-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Western way park/5th gate
- Thread starter montyz81
- Start date
MOXOMUMD
Well-Known Member
Wampa and Bantha and Sarlacc...oh my!
bubbles1812
Well-Known Member
Know this silly post has already been addressed but wanted to clarify something in it. I do not believe Disney "let" Sony have the rights to Spider-Man. They had them and have had them for a loooooooong time. If they had not made the new movie, the rights would have reverted back to Marvel. But Sony made a new movie, thus they get to keep them for another loooooooong period of time. There is no "let" about it. It was in Sony's contract long before Disney came along. And just because of new ownership, as has been discussed, contracts don't expire. Disney doesn't rule the world, though I'm sure they'd like to.
Also, there is still no experience date on the Uni contract... Perpetuity is a hard word to get around there.
PeterAlt
Well-Known Member
I think Roberts is thinking more long-term than we can in what he said. I'm not sure when Uni got the theme park rights to HP, but it likely was before Comcast took over. So, HP is pretty much playing out something that was started before the merger. If you've seen Oblivion, you would see what I mean when I say Comcast is putting a lot into Uni's studio efforts. That kind of effort, spread out over many new film productions, over time, should produce the kind of IP that I think Roberts is referring to.
PeterAlt
Well-Known Member
DO NOT FEED THE ANIMALS! KEEP YOUR HANDS OUT OF THE CAGES AT ALL TIMES!
Captain Chaos
Well-Known Member
The Simpsons, Transformers and Harry Potter says they are full of Sugar Honey Iced Tea...
Just looking at the contract, I'm no lawyer but there are a few things that stick out, if anyone has any legal experience maybe they could clear these up:
C.
Whenever Marvel has “reasonable” rights for rejection of approval hereunder, the basic criteria to be used by Marvel may include inconsistency with (i) basic story line, (ii) the powers, (iii) basic personality traits, (iv) physical appearance (including clothing or costume), and/or (v) living habitat or environment relating to such character as portrayed in Marvel’s exploitation of such character in comic books or other products for the particular time period being depicted by MCA.
It seems like disney would have the power to reject any refurb universal wishes to do. And couldn't disney reject their use of the characters unless they are used in their current clothes or costume, thus forcing Uni to do a major refurb.
MCA shall take appropriate action, as directed by Marvel to protect all copyrights and trademarks in connection with the uses granted hereunder, including in-park uses, merchandise and packaging.
Does Marvel get to choose how Uni defends the copyrights, trademarks and uses, thus if disney wanted to build a Marvel park then they could simply say "No we think thats a valid use of the Marvel name" (This one is a stretch and won't work, I know Im just putting it out there)
Marvel will reasonably cooperate in making information, artwork, archive material, key personnel, etc. available to MCA in order that MCA can creatively develop THE MARVEL UNIVERSE and exploit its rights hereunder. MCA will reimburse Marvel for its reasonable costs in this regard, including time of non-executive personnel and their reasonable travel expense.
Any new Marvel material could be considered information, artwork, and archive material. So could disney ask for reimbursement of any Marvel movie or comic book that they produce? Then giving Comcast a reason to terminate the contract.
Either party may terminate this agreement upon a material breach of the other party, subject to written notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure.
If disney really wants Marvel rights in WDW they would find a way to use this, this is a clear out.
MCA agrees that if, as to any Universal Theme Park containing a THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, MCA utilizes “characters” not owned by MCA or an MCA Related Company and the financial arrangement between MCA and the owner or licensor of such “characters” (the “third party”) involves the “payment by MCA of sums based on revenues of the Theme Park or a significant portion thereof” (defined below), MCA shall offer to Marvel, the opportunity at Marvel’s option to elect to be compensated for the use of the Marvel license granted herein as it relates to such specific THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, on the same basis as such “third party”. If Marvel so elects then MCA shall receive credit for payments previously made to Marvel to the extent comparable or similar payments were not part of such “third party” deal. In the event such “third party” is required by MCA to invest in the Universal Theme Park where its characters are being utilized, Marvel shall have a comparable obligation if Marvel exercises the option to be compensated based on the Compensation Alternative set forth in this paragraph F
The “payment by MCA of sums based on revenues of the Theme Park or a significant portion thereof” is intended to encompass “royalty” arrangements or similar arrangements which compensate the “third party” based on net revenues, gross revenues, attendance, or any other standard measuring the economic performance of a particular Universal Theme Park or a significant portion thereof.
This one is interesting. Could Disney use Uni's agreement with JK as a bargaining chip to renegotiate the contract for a price as high or higher than hers?
Lets be honest, Disney currently doesn't want Marvel in WDW, if they did they would get out of the contract. It clearly states in the contract that any Marvel Universe they use must be maintained in a first class manner consistent with the highest standards of the theme park industry. The highest standard in the theme park industry is pretty much WWHOP, super hero island is no where near that level. Super hero island probably isn't even the 2nd most well maintained area in IOA, it might not even be 3rd!
