lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
We do not know that. The contract relating to The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man at Universal Studios Japan may well have some interesting provisions.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Marvel's Next Step
- Thread starter hemloc
- Start date
Skip
Well-Known Member
If the contract makes any character and its family members exclusive as long as it appears somewhere on the Island, then Universal is all set - the "meteor impact" site of the island has a mural with virtually every major (and many minor) Marvel characters in existence.
I'm interested about the provisions of new attractions/additions - clearly Universal is allowed to upgrade attractions beyond their original scope (see the HD Spider-Man), but what of completely new attractions? Can Disney legally stop them from doing so?
Either way, Marvel's clearly here for another 10 years minimum with this Spider-Man upgrade. No Florida Marvel for quite some time.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
That is what I am curious about. The contract makes specific mention of proper portrayal of a character and needing Marvel's approval. I just have a hard time thinking Disney could withhold approval for the purpose of prevent Universal from using characters. Disney would probably try to argue that Universal Creative was simply not proposing anything good, but what is the legal measure of a good theme park attraction? There is a part of me that would be really fascinated if this whole issue did blow up and go to court to see the arguments that would be present and how they be received in court.
Would that not be an "incidental" use?
Krack, since you are a lawyer, what do you think of Disney trying to argue that a character is no longer part of a present family? I would think the issue over corn syrup in Coca-Cola would be a good precedent for Disney to try such a move. The move to corn syrup enraged bottlers because Asa Chandler practically gave away the bottling rights in a perpetual contract that included The Coca-Cola Company providing the bottlers with sugar at a set price. As sugar prices rose and inflation picked up, the price was simply unsustainable, but every price increase was a gentleman's agreement between The Coca-Cola Company and the bottlers. Finally The Coca-Cola Company decided to sidestep the issue by switching to corn syrup. The Coca-Cola Company successfully argued that since they owned the formula they could change it as they pleased, regardless of provisions regarding sugar in the original contract. (This is why corn syrup is only used in the US and Canada and not globally.)
It really boils down to whether or not a conscious decision was made by the artist to include whatever intellectual property happens to be at issue. In other words, if you take a photograph of the Statue of Liberty and in the background off to the side is someone wearing a Mickey Mouse t-shirt, the photographer can make a legitimate argument that while the style of MM shirt is protected by copyright, his use of the protected material was incidental to the photograph he took.
Applying it to the murals at IOA, I think they could make an argument that any character included was specifically included (the artist made the decision to include the character) and not incidental.
My guess is that the "family" clause is such a hazy one (loosely defined, little precedent) that neither side would feel secure using that as their chief argument in court. Of course, that's pure conjecture. Litigation over that issue would most likely devolve into determinations on how many times a particular character appeared in a particular comic book title, which titles comprise a "series" (or family) of titles, what title the character first appeared in, whether or not the character had its own title (and for how long), etc. It would be a real mess.
That said, I don't think it has much of a practical application to the IOA issue, solely because every Marvel "family" is represented somewhere on the island in artwork. Before the two sides could get in an argument over which "family" a particular character belongs to, Disney would have to determine that one of the two families isn't even represent at IOA (I can't think of any). I suppose it really applies more to the villains than anything else, but even the villains all seem to be represented somewhere.
Skip
Well-Known Member
X-Men is out due to Storm Force Accelatron.
The Incredible Hulk is out due to the roller coaster.
Fantastic Four is out due to Doctor Doom's Fearfall and Cafe 4.
Spider-Man is out due to his flagship ride.
The Avengers are out due to the Captain America Diner, among other things.
Many extraneous villains are out due to the Kingpin Arcade. Kingpin might mean the exclusion of Daredevil as well.
The only claim Disney might have is Ghostrider - but I think he's actually in the mural, so never mind that...
Mouse Detective
Well-Known Member
This is much ado about nothing. Disney is NOT going to litigate a loser. IOA has the theme park rights in Florida to the major Marvel characters and that's that. Any theme park use by Disney will take place elsewhere, if at all.
roadtripper
Member
http://www.deadline.com/2009/09/universal-vs-disney-over-marvel-characters/
Found this among several other articles. This one seems to sum it up best.
Marvel retains the rights to Marvel characters even after the deal with Universal. They did make a deal with Uni giving them the right to use Marvel characters in any way they want as long as they check with Marvel to approve the use. Now that Disney owns Marvel I would assume that Disney can saty yes or no to future uses. There is no danger of Uni losing their current rides or currently used characters, but it does say that the characters will have to be used in the same way or similar way to how they are currently being used. I take that to mean that Uni can't go make a Hulk based attraction other than a roller coaster. Sounds like the paintings of the characters will have to stay paintings, etc., unless Disney allows them to be used by Uni in other ways.
That's what I get out of this and the original contract. Sounds like Uni can't do whatever they want or they may be in violation of the contract. It does sound like Disney still will not be able to use Marvel characters East of the Mississippi.
Found this among several other articles. This one seems to sum it up best.
