Marvel's Next Step

[Fractal514]

I love the Spider-man ride, I hate the rest of Marvel Island. I don't want giant cardboard cut outs of ANY character. I think that Disney could (and when I say could, I don't mean next year, I mean in the future, so just BACK OFF with all that legal crap, we all realize there are limitations right now, we just hope that those limitations will fade sooner rather than later) where was I... oh yeah, Disney COULD do something AMAZING. It could also turn out crap. See Tiki Room Under New Management or Stich's Great Escape. Honestly, to the haters... Which would you want more, a Fantastically well themed Stark Industries exhibit, or the Current Imagination Pavillion? A Danger Room Simulator with the X-Men, or Stitch's Great Escape?

 

[Krack]

Honestly, to the haters... Which would you want more, a Fantastically well themed Stark Industries exhibit, or the Current Imagination Pavillion? A Danger Room Simulator with the X-Men, or Stitch's Great Escape?

I'm not sure I'd consider myself a "hater" (as I'd welcome Marvel into DHS or DCA with open arms), but I don't want property anywhere near Epcot, MK or DL.

 

[Disneyfan1981]

I appreciate the analysis and thought you put into this, but it's wrong. If Disney tried to use "film" characters that are modeled after comic characters that Universal has the exclusive rights to use in theme parks in Florida - Universal would sue them so fast Mickey's head would spin like a top; and they would win big. It would be a major violation of the contract and it would be a violation made in bad faith.

Obviously you missed the point of my post saying that it is highly unlikely and that for WDW that Disney would look for Marvel Studio film characters not used at Universal to integrate Marvel into WDW while elsewhere it'd be open game. Now I don't propose that I know it all about the Marvel/Universal agreement but there is a difference in terms of licensing between comic and film in every single licensee that Marvel has, I'm just wondering how exclusive the Uni license agreement actually is, but that was a side question to the point of that post.

Further, you see Spider-man walking around IOA all the time. All you have to do is search for it on YouTube.

The comic or the film version. If it's the film then I apologize for my misassumption. If it is only the comic styled version then again you missed the point of my post in saying that they maybe don't use film versions because they can't.

 

[Krack]

Obviously you missed the point of my post saying that it is highly unlikely and that for WDW that Disney would look for Marvel Studio film characters not used at Universal to integrate Marvel into WDW while elsewhere it'd be open game. Now I don't propose that I know it all about the Marvel/Universal agreement but there is a difference in terms of licensing between comic and film in every single licensee that Marvel has, I'm just wondering how exclusive the Uni license agreement actually is, but that was a side question to the point of that post.

I've read the contract several times and am an attorney. I assure you there is no way that Disney can make your argument in court and win. When Marvel grants a license to a company (for example, Sony with Spider-man) to create films based on a character, the intellectual property specifically created by Sony in the films (any changes to Spider-man that deviate from the original Marvel-owned intellectual property) is still built upon the foundation of the original Marvel-owned Spider-man. It does not create a new character that Marvel owns no rights to. The legal term is that "Movie Spider-Man" is a derivative work of comics based Spider-Man.

And Marvel has already granted to Universal an exclusive right to utilize Marvel's characters in theme parks east of the Mississippi (amongst other areas). Therefore, Disney cannot use "Movie Spider-man" (or Captain America, Wolverine, Iron Man, Thor, the Fantastic Four, etc) without the right to utilize the intellectual property that "Movie Spider-man" is derived from. And Disney/Marvel no longer has those rights because they have been licensed exclusively to Universal.

The comic or the film version. If it's the film then I apologize for my misassumption. If it is only the comic styled version then again you missed the point of my post in saying that they maybe don't use film versions because they can't.

You tell me (rhetorical question) ...

 

[Disneyfan1981]

Interesting that the contract is that iron clad for Uni but not for other licensees and to answer your second question even though it was rhetorical, the answer is no. The comic version to which the picture you posted is of is a comic styled Spidey, whereas the film version has brick patterning on the blue portion, raised webs of black in Spider-Man 1 but silver/grey in the next two and octagon patterning on the red portions as well as differences in the actual web patterning and spider design but since they own the character in all forms for theme parks then its a moot point. Nerdy I know but hey how often do you get to flex nerd muscle? Good to know though that it's another Marvel contract that is loophole free, I wonder if Disney is surprised how securely Marvel leased themselves out....

 

[lazyboy97o]

For those who do not want to read through the contract, here [again] is the specific portion about what Universal has exclusive rights to:

From the contract at VI, 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.

Interesting that the contract is that iron clad for Uni but not for other licensees and to answer your second question even though it was rhetorical, the answer is no. The comic version to which the picture you posted is of is a comic styled Spidey, whereas the film version has brick patterning on the blue portion, raised webs of black in Spider-Man 1 but silver/grey in the next two and octagon patterning on the red portions as well as differences in the actual web patterning and spider design but since they own the character in all forms for theme parks then its a moot point. Nerdy I know but hey how often do you get to flex nerd muscle? Good to know though that it's another Marvel contract that is loophole free, I wonder if Disney is surprised how securely Marvel leased themselves out....

