Marvel Characters at Kings Island

[danlb_2000]

This is the section that kept Disney from using the advertising on the monorail.

iii. No The Marvel Action Universe shall be in or marketed in conjunction with any themed entertainment areas owned, operated or marketed by Disney, Time-Warner, Six Flags, Sony, Paramount or Busch. As used herein, “theme park” and “themed entertainment areas” shall not include, inter alia, facilities or complexes where at least 70% of the revenues generated on the premises are derived from retail sales or whose primary source of revenue is lodging (which may include food, beverage and gaming revenues).

Any section of the contract that says "Marvel Action Universe" is irrelevant to this discussion because Kings Island isn't a Marvel Action Universe. Marvel Action Universe is the retail concept that never got built.

Now we are getting somewhere. If we can agree that they can use them in some form, then we can get to the issue in which I think KI may have gone too far. They used the word Marvel in their add above. I do not think they had the right to do that. That is something that Universal should be able to address with KI but Disney did have the right to let them use the charachters. That specific issue does not mean they could not use them just the way they advertised them.

KI isn't using the Marvel name, but Idlewild is.

 

[seascape]

I'm familiar with the section and the organization of the contract. What you quoted was about The Marvel Action Universe. If you read the description of that project it is included under EXCLUSIVITY because the project was going to include theme park like elements that would have different limitations and exceptions to Universal's theme park exclusivity. That doesn't mean anything and everything else also has those exceptions. There was never a proposal to turn the monorails into a retail concept such as The Marvel Action Universe and meet and greets are not a retail concept. They could enter a theme park because Universal has the theme park rights, not because Disney cannot have a retail concept. It does not matter how many times the same clauses are quoted over and over, The Marvel Action Universe is not a generic and general exception, but a specific and defined concept.

Let me try it this way. The contract contains sections. under each sections and clauses, subsclauses and and even more under that. Think of your math class going way back. Under section 4 of the contract which deals with exclusivity, there is a section B which deals with use in theme parks. Under that is a section which states MCA (or an MCA “Corporately Related Company” (defined below)), shall have an option to utilize the Marvel characters in THE SECOND GATE of the. Under that is a section which states a. After such 2 year period, MCA’s exclusive rights will be subject to “shrinkage” or “expansion” as follows. then 1. If no action is taken by MCA, such exclusivity shall be limited as follows: and finally iii. East or West of The Mississippi - permitted uses shall be limited to the use of specific Marvel characters and Marvel may not permit a licensee to use the name “Marvel” as part of the attraction name or marketing.

Does that help you understand?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Let me try it this way. The contract contains sections. under each sections and clauses, subsclauses and and even more under that. Think of your math class going way back. Under section 4 of the contract which deals with exclusivity, there is a section B which deals with use in theme parks. Under that is a section which states MCA (or an MCA “Corporately Related Company” (defined below)), shall have an option to utilize the Marvel characters in THE SECOND GATE of the. Under that is a section which states a. After such 2 year period, MCA’s exclusive rights will be subject to “shrinkage” or “expansion” as follows. then 1. If no action is taken by MCA, such exclusivity shall be limited as follows: and finally iii. East or West of The Mississippi - permitted uses shall be limited to the use of specific Marvel characters and Marvel may not permit a licensee to use the name “Marvel” as part of the attraction name or marketing.

Does that help you understand?

I am quite familiar with how the organization works. Your failure is in your repeated expansion of The Marvel Action Universe from a retail concept into a general, overall concept. An except for The Marvel Action Universe is not an exception for theme parks.

 

[lebeau]

I am quite familiar with how the organization works. Your failure is in your repeated expansion of The Marvel Action Universe from a retail concept into a general, overall concept. An except for The Marvel Action Universe is not an exception for theme parks.

Please let this be the final word on the topic even though I know it won't be.

 

[seascape]

Please let this be the final word on the topic even though I know it won't be.

These are the only sections of the contract

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
II. PROCEEDING TO COMPLETION OF THE MARVEL UNIVERSE
III. TERM
IV. EXCLUSIVITY
V. OTHER ASPECTS OF RELATIONSHIP
VI. MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL

Since you say section 4 only deals with Marvel Universe, please tell me where the exclusive rights are if not in sections 4?

So far I have been told section 1 does not count. Now you are saying section 4 does not count.

 

[seascape]

I am quite familiar with how the organization works. Your failure is in your repeated expansion of The Marvel Action Universe from a retail concept into a general, overall concept. An except for The Marvel Action Universe is not an exception for theme parks.

Have you ever studied contract law? I have.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Have you ever studied contract law? I have.

Yes, but I don't need a law degree to know there is no such thing as a Humpty Dumpty principle that is inherent in every contract. Definitions don't magically change because somebody wants them to.

 

[danlb_2000]

These are the only sections of the contract

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
II. PROCEEDING TO COMPLETION OF THE MARVEL UNIVERSE
III. TERM
IV. EXCLUSIVITY
V. OTHER ASPECTS OF RELATIONSHIP
VI. MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL

Since you say section 4 only deals with Marvel Universe, please tell me where the exclusive rights are if not in sections 4?

So far I have been told section 1 does not count. Now you are saying section 4 does not count.

There are many paragraphs in section 4. Some of them specifically say they apply "The Marvel Action Universe ". Those would only apply to a "Marvel Action Universe" which as of this point do not exist.

