would be available? It would seem to depend on whether Uni ever uses them as costumed walk-arounds, or in marketing, or utilizes their images in non-"incidental" ways.

b.) WDW wouldn't be able to promote their use of the characters locally. This kills any chance of an attraction, because Disney would never build a ride it couldn't advertise to locals, but it could leave open the door to character M&G's...assuming Disney only did it for the benefit of guests who happened to be around and for word of mouth, since they wouldn't be able to promote it themselves.

That's a very limited range of options, assuming my reading is correct, and I can see why Disney hasn't rushed to put the characters in its parks.

I'm also happy to see that Universal is not in the weak sister position that so many Disney fans seem to have presumed. The Marvel area at IoA is very enjoyable, and I would hate to see it damaged through some petty corporate hardball tactics by Disney.

Universal uses Spiderman, Storm(the X-Men), Dr Doom(Fantastic Four), and Hulk as rides. Walkarounds include:Spiderman, Captain America, Hulk(not currently being used), Cyclops, Rogue, Wolverine, Storm, Dr Doom(not currently being used). Restaurants feature the Fantasic Four and Captain America. Artwork all over the Island features Iron Man, the Avengers, Thor, Spiderman, Fantasic Four, Daredevil, X-Men, etc.

Every good hero or villian is currently used at IOA. There is NOTHING Disney could pull out that would be worthwhile.

In my honest opinion, Universal has the upper hand at the moment. But what I see Disney doing in the relatively near future is buying out their newly aquired property from Universal. It would only make sense. How crappy would it be to know that Marvel could eventually be prominently featured at EVERY Disney resort around the globe EXCEPT Walt Disney World? Come on! It's WDW! The flagship resort! They are NOT going to want to have to explain to people: "Yeah Disneyland has an awesome Avengers ride...You can ride it in Shanghai too! Oh yeah...the Spiderman ride in Hong Kong is amazing! But no...sorry we here at Disney World do not have the rights to use our characters in our parks, but our competition down the street has a pretty cool land featuring them!" :lol:

sublimesting · Jan 27, 2011

What would happen if Disney completely dissolved Marvel and rolled the company's entire business into Disney?

Krack · Jan 27, 2011

sublimesting said:
What would happen if Disney completely dissolved Marvel and rolled the company's entire business into Disney?

Universal would still have a valid contract.

MrMorrowTom · Jan 27, 2011

I know this is going to throw a wrench in the engine, but what about Marvel Video Games. I read in an article that Marvel's contracts with Activision, Sega, Gazillion and THQ give them rights to continue putting out Video Games with the Marvel brand.

So besides Disney not having all the rights to Movies, Video Games, and Theme Park Attractions was this transaction a right move? Yea in the long run when these contracts run out they will be making money in a given time span of 10-20 years.

But can you imagine a Disney vs Marvel Video game that would be epic.

Wilt Dasney · Jan 27, 2011

I don't see how the video game contract affects Disney, since they don't have their own system or development studio anyway. Games like Epic Mickey are licensed out to other studios (although I believe Disney does own Warren Spector's design house).

jakeman · Jan 27, 2011

Krack said:
Universal wasn't stupid. Every single character you (or I) have ever heard of is in use somewhere in IOA; I'm certain this is by design. This includes villains.

You're right, Disney is a bumbling idiot and Universal is clairvoyant enough to predict ten years ago that Disney would buy out Marvel. So Uni made sure they used all the popular characters in their park to keep Disney from making money...

Or Uni built a park with the most successful portions of a comic book franchise with really no foresight into future other than what would appeal to the general population.

Hard to tell really.

Marvel

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member