More Marvel at Disney World? Maybe?

[fosse76]

Lazyboy, there is no reason to get mad at me just because I disagree with you. I have read through the 'statement' you had linked and the last link shows me nothing. Do you work for Universal? I'm just curious. Anyway, if the linked 'contract' is the final contract, it wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

Yes, it would. There may be redacted information in the contract that fall under the scope of trade secrets, but that IS the actual contract, and it would most certainly hold up. Your inability to comprehend the contract doesn't make invalid.

I have no doubt there is a final contract, and that Disney is abiding by it, but that isn't it. The actual contract has not been made public.

Wrong.

That's why the media go by what Universal tells them. I'm not an expert at this kind of law, but it does seem similar to copyright law.

Contract law and copyright law are two totally separate types of laws, and aren't even close to being similar.

I had a book copyrighted and can sue anyone who uses the name or ideas.

Nope. You can't. Titles aren't copyrightable, so you can't sue anyone for using the same title. They can be tradmarked, however. Also, the same ideas can be incorporated by another author. There are several "tests" that are performed on works to verify the veracity of a copyright infringement claim, and the two you've listed aren't any of them.

Yet, even copyright laws have a 50 year limitation.

Wrong again. In fact, not even close! Individual copyright lasts the entire lifetime of the author plus an additional 70 years. A work-for-hire, where you create a copyrighted work for someone else (such as a corporation), lasts for 95 years from the date it is published, or a max of 120 years from when it is created.

And, I had to be specific about everything in order to receive the copyright.

Wrong again. Copyright is automatic from the moment it is created. Registration is optional, but is important in that it create a framework and timeline of the creation of the work. It does not guarantee protection against infringement claims, nor does it necessarily prove the copyright is valid.

If people don't believe me about the contract, that's cool. I'm not here to offend people, like I said earlier, I'm just stating my point.

Many people here have read the contract. Your points are nonsense. And it is illegal to file a false report with the S.E.C. So if that isn't the actual contract, then Universal is in serious legal trouble.

 

[fosse76]

Now, Iam no lawyer, but reading that SEC listing I could see a creative lawyer taking it Universal and getting Marvel characters on Disney World property.

Other than specific advertising for movies, there is no way around it. Disney cannot use Marvel characters (East of the Mississippi) that are in use at Universal. Period. There is nothing in the contract that would even lead to that kind of interpretation.

Funny, reading that, Universal if forced to seek litigation to defend Marvel properties east of the Mississippi if people try to use said properties. If some small time carnival popped up with Marvel characters in New York for example, Universal, not Disney has to go into litigation.

Yes and No. Universal can certainly file suit aginst any entity using Marvel porperties east of the Mississippi. But Disney would also seek litigation for unauthorized use of their intellectual property. Failure to do so is a step that could result in loss of enforcement protection of their copyright. It also opens them up to litigation from Universal, as failure to protect their copyright infringes on the contract terms between Marvel and Universal.

Also worth noting, the agreement is governed in New York.

How and why is that worth noting? New York is east of the Mississippi.

The fanboi's can try to claim what they want, but I still believe we will see Marvel characters at Disney World sooner than later.

Unless Universal breaches the contract and loses the rights, the only way Marvel will appear at WDW is as movie posters and merchandise.

 

[devoy1701]

well that was fun. Sometimes it's nice to have the Lawyer in the room!

 

[Skip]

Jimmy Thick-Notice how things have to be constantly considered running at the higest class of industry standards....?

They are considered industry standards. Islands is one of the top theme parks in the US, with an industry leading attraction that even Disney can't top. Maintenance is debatably better than Disney. They JUST upgraded Spider-Man and character costumes.

You guys grasp at some hilarious straws. Fosse76, thanks for the great point by point rebuke.

 

[Disday]

I talked to someone today about this that knows a lot more about contact law than I do. They didn't realize that Disney now owns Marvel. They said that since Universal is licensing the characters from Disney, that there would have to be an expiration/renewal date as part of the contract. I'm talking about the actual contract that isn't available to the public. They said that the only way Universal could have the Marvel characters in perpetuity is if they bought the company from Disney.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Unless Universal breaches the contract and loses the rights, the only way Marvel will appear at WDW is as movie posters and merchandise.

OH. THANK. GOD.


(although the fact that there's Spiderman merch at the parks still bums me out...)

 

[Bob Saget]

They said that the only way Universal could have the Marvel characters in perpetuity is if they bought the company from Disney.

Nice.
Disney has the $$$, the power, and magic to make the unexpected happen. The writing is on the wall. Iger has publicly announced he wants to get more Marvel involvement inside the park grounds. The DisneyParks official YouTube video surrounding the new Avengers Monorail describes it as going *through* MK park. Disney is showing the muscle, pushing the right buttons, and ultimately, will make this happen.

Where there's a Mouse...there's a way!