This is exactly why I think it would be interesting if Disney and Universal went to court over Marvel.

Even then, Marvel would not be able to sell Sony the theme park rights because they were already sold to Universal. Though if it were somehow the case, it would probably be a likely route. Sony wants to hold on to Spider-Man and they have no theme park interests, so selling back theme park rights would have been a means of trying to placate Disney.

 

[comics101]

I've been lurking for almost a year but decided to sign up because reading this thread made me so happy. I thought I was the only person who thinks Superhero Island is absolutely horrible. The walk-around characters are painfully bad, the attractions are horribly themed and the whole land looks like it jumped out of a terrible 90's comic book. I wish they would demolish the whole thing then acquire the DC rights from six flags (who does worse than Universal with Marvel) and build something Potter-level awesome with those characters. The only good thing about that area is the Spiderman ride which seems to be so good it blinds people to the unbelievable horror that is the rest of the land.

Thank you! If Marvel Superhero Island (even the name sucks) had been built in a Disney park, people on these boards would be so furious with Disney you could fry an egg on their head. They'd be screaming of how the land reaked of a cheap, carnie-like atmosphere, and how Disney should do so much better. Yet the same fans who'd be fuming if Disney built the land sing praises to Universal, and why? Because of Spiderman? Maybe.

IMO Disney should be furious that their characters are being represented the way they are at IOA, especially now that Uni has showed us what they are capable of with Potter. I understand Disney wouldn't be able to make any changes or do anything, but so what? If I were Disney I'd still put pressure on Universal simply because we now know Universal is better than what they've built, and perhaps a little bit of pressure would either get Uni to make a couple of improvments, or get them to give up the rights...ahahahahahahahahaha yeeeeeah, ignore that last comment...

Of course Uni could come right back and say, "At least we didn't build Toy Story Playland..."

 

[Disneyfan1981]

Sony wants to hold on to Spider-Man and they have no theme park interests, so selling back theme park rights would have been a means of trying to placate Disney.

Nah. The Uni contract I may not know but the Marvel/Sony/Fox deal I do. They own the media rights in perpetuity. They even have a four-walling stipulation meaning they could sit on the character rights do nothing with them for years, make a low budget film and slap it in a theater to meet the requirements. Sony has absolutely nothing to fear from Disney neither does Fox. As long as they want the characters they'll own them. The Hulk and Punisher for example were sold back to Disney/Marvel in terms of film but I don't see Fox or Sony selling back their interests.

Disney has been trying to find a way to end the Fox and Sony deals since they bought Marvel and it's been well documented that they've got nothing. Universal most likely does not have the rights to use the film likenesses or else they would have since it's the most recognizable for the characters right now especially with non comic, general fans and the suits could be easily replicated to look better than what they have now but as you posted and the poster before you Marvel doesn't have a leg to stand on East of the Mississippi with those characters film or not anyway. Should be interesting though for overseas or in Disneyland if they decide to use film versions to try and separate themselves from Uni when they can...

 

[cheezbat]

I like Marvel Superhero Island for WHAT IT WAS. Remember, they were planning this land back probably in 1996 or so...and who had done anything with comic heroes outside of Six Flags in parks? Nobody. The ideas for the land worked for what the park was meant to be. A thrill park. While Im not a big fan of the huge cutouts of the characters, I get it. You're stepping into a comic book. And Hulk was one of the greatest coasters anywhere when it first opened. Still a good one now...but not a chart topper in my world. Spiderman...held the title for most advanced ride for years...and has held so much acclaim for over a decade, only to be topped by it's sister ride in the back of the same park. Universal did what it set out to do with Marvel well. Now I hope to someday see Disney's spin on Marvel in their theme parks on this side of the Mississippi soon, and hopefully in a different manner...and in the process, I would like to see Universal work something out with Warner Bros to bring DC to that Island...or something else fresh that could still utilize the Spidey system and keep the Hulk as well. As for Doom, that tower can get dozed whenever. :lol: I would prefer to see another dark ride find it's way back in it's place.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

in the process, I would like to see Universal work something out with Warner Bros to bring DC to that Island

I'll tell you what...I would happily be proven wrong on everything I've said about Uni having Marvel's properties tied up if the tradeoff was getting Six Flags to release the DC characters to replace Marvel Island.

A Metropolis-to-Gotham City walkthrough area (if handled seriously) would arouse every latent teenage fanboy wet dream currently slumbering in my subconscious. I've always preferred Superman and Batman to Spidey and Wolverine.

Six Flags over Georgia has Supes and Bats "areas" now, and they're just a joke...standard boring coasters, although the Batman queue is kind of cool. A real theme park could do so much more with the properties, though.

 

[Fractal514]

Just out of curiosity. Are the folks, on both sides of this debate, especially the ones who keep referring the contract, Copyright Lawyers, or even just Lawyers of any kind?

