Disney to Buy Marvel

[BJCool]

Stan Lee’s Former Company Claims Disney Doesn’t Own Marvel Superheroes; Wants Billions in Damages​

Stan Lee Media, Inc. wants the profits from the $5.5 billion it says the Walt Disney Company has made from superhero movies and merchandise based on characters created by Stan Lee. Those characters include Iron Man, Spider-Man, most of The Avengers, The X-Men and more. “Defendant The Walt Disney Company has represented to the public that it, in fact, owns the copyright to these characters as well as to hundreds of other characters created by Stan Lee. Those representations made to the public by The Walt Disney Company are false,” says the company’s copyright infringement complaint filed today (read it here) in a Colorado court. SLMI is seeking “the maximum statutory damages allowable” plus full control over Iron Man, Spider-Man and other characters. SLMI also is seeking a jury trial.

In its suit, SLMI says that Lee signed over the rights to comic book characters that he created or would create to its corporate predecessor in October 1998. The comic writer and publisher was paid for the rights in shares in Stan Lee Media, Inc. The shares later proved worthless when the dot-com bubble burst at the end of the 1990s, leaving the company to unsuccessfully seek bankruptcy protection in 2001. In its complaint today, SLMI says an amended version of that October 1998 agreement was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in March 2000, clearly indicating its rights. “Oddly, in November, 1998, Stan Lee signed a written agreement with Marvel Enterprises, Inc. in which he purportedly assigned to Marvel the rights to the Characters. However, Lee no longer owned those rights since they had been assigned to SLEI previously. Accordingly, the Marvel agreement actually assigned nothing,” the suit notes. Disney bought Marvel for $4 billion in August 2009 with the deal confirmed at the end of that year. Stan Lee Media Inc. is represented by John McDermott of Denver’s Brownstein Hyatt Faber Schreck and Robert Chapan and Jon-Jamison Hill of Beverly Hills’ Eisner, Kahan & Gorry.

 

[doc brown]

im a little confused is this true so Disney has no control over the rights

 

[SpyderDan]

Stan Lee is constantly suing somebody. He has sued Marvel many times over the years.

 

[Jymmymack]

Stan Lee is constantly suing somebody. He has sued Marvel many times over the years.

It's not Lee suing. It's the company he invested in. They are in fact saying that Lee handed over the rights to them and therefor could not sign them over to Disney.

 

[DK745]

Can Universal develop any new attractions for MSHI, or would Disney have to approve of it first?

 

[ReelJustice]

Can Universal develop any new attractions for MSHI, or would Disney have to approve of it first?

Disney/Marvel would have to approve.

 

[JungleSkip]

Disney/Marvel would have to approve.

Which is such an interesting situation.

 

[ReelJustice]

Which is such an interesting situation.

And an unfortunate one. Pretty much the only reason why Storm Force and Fear Fall aren't currently foundations for an Avengers ride, I'm sure.

 

[JungleSkip]

And an unfortunate one. Pretty much the only reason why Storm Force and Fear Fall aren't currently foundations for an Avengers ride, I'm sure.

I dunno. I'm like 100000% certain Disney can't flat out say "No." without at very legitimate reason. I'd love to hear what legitimate reasons they could come up with.

 

[DK745]

I dunno. I'm like 100000% certain Disney can't flat out say "No." without at very legitimate reason. I'd love to hear what legitimate reasons they could come up with.

Yeah I'd love to see a new attraction there (I'm sure everyone would.) I just assumed Disney would flat-out say no. After a while of not being able to do any new attractions there, maybe Universal would consider doing something besides Marvel, but giving it back to Disney could hurt them too.

I would love to hear what legitimate reasons Disney could come up with too.

 

[JungleSkip]

Yeah I'd love to see a new attraction there (I'm sure everyone would.) I just assumed Disney would flat-out say no. After a while of not being able to do any new attractions there, maybe Universal would consider doing something besides Marvel, but giving it back to Disney could hurt them too.

I would love to hear what legitimate reasons Disney could come up with too.

Flat out saying no to everything would not be acting in good faith with the signed contract, which Marvel and Disney are legally obligated to do.

I dunno. I think Universal has a clear path in making another Marvel attraction. The question is whether they want to do it or not.

 

[quickfire609]

Flat out saying no to everything would not be acting in good faith with the signed contract, which Marvel and Disney are legally obligated to do.

I dunno. I think Universal has a clear path in making another Marvel attraction. The question is whether they want to do it or not.

Give it time, USF is getting all the love in the world right now. IOA Is coming up next, and I don't think UOR wants to stop the path of destruction they are wrecking.

 

[Jakemeister]

Universal likes having the contract. It puts the ball in their court and it makes things awkward for Disney. They know that if they want to get bought out that they can ask for a crazy price tag since the contract does not expire and if Disney is crazy enough to take it Universal gets a mew land plus more.

 

[ReelJustice]

I dunno. I'm like 100000% certain Disney can't flat out say "No." without at very legitimate reason. I'd love to hear what legitimate reasons they could come up with.

Disney would point to their Iron Man ride at Disneyland and say it competes with them/ causes brand confusion. Undoubtedly, it would go to court. Universal needs to be willing to fight for it (and the costs that go with that.)

 

[DK745]

Disney would point to their Iron Man ride at Disneyland and say it competes with them/ causes brand confusion. Undoubtedly, it would go to court. Universal needs to be willing to fight for it (and the costs that go with that.)

Yeah, that doesn't sound quite fair, and would probably take many years/money to solve in court, might not even be worth it. It would be great to have a new attraction though.

I'm sure if they did one, it would have to be original or based on comics anyway since Disney probably wouldn't let them use anything related to their movies (as far as having the actors from those or whatever.)

 

[YETI PINTRADER]

Disney would point to their Iron Man ride at Disneyland and say it competes with them/ causes brand confusion. Undoubtedly, it would go to court. Universal needs to be willing to fight for it (and the costs that go with that.)

That would fail. Part of the contract is that any rides west of the Mississippi using marvel must be clearly advertised as being on the west coast only and Universal must continue to advertise that they are the only ones who have theme park rides to the east. As for their real reason why they would say no to a new attraction, they can just legally say no and that's it.

 

[Disneyhead]

That would fail. Part of the contract is that any rides west of the Mississippi using marvel must be clearly advertised as being on the west coast only and Universal must continue to advertise that they are the only ones who have theme park rides to the east. As for their real reason why they would say no to a new attraction, they can just legally say no and that's it.

Then let's see how Disney's negotiations with Comcast goes in regards to broadcasting Disney's various cable entities such as ESPN.

 

[shiekra38]

Then let's see how Disney's negotiations with Comcast goes in regards to broadcasting Disney's various cable entities such as ESPN.

Never thought of that..Could we see ABC, Disney Channel and ESPN disappear on Comcast..that seems very risky on Comcast's part..

 

[JungleSkip]

Never thought of that..Could we see ABC, Disney Channel and ESPN disappear on Comcast..that seems very risky on Comcast's part..

Ha. No. ABC and ESPN disappear from Comcast, and Comcast goes out of business.

 

[DK745]

From January 2012: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/disney-comcast-reach-carriage-deal_n_1184017.html

The 10-year deal covers major pay channels ESPN, Disney Channel and ABC Family and the retransmission of free ABC broadcast network programs through seven ABC TV stations. It allows Comcast subscribers to gain greater access to shows on demand over the Internet on multiple devices.

So that's not going to happen anytime soon. I wonder if Comcast is still bitter about not being able to buy-out Disney..