 

[lazyboy97o]

I talked to someone today about this that knows a lot more about contact law than I do. They didn't realize that Disney now owns Marvel. They said that since Universal is licensing the characters from Disney, that there would have to be an expiration/renewal date as part of the contract. I'm talking about the actual contract that isn't available to the public. They said that the only way Universal could have the Marvel characters in perpetuity is if they bought the company from Disney.

Then your friend should call The Coca-Cola Company, because they spent years and lots of money fighting with bottlers who have a perpetual contract that supposedly cannot exist. Not to mention that the SEC would probably not be too happy to hear that Universal has been filing a fake for years. :brick:

 

[Skip]

I talked to someone today about this that knows a lot more about contact law than I do. They didn't realize that Disney now owns Marvel. They said that since Universal is licensing the characters from Disney, that there would have to be an expiration/renewal date as part of the contract. I'm talking about the actual contract that isn't available to the public. They said that the only way Universal could have the Marvel characters in perpetuity is if they bought the company from Disney.

The actual contract is available. You've seen it. We've all seen it. There doesn't HAVE to be an expiration/renewal - Uni just has to keep the Marvel experiences open and in good condition. It's theirs as long as they do that. It's simply hilarious that you continue to perpetuate this fantasy that there's some secret contract.

Nice.
Disney has the $$$, the power, and magic to make the unexpected happen. The writing is on the wall. Iger has publicly announced he wants to get more Marvel involvement inside the park grounds. The DisneyParks official YouTube video surrounding the new Avengers Monorail describes it as going *through* MK park. Disney is showing the muscle, pushing the right buttons, and ultimately, will make this happen.

Where there's a Mouse...there's a way!

Iger has also gone on record to recognize the preexisting Uni-Marvel agreement and has noted that they have to abide by it. He was referring to the other resorts Marvel can (and probably will) be integrated into - Paris, Shanghaei, maybe even Disneyland CA. But no WDW for the foreseeable future.

Then your friend should call The Coca-Cola Company, because they spent years and lots of money fighting with bottlers who have a perpetual contract that supposedly cannot exist. Not to mention that the SEC would probably not be too happy to hear that Universal has been filing a fake for years. :brick:

Exactly, thank you. Disday, your friend should read the contract and then comment - he's probably making the assumption based on your fantasy secret contract that you've told him about.

 

[Disday]

Oh, you kids are fun. First of all, Fosse 76, I did have my book and title (the complete work) copyrighted. Yes, it does have a 50 year limitation. So, you know me now, you know what I did and didn't do? - You must be some psychic kid. Secondly Skip, I know you're a Universal fanboy (I get that) but the facts are the facts. I hope that Disney can work something out with Universal, so they can keep your favorite attractions. I like the Spider-Man ride too. Good night kids.

 

[Skip]

Oh, you kids are fun. First of all, Fosse 76, I did have my book and title (the complete work) copyrighted. Yes, it does have a 50 year limitation. So, you know me now, you know what I did and didn't do? - You must be some psychic kid. Secondly Skip, I know you're a Universal fanboy (I get that) but the facts are the facts. I hope that Disney can work something out with Universal, so they can keep your favorite attractions. I like the Spider-Man ride too. Good night kids.

Resorting to ad hominem now, are we? Attempting to condescend us isn't going to work, I'm afraid - it doesn't change the fact that you are simply not correct.

I'm actually not a Universal fanboy, in case you would like to know. I am a fan of both Disney parks and Universal parks - I absolutely love Disneyland California (even now), Disneyland Park is actually my favorite theme park along with Islands of Adventure. The Haunted Mansion is still my favorite ride of all time. I was a WDW annual passholder for many years. That said, I am not pleased with the way TDO has run WDW in the past decade or so, and have stopped giving WDW my money as a result. I didn't renew my annual passes when they expired, and I don't plan to get new ones anytime soon. (I'd be happy to visit DLR, though!) I didn't visit a Universal theme park until 2004 and enjoyed them immensely. When I moved to Florida I invested in annual passes, just like I did for Disney. Unlike Disney, Universal started innovating. They're still going strong with new stuff on the way. I continue giving them my money as a result. I don't hate WDW - I'm just supporting the team that is supporting me, the consumer. If WDW steps up its game and puts $$ back into the parks, rehabilitating falling apart or otherwise ancient attractions (Splash Mountain, Soarin, Peter Pan's Flight, Space Mountain, Ellen's Energy Adventure, Figment, Everest, Dinosaur, the list goes on and on) and adding new, meaningful experiences, then I will start visiting again. NextGen doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

If you'd like to take the time to go through my posting history (which I doubt you do, since you won't take the time to actually read the contract we're all discussing), you'll see I'm actually fair in how I treat Universal. I hold them to the same standards I hold for Disney. In fact, just the other day I commented how several of Uni's attraction are in shoddy shape and need some heavy refurbs. I was a huge critic of the decision to tear down Jaws. I'm very fair in not just slathering Universal in praise. When I do, they earn it. (See - Spider-Man 2.0, Wizarding World, Simpsons, Disaster, etc.)