I mean, I have no doubt what you're saying make sense and is logical, but everyone is talking with such authority and certainty, it makes me think they all must have some kind of either legal background of contact with the Disney legal team.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Just out of curiosity. Are the folks, on both sides of this debate, especially the ones who keep referring the contract, Copyright Lawyers, or even just Lawyers of any kind?

I mean, I have no doubt what you're saying make sense and is logical, but everyone is talking with such authority and certainty, it makes me think they all must have some kind of either legal background of contact with the Disney legal team.

Why don't you just take a few minutes and read it for yourself? Links to it have been posted multiple times in this thread alone. It's not a hard read and Krack just said he is a lawyer.

 

[Disday]

It's been reported from different sources that Disney is at least considering buying out the Universal contract. Screamscape has claimed that they took it before the board. If they're willing to pay $4 billion for Marvel and then another $150 million for the distribution rights to The Avengers and Iron Man 3, I don't think they would hesitate much on buying out the Universal contract.

 

[Fractal514]

Why don't you just take a few minutes and read it for yourself? Links to it have been posted multiple times in this thread alone. It's not a hard read and Krack just said he is a lawyer.

I have read it. I didn't see that Krack had said that. That doesn't change my question though. I know enough about contract law and copyright law to know that it is a complicated and tricky thing. I'm not saying that anyone is wrong, just that I can't say with certainty what anything is or isn't.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Why do you need definitive answers, especially as a message board isnt a court, so assuming that this site has briefs who work in copyright, other than giving an opinion their comments would mean precisely hee haw.

 

[Fractal514]

Why do you need definitive answers, especially as a message board isnt a court, so assuming that this site has briefs who work in copyright, other than giving an opinion their comments would mean precisely hee haw.

Ok, look, I know you think I'm an idiot, but I'm not. I know that Marvel in the parks isn't going to happen any time soon. I'm not asking for a definite, I am asking why so many other folks seem to think they KNOW the definite. That's all.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

I'm no lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I've tried to base all my posts on the clear wording of the contract. I'll grant that loopholes might exist (I actually pointed one out myself earlier on how Disney could work around marketing prohibitions for a Marvel WDW attraction by purchasing national airtime)...but in general it makes more sense to me to talk about what we can gather from what's written down in black and white than to throw it all away as a basis for discussion because some as yet undiscovered work-around might emerge.

Just to be clear, I recognize things can change...but that's really true for anything. We'll probably have a presidential election in 2012...unless a military coup wipes out our constitutional system of law and results in a dictatorial junta being installed. I think most people would agree that outside possibility shouldn't prevent us from discussing the probability of an election as if it were a given.

That's how I see these discussions. We know what the contract says. We know what the current situation is, and that seems like a solid enough basis to project what will probably be the case in the near future. But (as in anything) there's always a chance we could be wrong. I just haven't seen a concrete basis for thinking we might be yet.

 

[Fractal514]

Ya know, I think I'm being a bit defensive. It seems like there are two types of Marvel Naysayers (I use the term not in a derogatory way) on these boards. The Legal Naysayers and The Purist Naysayers. I've been responding to everyone as if they are one and the same. I apologize.

To the legal Naysayers, I get it, I really do, I just think that if Disney wanted to find a way to make it work, they could, maybe not for ten years, but eventually.

To the purist Naysayers, I don't get it, there are so many examples of outside properties being brought in and working brilliantly, and of Disney properties being misused and flat out stinking in the park. Shouldn't we assume that IF something is done, it will be done well? Or at least debate how they SHOULD do it?

Just my thoughts...

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

I have read it. I didn't see that Krack had said that. That doesn't change my question though. I know enough about contract law and copyright law to know that it is a complicated and tricky thing. I'm not saying that anyone is wrong, just that I can't say with certainty what anything is or isn't.

What I may or may not think should not and doesn't matter one bit to any user of this site. But my point is that you seem a little too intense on finding responses that ultimately have no baring to anything in the real world. Its folk bumping their gums and keys, no more no less and should be treated as such.

Your WDW experience will be so much more enjoyable if you remember most folk talk ________.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Ya know, I think I'm being a bit defensive. It seems like there are two types of Marvel Naysayers (I use the term not in a derogatory way) on these boards. The Legal Naysayers and The Purist Naysayers. I've been responding to everyone as if they are one and the same. I apologize.

To the legal Naysayers, I get it, I really do, I just think that if Disney wanted to find a way to make it work, they could, maybe not for ten years, but eventually.

To the purist Naysayers, I don't get it, there are so many examples of outside properties being brought in and working brilliantly, and of Disney properties being misused and flat out stinking in the park. Shouldn't we assume that IF something is done, it will be done well? Or at least debate how they SHOULD do it?

Just my thoughts...

What about the third group that dont give a toss and have no real concept of what the Marvel brand is, especially the comic book unbasterdised version.
Surely someone who believes Disney would do such a great job with Marvel should have enough belief that they could come up with something original in that time frame, letting them improve organically while keeping shareholders happy with income from the success of a competitor.