More Marvel at Disney World? Maybe?

[fosse76]

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???

You beat me to the punch! Though I was just going to post a link to the copyright website's FAQ. A simple google search would accurately inform the most uninformed person about the basics of copyright law.

 

[bmarkelon]

We would love it! Boys would be all over the Super Heros just like the girls are all over Princesses. I am making this statement completely naive of any contract thingies.

 

[Captain Chaos]

You beat me to the punch! Though I was just going to post a link to the copyright website's FAQ. A simple google search would accurately inform the most uninformed person about the basics of copyright law.

But Google is in on the deception to the public... They are in possession of the REAL copyright law, the one that the public is not allowed to see, only Disday knows the real law... ignore the facts posted on the official Copyright Office website... it is nothing but lies...

 

[Disday]

Okay gang, shall I show you my copyright documents?...Unbelievable.:ROFLOL::ROFLOL::ROFLOL::ROFLOL:

 

[Captain Chaos]

Okay gang, shall I show you my copyright documents?...Unbelievable.:ROFLOL::ROFLOL::ROFLOL::ROFLOL:

Just link us to the copyright site since ALL copyrights are on there...

 

[xdan0920]

Okay gang, shall I show you my copyright documents?...Unbelievable.:ROFLOL::ROFLOL::ROFLOL::ROFLOL:

You could link to the book you have written....

 

[Captain Chaos]

You could link to the book you have written....

Can I link to a book I wrote too???

Of course we have no proof he wrote what ever he decides to link us to...

 

[Skip]

You could link to the book you have written....

Seriously, I'd love to see it.

I'm in awe of the fact (s)he chooses to ignore the actual copyright law we've placed in front of him/her.

I also always find it amusing when a poster refuses to respond to other points raised against him/her. You gotta give posters like WDW1974 credit for literally taking on everything said about what he says. Meanwhile... we get a sarcastic comment about this "book" of his/hers with magically different copyright rules. :shrug:

 

[Captain Chaos]

I just looked at copyright laws from other countries, and no country has a 50 year copyright... All copyrights are life of the author PLUS how ever many other years tacked on.... The U.S. (where I assume Disday is from) it is life PLUS 70 years... Even patents and trademarks aren't 50 years in length...

Still waiting for the link to the copyright site, or link to the book...

 

[Disday]

I've had a really rough Friday the 13th. Thanks WDW Magic gang for writing things that make me smile. You've helped to cheer me up. I hope you all have a nice day.

 

[Skip]

I've had a really rough Friday the 13th. Thanks WDW Magic gang for writing things that make me smile. You've helped to cheer me up. I hope you all have a nice day.

So... no link to your book then? :zipit:

 

[Lee]

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.

Iger has never once stated any intention of using the (Uni-licensed)Marvel characters in the WDW parks. He knows two things:
- It can't happen unless Uni decides to back out of the deal or be bought off.
- It makes no business sense to pay giant sums of money just to theme a ride around any character at one resort. There is no quantifiable return on that investment. Meanwhile, Marvel can be fully leveraged elsewhere, which is the plan. (They could also use some of the more obscure Marvel characters anywhere.)

A good analogy for this whole contract debate...
Turn onto ABC Family at 11:00 every night and what do you see? Pat Robertson.
Why? Because he has a contract to be on that network for as long as he wants. No end date, just a contract that runs until Robertson backs out or is bought out (which Disney has tried, and failed, to do).
Nothing Disney can do about it. That's how these deals work.

 

[Bob Saget]

Turn onto ABC Family at 11:00 every night and what do you see? Pat Robertson.
Why? Because he has a contract to be on that network for as long as he wants. No end date, just a contract that runs until Robertson backs out or is bought out (which Disney has tried, and failed, to do).
Nothing Disney can do about it. That's how these deals work.

Why would Disney want to buy out Pat Roberston? I honestly do not see how he'd fit into any of the theme parks. I don't know the laws 100%, but I know what you're saying though. Disney is limited to using Marvel characters/rides outside of the Orlando parks due to the extensive contract with Universal holding the theme park rights. Whereas Universal, and only Universal gets to decide if/when to give those rights Disney. Universal can also choose not to at all, causing Disney to only be able to use Marvel inside it's CA parks, and other locations abroad. I kinda get that part. Pat Robertson, on the other hand, is signed with ABC Family (which is owned by Disney), and they could put Robertson's merch, appearance, or theme into a ride if they chose to. Nothing against Robertson, but I really don't think his theme would be Disney enough for one of the parks, but selling his books, merch, etc (like they do for Marvel characters) outside of the parks seems more fitting.

If anything Marvel or Robertson (attraction-wise) is added, I still vote for (and have always voted for) DHS. To me that park is lacking considering it's age, and lack of major additions based on a 2-decade+ old theme park, and neither Robertson or Marvel really fit in to DAK's atmosphere. Then again, neither does Avatar, but....