 

[71jason]

Does anyone have actual photos (or preferably video) of these characters at Idlewild or Kings Island?

 

[seascape]

Yes, but I don't need a law degree to know there is no such thing as a Humpty Dumpty principle that is inherent in every contract. Definitions don't magically change because somebody wants them to.

I give up. You think the word limited means exclusive. Universal has limited rights not exclusive. The limitations are set in the contract. Marvel retained certain rights but you refuse to believe that. Contracts are written by both sides to protect both sides. Let the lawyers decide but I seriously doubt Universal will do anything because their rights have not been violated. Have Universal pursue this or stop saying the rights are exclusive in every case.

 

[lebeau]

Does anyone have actual photos (or preferably video) of these characters at Idlewild or Kings Island?

At KI, no. Because it hasn't happened yet.

At Idlewild, yes. I Googled some. Here's a write-up.

Here's a pic from the write-up. Cap and Thor are in the article as well.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I give up. You think the word limited means exclusive. Universal has limited rights not exclusive. The limitations are set in the contract. Marvel retained certain rights but you refuse to believe that. Contracts are written by both sides to protect both sides. Let the lawyers decide but I seriously doubt Universal will do anything because their rights have not been violated. Have Universal pursue this or stop saying the rights are exclusive in every case.

I am denying that Marvel retained some rights. I am denying your insistence on arbitrarily changing what was retained.

 

[lazyboy97o]

At KI, no. Because it hasn't happened yet.

At Idlewild, yes. I Googled some. Here's a write-up.

Here's a pic from the write-up. Cap and Thor are in the article as well.

Those really don't look like authorized meet and greet costumes, but Radio Disney being there definitely makes things very interesting.

 

[lebeau]

Those really don't look like authorized meet and greet costumes, but Radio Disney being there definitely makes things very interesting.

The Cap and Thor looked better IMO. I didn't notice Radio Disney, but that is an interesting wrinkle.

This line from the write up was funny:

"Since we are so used to the characters at Disney, I must say I didn’t have very high expectations for the character meet & greets at a smaller park like Idlewild. But the characters spent time interacting with the kids and really paying attention to them."

 

[lazyboy97o]

The Cap and Thor looked better IMO. I didn't notice Radio Disney, but that is an interesting wrinkle.

This line from the write up was funny:

"Since we are so used to the characters at Disney, I must say I didn’t have very high expectations for the character meet & greets at a smaller park like Idlewild. But the characters spent time interacting with the kids and really paying attention to them."

Not only was Radio Disney there, they were handing out Spider-Man comics.

And for those who think this must then have all the proper stamps of approval, it wouldn't be the first time Disney has messed up. They did sell unauthorized Luxo lamps.

 

[lebeau]

Not only was Radio Disney there, they were handing out Spider-Man comics.

And for those who think this must then have all the proper stamps of approval, it wouldn't be the first time Disney has messed up. They did sell unauthorized Luxo lamps.

I will be interested to see if that is what KI gets. Maybe Disney is testing the waters for a longer engagement?

 

[seascape]

I am denying that Marvel retained some rights. I am denying your insistence on arbitrarily changing what was retained.

Where in any of my posts was I arbitrarily changing what was retained. I think you are the one who is arbitrary and misunderstanding what is written in the contract. Besides based on what has been added to this thread it is clear that Disney is letting other theme parks use the charachters and if it were a violation like the monorail issue was Universal would have taken action. Since they didn't then you have to know there was no violation. There are now two theme parks involved and if you read the contract it defines what a theme park is the these 2 parks clearly are theme parks.

 

[CDavid]

At KI, no. Because it hasn't happened yet.

At Idlewild, yes. I Googled some. Here's a write-up.

Here's a pic from the write-up. Cap and Thor are in the article as well.

Those really don't look like authorized meet and greet costumes, but Radio Disney being there definitely makes things very interesting.

What I find most interesting is the trip report was from two years ago, and again this year they are not only using the Marvel name, but characters clearly utilized by Universal.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I will be interested to see if that is what KI gets. Maybe Disney is testing the waters for a longer engagement?

Radio Disney shows up a lot of places, and it would be very bizarre for them to be acting on orders from Parks & Resorts. Disney is just not that coordinated.

Where in any of my posts was I arbitrarily changing what was retained. I think you are the one who is arbitrary and misunderstanding what is written in the contract. Besides based on what has been added to this thread it is clear that Disney is letting other theme parks use the charachters and if it were a violation like the monorail issue was Universal would have taken action. Since they didn't then you have to know there was no violation. There are now two theme parks involved and if you read the contract it defines what a theme park is the these 2 parks clearly are theme parks.

You repeatedly stretched the definition of The Marvel Action Universe. Most recently would be your claim that the monorail's featuring advertisements for The Avengers and Iron Man 3 could not enter EPCOT Center because The Marvel Action Universe could not be in or marketed with Disney's themed entertainment offerings.

Violations not being publicly stopped is not proof of authorized use.

 

[lebeau]

What I find most interesting is the trip report was from two years ago, and again this year they are not only using the Marvel name, but characters clearly utilized by Universal.

They have apparently hosted these characters for quite a few years now. Princesses as well, although that is a different animal. But I was surprised how close the Idlewild princesses were to Disney in appearance.