But my opinions of either resort are not relevant here, and not the reason I am debating. We are discussing the FACTS of a contract - there is no bias here, the contract very clearly states that Universal has perpetuity with the Marvel characters in theme parks east of the Mississippi. If the situation were flipped, and Universal swapped positions, my position would be no different. The contract is very clear. You say "facts are facts" yet you contribute only baseless, misleading, and incorrect speculation from you and your "friend" that flies directly in the face of the very real contract we've been poring over. It'd be laughable if it weren't so frustrating that you simply cannot (or refuse to) understand what a legal document states.

Anyway, mind linking this book of yours? I wouldn't mind having a look at it.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Pesky thing facts are... Too bad copyright law information is so easy to look up... All this information is directly from the U.S. Copyright Office Website (but I guess they must be lying along with the SEC):

As per the copyright law on the U.S. Government Copyrights web page: Works created on or after January 1, 1978 endures for a term consisting of life of the author and 70 years after the author's death... Joint works: copyright endures for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author and 70 years after such last surviving author's death... Anonymous Works, Pseudonymous Works, and Works Made For Hire: copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first...

What is not protected under copyright?
1. works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded).

2. titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations or typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or content.

3. ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration.

4. works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship

Feel like trying that one again Disday???

 

[Skip]

Pesky thing facts are... Too bad copyright law information is so easy to look up... All this information is directly from the U.S. Copyright Office Website (but I guess they must be lying along with the SEC):



Feel like trying that one again Disday???

No no, this isn't the REAL copyright law! There's a secret version unavailable to the public - this is just what they show the media! :ROFLOL:

 

[maxairmike]

No no, this isn't the REAL copyright law! There's a secret version unavailable to the public - this is just what they show the media! :ROFLOL:

:lol:

I was about to mention that I do photography, music, and a little writing in my spare time so I know a bit about copyright, and he/she was completely off. Thanks for taking the work for me and letting me get to sleep earlier. :lol:

 

[Captain Chaos]

No no, this isn't the REAL copyright law! There's a secret version unavailable to the public - this is just what they show the media! :ROFLOL:

:ROFLOL:

I need to get my hands on this unavailable version then, you know, the version only Disday and the other Thick-headed minions have access to... I shall use the Freedom of Information Act and I shall not be denied!!!!

 

[Captain Chaos]

:lol:

I was about to mention that I do photography, music, and a little writing in my spare time so I know a bit about copyright, and he/she was completely off. Thanks for taking the work for me and letting me get to sleep earlier. :lol:

Actually, I STUDIED Copyright, trademark, and patent law while studying law in college LOL.. I knew he/she was wrong the minute he said he copyrighted the idea and title of his book... I just wanted to see him dig the hole deeper... and he didn't disappoint LOL...

 

[maxairmike]

:ROFLOL:

I need to get my hands on this unavailable version then, you know, the version only Disday and the other Thick-headed minions have access to... I shall use the Freedom of Information Act and I shall not be denied!!!!

While you're at it, can you write the SEC and tell them that as a matter of great urgency (possibly national security if you have to), they must make the secret Marvel/Uni. contract available for a day or two so we can see it for ourselves since Disday seems so reluctant to give us any relevant information about it?

 

[Captain Chaos]

While you're at it, can you write the SEC and tell them that as a matter of great urgency (possibly national security if you have to), they must make the secret Marvel/Uni. contract available for a day or two so we can see it for ourselves since Disday seems so reluctant to give us any relevant information about it?

Nah, I'm going to let him and those Thick-headed minions continue to dig those holes deeper too.. It is fun reading posts from uneducated people who think they know everything, when they really know nothing LOL..

Funny thing is, I worked in a law firm after college, and we dealt with contracts, so i have experience there... And I have been working for Wall Street firms for the last 15 years, and I know the laws regarding filing information with the SEC... Like I said, sitting back watching these kids try to act educated is really entertaining..

 

[maxairmike]

Yeah, dealing with a complete nationwide brand overhaul in a marketing department will also get you up to speed on copyright/trademark if you weren't already as well (something I did). Of course, maybe he/she did create that book before 1978*... :lol:

Since I have no reason to know, I don't really know what copyright terms were during that era, so 50 years could still be wrong!

 

[Captain Chaos]

Yeah, dealing with a complete nationwide brand overhaul in a marketing department will also get you up to speed on copyright/trademark if you weren't already as well (something I did). Of course, maybe he/she did create that book before 1978*... :lol:

Since I have no reason to know, I don't really know what copyright terms were during that era, so 50 years could still be wrong!

Still wasn't 50 years, according to the Copyright website... if a work was created but not published or copyrighted before Jan. 1, 1978, the copyright is what I posted before... the work will expire Dec 31, 2002... if it was published on or before Dec 31, 2002, then the copyright won't expire before Dec 31, 2047...

Then you get into subsisting copyrights, blah blah blah, boring, boring, boring...

Wait, are we really discussing this??? LOL....