News bye bye bugs: Marvel Land announced, opens 2020

Disney Irish

Disney Irish

Premium Member
flynnibus said:
what I always found interesting about the language of that particular item is.. it says it should not allow an 'licensee' to use the Marvel name.. it doesn't grant exclusive ownership of the name to Universal. I read that to mean it doesn't necessarily prevent Marvel itself from using it... as long as its within the other constraints of the agreement.

So now with Marvel being owned by Disney... does that line really apply to DCA?
Click to expand...

I thought we'd gone over that in one of these threads...

Anyways, Disney while owner of Marvel would still be a licensee here. WDI licenses the use of characters from the various studios they come from, even internally. Lucas, Pixar, Marvel, Disney, its all the same. This is why you see things like this, note the name Pixar in the marque:

Buzz-Lightyear-Astro-Blasters.JPG
 
dweezil78

dweezil78

Well-Known Member
Disney Irish Bruh said:
I thought we'd gone over that in one of these threads...

Anyways, Disney while owner of Marvel would still be a licensee here. WDI licenses the use of characters from the various studios they come from, even internally. Lucas, Pixar, Marvel, Disney, its all the same. This is why you see things like this, note the name Pixar in the marque:

Buzz-Lightyear-Astro-Blasters.JPG
Click to expand...

I think that's probably moreso because Buzz opened back in 2005 -- a year before Disney acquired Pixar.
 
TROR

TROR

Well-Known Member
dweezil78 said:
I think that's probably moreso because Buzz opened back in 2005 -- a year before Disney acquired PIxar.
Click to expand...
Not that it opened before 2005, but because the movie came out before 2005. If you look at the bottom of the Disneyland map, you'll notice it says the same about Finding Nemo's Submarine Voyage although that opened in 2007. However, if you look at the bottom of a DCA map you'll find nothing for Cars Land.

You'll notice the same kinds of notes for Indiana Jones Adventure and Star Tours. I'm assuming part of the reason Galaxy's Edge will be post-ROTJ is to get past whatever kind of legal thing this is.
 
Disney Irish

Disney Irish

Premium Member
TROR said:
Not that it opened before 2005, but because the movie came out before 2005. If you look at the bottom of the Disneyland map, you'll notice it says the same about Finding Nemo's Submarine Voyage although that opened in 2007. However, if you look at the bottom of a DCA map you'll find nothing for Cars Land.

You'll notice the same kinds of notes for Indiana Jones Adventure and Star Tours. I'm assuming part of the reason Galaxy's Edge will be post-ROTJ is to get past whatever kind of legal thing this is.
Click to expand...

The DCA map has Disney/Pixar trademark at the bottom. It covers the areas that aren't specifically listed out.
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
Disney Irish Bruh said:
I thought we'd gone over that in one of these threads...

Anyways, Disney while owner of Marvel would still be a licensee here. WDI licenses the use of characters from the various studios they come from, even internally. Lucas, Pixar, Marvel, Disney, its all the same. This is why you see things like this, note the name Pixar in the marque:

Buzz-Lightyear-Astro-Blasters.JPG
Click to expand...

Sorry, the presence of that kind of tag doesn't support the argument or requirement. The question at hand has more to do with the legal separation and units between the business units or not. And it's why units like Consumer Products can be merged with WDI with a stroke of a pen... while others may not.

Cross- charging for use internally is a financial practice - it is not the same thing as licensing one's intellectual property.

For instance, Pixar is still a legal entity, but content created under Pixar isn't necessarily under that legal entity.. for instance the Trademark on Wall-E, is held by Disney Enterprises... which itself a subsidiary of TWDC.

There are many ways things can SEEM similar in this discussion that are actually quite different. I don't think anyone outside the company without the insight into the legal structures setup and how they are managed can really say for certain. Too many variables they can play with internally to suit their own needs.
 
Disney Irish

Disney Irish

Premium Member
flynnibus said:
Sorry, the presence of that kind of tag doesn't support the argument or requirement. The question at hand has more to do with the legal separation and units between the business units or not. And it's why units like Consumer Products can be merged with WDI with a stroke of a pen... while others may not.

Cross- charging for use internally is a financial practice - it is not the same thing as licensing one's intellectual property.

For instance, Pixar is still a legal entity, but content created under Pixar isn't necessarily under that legal entity.. for instance the Trademark on Wall-E, is held by Disney Enterprises... which itself a subsidiary of TWDC.

There are many ways things can SEEM similar in this discussion that are actually quite different. I don't think anyone outside the company without the insight into the legal structures setup and how they are managed can really say for certain. Too many variables they can play with internally to suit their own needs.
Click to expand...

Marvel, Pixar, and LucasFilm are all subsidaries under TWDC. So I don't know why you would think that WDI wouldn't license from said subsidiaries.

One thing is for sure, Disney has very powerful IP lawyers. If they found a way around the "Marvel name" clause they would have done it by now. All of these things are discussed internally before any of these projects move forward.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom