That Darn Marvel Contract – What Rights Does Universal and Disney Own

[Muggle148]

I’m pretty sure these have already been sold out. But was wondering why wouldn’t they sell more than just 480? And why not in one of the Orlando Parks? They don’t even sell limited edition Magic Bands this low in quantity.

 

[RevFreako]

I’m pretty sure these have already been sold out. But was wondering why wouldn’t they sell more than just 480? And why not in one of the Orlando Parks? They don’t even sell limited edition Magic Bands this low in quantity.

Selling these in the park would violate the contract. We've been over this.

 

[Nick]

Selling these in the park would violate the contract. We've been over this.

Yet they’ve sold Marvel merch in the parks plenty in the past.

 

[RevFreako]

Yet they’ve sold Marvel merch in the parks plenty in the past.

Was it park-specific merch, or like Funko Pops? I'd imagine there'd be a difference.

 

[Nick]

Was it park-specific merch, or like Funko Pops? I'd imagine there'd be a difference.

Do LE magic bands count?

Other than that no, but let’s be honest, most Marvel merch on MSHI isn’t park specific, either

 

[RevFreako]

Do LE magic bands count?

Other than that no, but let’s be honest, most Marvel merch on MSHI isn’t park specific, either

Agreed. My point was just that it's possible generically selling a Spiderman toy in MK say, might not violate the contract.

 

[Nick]

Agreed. My point was just that it's possible generically selling a Spiderman toy in MK say, might not violate the contract.

Well yeah, they’re carefully skirting around what they can and can’t do.

It’s all generic stuff that they sell, although, one could argue its exclusive in a way. They sell MCU stuff, which Universal cannot sell.

 

[RevFreako]

Well yeah, they’re carefully skirting around what they can and can’t do.

It’s all generic stuff that they sell, although, one could argue its exclusive in a way. They sell MCU stuff, which Universal cannot sell.

I feel like some of the higher end statues and what not in the MSHI shops are MCU.

 

[ChrisFL]

I just thought of something....I wonder if Thor has separate requirements specified in the contract, since Thor is basically an existing mythological god, and most of the other parts are existing as well.

I could see Disney being able to make a Thor attraction, but it would have to be different enough from the Marvel version....they WOULDN'T of course, but I think they have ability to

 

[Brian G.]

I just thought of something....I wonder if Thor has separate requirements specified in the contract, since Thor is basically an existing mythological god, and most of the other parts are existing as well.

I could see Disney being able to make a Thor attraction, but it would have to be different enough from the Marvel version....they WOULDN'T of course, but I think they have ability to

Well, yea......

 

[SeventyOne]

I just thought of something....I wonder if Thor has separate requirements specified in the contract, since Thor is basically an existing mythological god, and most of the other parts are existing as well.

I could see Disney being able to make a Thor attraction, but it would have to be different enough from the Marvel version....they WOULDN'T of course, but I think they have ability to

There's an implied duty of good faith in contract law. So even if brunette Thor and blond Loki popped up in the Norway pavilion with zero resemblance to Chris Helmsworth and Tom Huddleston ... Disney would still get sued out of the water.

No separate requirements in the contract for Thor because by 1989 an attempt at making a Thor TV show had bombed, no one anticipated the character would ever support his own movie.

 

[RevFreako]

There's an implied duty of good faith in contract law. So even if brunette Thor and blond Loki popped up in the Norway pavilion with zero resemblance to Chris Helmsworth and Tom Huddleston ... Disney would still get sued out of the water.

No separate requirements in the contract for Thor because by 1989 an attempt at making a Thor TV show had bombed, no one anticipated the character would ever support his own movie.

That was one of the Hulk revival TV movies, right? Thor was a buff dude in a furry vest?

 

[Brian G.]

There's an implied duty of good faith in contract law. So even if brunette Thor and blond Loki popped up in the Norway pavilion with zero resemblance to Chris Helmsworth and Tom Huddleston ... Disney would still get sued out of the water.

No separate requirements in the contract for Thor because by 1989 an attempt at making a Thor TV show had bombed, no one anticipated the character would ever support his own movie.

To clarify - they would get sued if it resembled anything comic-related for Thor; but why couldn't they have an interpretation of Thor from Norse myth? I'd assume since they have the myth Thor in the stave church, it's fine.

 

[SeventyOne]

To clarify - they would get sued if it resembled anything comic-related for Thor; but why couldn't they have an interpretation of Thor from Norse myth? I'd assume since they have the myth Thor in the stave church, it's fine.

I think any walk-around viking character named "Thor" would be inviting a lawsuit. A single item in the church would probably slide, but an entire exhibit dedicated to Thor, promoted as such? I bet at least a cease and desist letter gets sent.

That was one of the Hulk revival TV movies, right? Thor was a buff dude in a furry vest?

Yeah, apparently a backdoor pilot, like the Daredevil/Hulk team-up. Thor was fun but they made him a separate entity to nerdy Donald Blake, basically setting up a buddy comedy.

 

[fryoj]

To clarify - they would get sued if it resembled anything comic-related for Thor; but why couldn't they have an interpretation of Thor from Norse myth? I'd assume since they have the myth Thor in the stave church, it's fine.

So could Universal dress up someone as the Big Lebowski and walk around saying he's Thor? lol

 

[Skubersky]

I think any walk-around viking character named "Thor" would be inviting a lawsuit. A single item in the church would probably slide, but an entire exhibit dedicated to Thor, promoted as such? I bet at least a cease and desist letter gets sent.

They’ve had a full Thor & Loki exhibit at Epcot for over a year, no lawsuits yet:
'Gods of the Vikings' exhibit bring tales of Thor and Loki to Epcot's Norway

 

[Viator]

So to bring up this topic: Disney Springs in Orlando will not be receiving Avengers: Damage Control.

 

[RevFreako]

They’ve had a full Thor & Loki exhibit at Epcot for over a year, no lawsuits yet:
'Gods of the Vikings' exhibit bring tales of Thor and Loki to Epcot's Norway

But if they even mentioned anything unique to Marvel's version, they'd be done. Like the Satanic Temple suing the Sabrina producers, it's not that they used Baphomet, which is a public domain concept, it's that they used the image of the Temple's statue of B, which is copyrighted.

 

[TDBLMT]

But if they even mentioned anything unique to Marvel's version, they'd be done. Like the Satanic Temple suing the Sabrina producers, it's not that they used Baphomet, which is a public domain concept, it's that they used the image of the Temple's statue of B, which is copyrighted.

And beautiful. ;-)

 

[RevFreako]

And beautiful. ;-)

Hail yourself.