And like a previous commenter stated, Why doesn't disney change the Marvel logo to incorporate the Disney name in it, then forcing Uni to change every mention of Marvel in its theme parks, merchandise, and advertising to have the Disney name on it.
Before everyone rips on me for "Crazy ideas" I never said I was a lawyer, all Im trying to say is that there appears to be some ways, although very difficult ones, to get out of the contract.
P.S. My personal favorite is to build a river called the Mississippi on property then build the marvel park to the left of it, the contract never defined where the Mississippi river was!
C.
Whenever Marvel has “reasonable” rights for rejection of approval hereunder, the basic criteria to be used by Marvel may include inconsistency with (i) basic story line, (ii) the powers, (iii) basic personality traits, (iv) physical appearance (including clothing or costume), and/or (v) living habitat or environment relating to such character as portrayed in Marvel’s exploitation of such character in comic books or other products for the particular time period being depicted by MCA.
It seems like disney would have the power to reject any refurb universal wishes to do. And couldn't disney reject their use of the characters unless they are used in their current clothes or costume, thus forcing Uni to do a major refurb.
MCA shall take appropriate action, as directed by Marvel to protect all copyrights and trademarks in connection with the uses granted hereunder, including in-park uses, merchandise and packaging.
Does Marvel get to choose how Uni defends the copyrights, trademarks and uses, thus if disney wanted to build a Marvel park then they could simply say "No we think thats a valid use of the Marvel name" (This one is a stretch and won't work, I know Im just putting it out there)
Marvel will reasonably cooperate in making information, artwork, archive material, key personnel, etc. available to MCA in order that MCA can creatively develop THE MARVEL UNIVERSE and exploit its rights hereunder. MCA will reimburse Marvel for its reasonable costs in this regard, including time of non-executive personnel and their reasonable travel expense.
Any new Marvel material could be considered information, artwork, and archive material. So could disney ask for reimbursement of any Marvel movie or comic book that they produce? Then giving Comcast a reason to terminate the contract.
Either party may terminate this agreement upon a material breach of the other party, subject to written notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure.
If disney really wants Marvel rights in WDW they would find a way to use this, this is a clear out.
MCA agrees that if, as to any Universal Theme Park containing a THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, MCA utilizes “characters” not owned by MCA or an MCA Related Company and the financial arrangement between MCA and the owner or licensor of such “characters” (the “third party”) involves the “payment by MCA of sums based on revenues of the Theme Park or a significant portion thereof” (defined below), MCA shall offer to Marvel, the opportunity at Marvel’s option to elect to be compensated for the use of the Marvel license granted herein as it relates to such specific THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, on the same basis as such “third party”. If Marvel so elects then MCA shall receive credit for payments previously made to Marvel to the extent comparable or similar payments were not part of such “third party” deal. In the event such “third party” is required by MCA to invest in the Universal Theme Park where its characters are being utilized, Marvel shall have a comparable obligation if Marvel exercises the option to be compensated based on the Compensation Alternative set forth in this paragraph F
The “payment by MCA of sums based on revenues of the Theme Park or a significant portion thereof” is intended to encompass “royalty” arrangements or similar arrangements which compensate the “third party” based on net revenues, gross revenues, attendance, or any other standard measuring the economic performance of a particular Universal Theme Park or a significant portion thereof.
This one is interesting. Could Disney use Uni's agreement with JK as a bargaining chip to renegotiate the contract for a price as high or higher than hers?
Lets be honest, Disney currently doesn't want Marvel in WDW, if they did they would get out of the contract. It clearly states in the contract that any Marvel Universe they use must be maintained in a first class manner consistent with the highest standards of the theme park industry. The highest standard in the theme park industry is pretty much WWHOP, super hero island is no where near that level. Super hero island probably isn't even the 2nd most well maintained area in IOA, it might not even be 3rd!
And like a previous commenter stated, Why doesn't disney change the Marvel logo to incorporate the Disney name in it, then forcing Uni to change every mention of Marvel in its theme parks, merchandise, and advertising to have the Disney name on it.
Before everyone rips on me for "Crazy ideas" I never said I was a lawyer, all Im trying to say is that there appears to be some ways, although very difficult ones, to get out of the contract.
P.S. My personal favorite is to build a river called the Mississippi on property then build the marvel park to the left of it, the contract never defined where the Mississippi river was!
bubbles1812
Well-Known Member
With HP, I think the phrase "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" could some it up nicely. HP could be their exception to the rule and with good reason... It makes them gobs of money. And who doesn't like money?
PeterAlt
Well-Known Member
As for your last statement, we've already established that.
As to the rest of your post, I have to clarify what I said. I did not mean "let" Sony have it in the same way you just used it. It was a trade. Disney won back the merchandise rights for Spider-Man from Sony and, in exchange, they "let" Sony continue to have the studio film rights to Spider-Man. So, "let" is not "give" but more like give with "strings and conditions attached". I hate having to clarify what I say because as I write things like that, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they understand what I'm saying and detailed explanations aren't necessary.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
June 20, 2013.
