lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
To be fair, it was quite favorable to Marvel at the time. They gave Universal a deal it would be hard to pass up, so Marvel secured themselves a consistent, nearly guaranteed revenue stream.The contract was written when Marvel was in really bad financial shape so it is strongly in Universal's favor.
MARVEL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MCA INC. AND MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT GROUPI don't think that Disney would both with fighting anything or pushing the limits, but.... there is certainly legal gray area in terms of what is a "family" of a character already used by Universal.
IV. B. 1. a. 1. i. East of The Mississippi - any other theme park is limited to using characters not currently being used by MCA at the time such other license is granted. [For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is “being used by MCA” if (x) it or another character of the same “family” (e.g., any member of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, THE AVENGERS or villains associated with a hero being used) is more than an incidental element of an attraction, is presented as a costumed character, or is more than an incidental element of the theming of a retail store or food facility; and, (y) in addition, if such character or another character from the same “family” is an element in any MCA marketing during the previous year. Any character who is only used as a costume character will not be considered to be “being used by MCA” unless it appears as more than an incidental element in MCA’s marketing.
What grey area?