Marvel retains the rights to Marvel characters even after the deal with Universal. They did make a deal with Uni giving them the right to use Marvel characters in any way they want as long as they check with Marvel to approve the use. Now that Disney owns Marvel I would assume that Disney can saty yes or no to future uses. There is no danger of Uni losing their current rides or currently used characters, but it does say that the characters will have to be used in the same way or similar way to how they are currently being used. I take that to mean that Uni can't go make a Hulk based attraction other than a roller coaster. Sounds like the paintings of the characters will have to stay paintings, etc., unless Disney allows them to be used by Uni in other ways.
That's what I get out of this and the original contract. Sounds like Uni can't do whatever they want or they may be in violation of the contract. It does sound like Disney still will not be able to use Marvel characters East of the Mississippi.
sublimesting
Well-Known Member
I'd like to see this argued in court.
Disney lawyer: "Judge, Walt Disney World is not east of the Missisippis, sir. No, sir! Why I do declare that it is so far west it only appears east."
BAM! Case closed. Bring on the HS Spiderman ride!!!!
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
That is why I thought of the issue with Coca-Cola. The bottlers had almost 100 years of Coca-Cola being made with sugar and the continued use of sugar outside the area affected by their contract, but it was upheld that on their decision, regardless of the past and current uses elsehwere, The Coca-Cola Company could remove sugar. I was thinking Disney could try to argue that a character is simply no longer part of a family and past presentations no longer matter.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
Even if that were the case, I've read from people here that literally every character more than a few dozen fanboys would recognize is in the mural. (I regret that I didn't take a little time to look for myself when I was there a few months ago.)
Assuming that's true, and assuming a spot in the mural is enough to lock down rights to a character, then the "who currently belongs to which team/family/etc." line of thought doesn't really mean much, since it would only potentially free up characters so obscure that it wouldn't be worth Disney's time to argue.
Skip
Well-Known Member
Even if not, as I mentioned above, all of the core franchises are taken.
X-Men is out due to the Storm Force Accelatron (Storm, Professor X, Cyclops, Wolverine, Phoenix, Gambit, Rogue, Beast, Iceman, Magneto, many more)
Spider-Man is out due to the flagship ride (Spidey, all of the villains, Black Cat, JJJ, etc.)
Fantastic Four is out due to Doctor Doom's Fear Fall (Torch, Invisible Women, Mr. Fantastic, Thing, Doom, Galactus, Silver Surfer, etc.)
Hulk is out due to the coaster (Hulk/Banner, Rhino, Abomination, She-Hulk, etc.)
Avengers are out due to the Captain America Diner (Captain America, Ironman, Wasp, Giant/Ant Man, Thor, Hawkeye, etc.)
Daredevil is out due to the Kingpin Arcade (Daredevil, Kingpin, Elektra)
The only other franchises even worth mentioning are Ghostrider (who does appear in the mural, but nowhere else) and Deadpool (not sure if he appears anywhere - but he might fall under either X-Men or Spider-Man as a villain).
So in other words, Disney gets nothing of note, mural or not.
Mouse Detective
Well-Known Member
Your story would only fit here if someone has bought-out Coca Cola. They would have been required to continue to use sugar from the source that the original Coca Cola Company had contracted to. But that contract would not have precluded the original Coca Cola Company from switching to high fructose corn syrup (which they did) or from a company that bought them from doing the same later. The contract only had to do with cane sugar, not substituting it with something else.
Captain Neo
Well-Known Member
According to leemac on laughing place.com universal wanted to build an iron man ride and Disney blocked it.
flavious27
Well-Known Member
Time Warner was not going to sell that brand.
lebeau
Well-Known Member
I actually find that hard to believe. It would have had to have been a very recent development given that Disney purchased Marvel in Aug of 2009.
I just don't see Uni putting together an Iron Man ride while they were rolling out HP and planning the upcoming HP expansion.
Any other details on this? Can anyone corroborate?
flavious27
Well-Known Member
Uni is not owned or part of merlin
You want to know why disney would disrupt uni's aprk development?
Dude, you just gave me goosebumps.
Can anyone else say, PERFECT?! Holy crap! A showcase of Tony Starks inventions, with an attraction, all inside that building?! (Or another) but in EPCOT?! YES! It's amazing. Wow. I'm winded now.:lol::sohappy:
Please not at epcot, leave it for a gate that it would fit better in.
Screamscape has said recently that Iger has taken a plan to buy out Universal's Marvel contract before the board. Jim Hill has said in a podcast that there are people working behind the scenes with Universal trying to see what it would take for Disney to get the Marvel rights.
It doesn't surprise me that disney's ceo would look into what was needed to do this, though I don't think anything would happen.
lebeau
Well-Known Member
Doesn't seem like something Disney would want to do considering the lawsuit and bad press that would surely follow.
Agreed.
flavious27
Well-Known Member
There wouldn't be a lawsuit, just the threat of one. I doubt that people would really side with uni in a battle against disney.