Sony and Disney modified their agreement. Sony gets to keep the film rights without having to make a film every so many years in exchange for Disney getting the merchandise rights to these films, starting with last summer's The Amazing Spider-Man.
PeterAlt
Well-Known Member
Where were you when I had my Epic Marvel Debate Thread Massive?! That thread needed people like you to help engage it at a serious level!
PeterAlt
Well-Known Member
They could rename Rivers of America.... Hmmmmmm
Rodan75
Well-Known Member
I think you have a point, if they were driven to end the contract, they would. I think the expense to get out of the contract would be too high to simply experiment with attractions at WDW. If they build something in Asia, Paris, Anaheim and it is successful, that could drive Disney to wiggle out of the Uni contract.
One thing to remember, it is not as if Marvel pushed IoA to attendance records even with 2 outstanding "e-ticket' attractions. Uni may be just as happy to trade out Marvel for another IP if the opportunity comes along.
CJR
Well-Known Member
If I read the contract right, Disney can use a character that Universal Orlando is not using, as log as they aren't in the same family as another one being used (Ie. Thor is an Avenger so WDW can't have Thor in the parks despite his lack of presence at IOA).
There is one upcoming franchise Disney is working on that Universal Orlando has not touched: Big Hero 6. I've been to IOA many times and I've never seen anything regarding Big Hero 6 there. If there really isn't anything there, Disney can use it at Walt Disney World as long as they don't associate Marvel's name with it (if I read the contract correctly).
I don't see Disney doing a Big Hero 6 attraction really, but it would make sense for them to use the characters since Walt Disney Animation is working on the film and when has a WDA cannon film not been promoted in the parks? This might be the one case where Disney might use the loophole.
That's assuming I read the contact over correctly and that IOA has no Big Hero 6 attractions, restaurants, or shops.
Also, they are working on Guardians of the Galaxy, which I think IoA also doesn't use. I could see a Guardians attraction work in Tomorrowland, knowing the way they are throwing characters everywhere now days.
There is one upcoming franchise Disney is working on that Universal Orlando has not touched: Big Hero 6. I've been to IOA many times and I've never seen anything regarding Big Hero 6 there. If there really isn't anything there, Disney can use it at Walt Disney World as long as they don't associate Marvel's name with it (if I read the contract correctly).
I don't see Disney doing a Big Hero 6 attraction really, but it would make sense for them to use the characters since Walt Disney Animation is working on the film and when has a WDA cannon film not been promoted in the parks? This might be the one case where Disney might use the loophole.
That's assuming I read the contact over correctly and that IOA has no Big Hero 6 attractions, restaurants, or shops.
Also, they are working on Guardians of the Galaxy, which I think IoA also doesn't use. I could see a Guardians attraction work in Tomorrowland, knowing the way they are throwing characters everywhere now days.
Cosmic Commando
Well-Known Member
My crazy idea is that Guardians of the Galaxy is the line that Disney's lawyers are willing to draw. That movie announcement came out of left field, so I thought maybe there was something to that. They do mingle with off-limits baddies like Thanos, but they did start out with their own #1 issue... not as guests in another comic series. Like other posters have said, with the way comic characters team up and crossover, "family" is an incredibly vague term.
englanddg
One Little Spark...
Isn't there a small waterway in Magic Kingdom covered by the walkway that runs between Liberty Square and Frontierland into the Rivers of America called the "Little Mississippi"?
Cosmic Commando
Well-Known Member
The important term is REASONABLE approval. Disney can't go "All ur Spider-Manz are belong to us. You can't paint ur queue railings!"
"Material breach" for the purposes of this contract basically means "big screw-up". Uni isn't going to screw up that badly, and even then, Disney has to notify them and give them a chance to fix it:
"Once THE MARVEL UNIVERSE opens within the above time period, the term of this agreement shall continue for so long as a THE MARVEL UNIVERSE shall remain open (and operated consistent with the standards of the next paragraph below) at any Universal Theme Park (allowing for temporary closures for force majeure events or refurbishment/maintenance provided they are being diligently pursued), except for termination for material breach (with written notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure)."
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Except that Guardians of the Galaxy is part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase II, the follow up set of films to The Avengers that are setting up The Avengers 2. That is a big, public wrench in such thoughts.
Yes.
CJR
Well-Known Member
I'm willing to bet that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is too broad to be considered a "family". The Avengers, yes, but Guardians are their own entity, which is how I believe any reasonable lawyer will define "family". I honestly doubt Universal will waste their time over issues that really don't impact them, especially one that wouldn't make sense. The Avengers is a family, the Guardians of the Galaxy are a family, the Fantastic Four are a family. I can almost 100% guarantee you, that is how it will legally be defined.
Any previous crossovers and relations won't matter as they were "one time" things. That won't put them in the same family. They are a part of the Marvel universe, but again, that's just way too broad to stand much argument in court. I think it's also too broad for Universal to turn their attention away from their own business, since the Guardians of the Galaxy really have nothing to do with them, other than a connection with Marvel.