 

[lazyboy97o]

Why would Disney want to buy out Pat Roberston? I honestly do not see how he'd fit into any of the theme parks. I don't know the laws 100%, but I know what you're saying though. Disney is limited to using Marvel characters/rides outside of the Orlando parks due to the extensive contract with Universal holding the theme park rights. Whereas Universal, and only Universal gets to decide if/when to give those rights Disney. Universal can also choose not to at all, causing Disney to only be able to use Marvel inside it's CA parks, and other locations abroad. I kinda get that part. Pat Robertson, on the other hand, is signed with ABC Family (which is owned by Disney), and they could put Robertson's merch, appearance, or theme into a ride if they chose to. Nothing against Robertson, but I really don't think his theme would be Disney enough for one of the parks, but selling his books, merch, etc (like they do for Marvel characters) outside of the parks seems more fitting.

If anything Marvel or Robertson (attraction-wise) is added, I still vote for (and have always voted for) DHS. To me that park is lacking considering it's age, and lack of major additions based on a 2-decade+ old theme park, and neither Robertson or Marvel really fit in to DAK's atmosphere. Then again, neither does Avatar, but....

You completely missed Lee's point, Disney wants to get rid of Robertson on ABC Family. Robertson made a deal that he gets to continue to run his show when he first sold off the Family Channel to Fox. That deal was still in effect when Fox sold the channel to Disney. The similarity to Universal is that in both cases the contracts have no expiration or renewal periods. Disney's only way to get what it wants (Robertson off ABC Family or Marvel from Universal) is to pay whatever the other (Robertson or Universal) asks, and at this point Disney has not made an offer that is enough for Robertson to take his programming off of ABC Family.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

Religion has no place in this conversation. Please make sure that it stays out.

 

[celluloid]

Why would Disney want to buy out Pat Roberston? I honestly do not see how he'd fit into any of the theme parks. I don't know the laws 100%, but I know what you're saying though. Disney is limited to using Marvel characters/rides outside of the Orlando parks due to the extensive contract with Universal holding the theme park rights. Whereas Universal, and only Universal gets to decide if/when to give those rights Disney. Universal can also choose not to at all, causing Disney to only be able to use Marvel inside it's CA parks, and other locations abroad. I kinda get that part. Pat Robertson, on the other hand, is signed with ABC Family (which is owned by Disney), and they could put Robertson's merch, appearance, or theme into a ride if they chose to. Nothing against Robertson, but I really don't think his theme would be Disney enough for one of the parks, but selling his books, merch, etc (like they do for Marvel characters) outside of the parks seems more fitting.

If anything Marvel or Robertson (attraction-wise) is added, I still vote for (and have always voted for) DHS. To me that park is lacking considering it's age, and lack of major additions based on a 2-decade+ old theme park, and neither Robertson or Marvel really fit in to DAK's atmosphere. Then again, neither does Avatar, but....

Made my evening. My new favorite member of the site.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

I don't see how anyone was talking about it in the first place. He was just giving an example. Is talking about Christmas banned too since it's related to religion?

Religion was being discussed and I removed what could have been considered offensive. I am guessing your christmas comment comes with a nice dash of sarcasm...if you don't like the moderation then please feel free to search for a different discussion forum.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

OK, but I would kindly request you do a better job by explaining you removed posts so people know what the heck you were talking about. You don't need to be offended because your vagueness confused me.

There was nothing more to explain. Clearly, my post alluded to the fact that religion was being discussed which is something that we don't allow here (like politics). The people who were discussing it, know exactly what I meant. For everyone else, they just have to know that religion has no place in the discussion. You want to know more, but you have no reason to know anymore than what I posted there. My message was clear without me having to divulge anymore about what I removed.

 

[unkadug]

OK, but I would kindly request you do a better job by explaining you removed posts so people know what the heck you were talking about. You don't need to be offended because your vagueness confused me.

This is not a democratic society forum. You do not have a right to any explanation at all.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I don't see how anyone was talking about it in the first place. He was just giving an example. Is talking about Christmas banned too since it's related to religion?

OK, but I would kindly request you do a better job by explaining you removed posts so people know what the heck you were talking about. You don't need to be offended because your vagueness confused me.

Without further clarification, that you were referring to removed posts, I don't think it's too much of a stretch that most people would assume you were referring to the existing posts in which only Pat Robertson's contract was discussed as an analogy. Based on that, people could make the wrong assumptions as to what you were referring to.

It was my post that was removed, which had NOTHING to do with religion... But more of a joke on what Bob Saget said about Pat Robertson being in a Disney theme park... But I won't make a fuss...

I'll just make useless polls every other week, purposely posting comments meant to inflame like a thick-headed member does every other week, and troll like this same member does...