[...] that Disney has its own comic publisher, it’s not surprising that the licenses are continuing to come back in house, following the [...]

Thom Says:

“…in fact history shows that Disney is only really going to interfere with their family lines that bear the Disney banner.

Marvel does not fall under that banner, any more than Mirimax does.”

That reminds me, is Marvel a family line or not? I’ve seen many more Marvel products marketed to little kids than Miramax products marketed to little kids.

For example, Disney doesn’t market its kid-friendly stuff and its adults-only stuff under the same banners. Bambi is for all ages, Pulp Fiction is not, etc. and Disney even gives them wholly separate titles. Disney markets them as “Bambi” and “Pulp Fiction” rather than as “Pulp Bambi Disney Adventures” and “Pulp Bambi Disney Knights,” it doesn’t offer any Mia Wallace dress-up dolls and “English…do you speak it?” easy-reader books, etc.

For another example, Marvel does market Spider-Man to all age groups without clearly specifying anything like ‘this is Spider-Man as in Marvel Adventures, not Spider-Man as in Marvel Knights’ on the action figures, board games, puzzles, toy vehicles, etc.

Some parents who are aware of all those Spider-Man action figures, board games, puzzles, toy vehicles, etc. marketed for young children assume comic books with that same Spider-Man logo are for those same children.

If such a parent later finds out differently, he or she gets badmouthed by older fans for thinking one Spider-man product might have anything in the world to do with another Spider-man product (and other stuff like not supervising one’s offspring when they go to the school library during the school day, thinking teen-rated stuff isn’t ideal for elementary school libraries, etc.).

Now I wonder what Disney might try to do about this mixed-messages mess that comes from and around the company it just bought…

[...] Nikki Finke is reporting on big shakeups at DC Comics in the wake of the Disney/Marvel merger. [...]

“No Disney/Marvel crossovers please!!!!! Just let Marvel do its thing.”

I bet there won’t be Disney/Marvel crossovers for the same reason there already aren’t Disney/Miramax crossovers.

(And then Miss Piggy turns her affections towards Tony and chaos ensues)

Charles, I agree with Marvel characters turning up as celebrity guests on the Muppet Show. That would be just a little slice of cool.

[...] shareholders weren’t thrilled by yesterday’s announcement that the company would be acquiring Marvel. They sliced $1.5 billion off its market value Monday. That’s nearly twice the premium Disney [...]

The important thing is if Marvel does Muppet Show comics, do we get the Marvel characters turning up as the celebrity guests? ;) (Though having said that as a joke, I now want it to happen…)

The claim that the Siegel and Shuster estates filed that will see rights revert to them (the Siegels, at least- Shuster’s claim has not yet been resolved) is based on the terms of the Sonny Bono Act, which extended corporate ownership of copyrights to 95 years from the date of publication (which, in Superman’s case, would have meant the expiration of DC’s copyright in 2033 had Time Warner gone unchallenged). In order for that law to be passed, several caveats and exemptions were also enacted- namely, in the case of corporate copyrights that did not originate with the corporation (ie, were purchased after the point of creation), the original copyright holders would have a period of time (the “reclamation window”) by which they could file a claim to have the copyright returned to them. In this situation, the ruling has been in favor of the Siegel estate, but there are four important things to note: 1. This only concerns domestic rights to the character- international rights are covered under separate law, and (I may be wrong about this) are still held entirely by Time Warner. 2. This only concerns things Siegel and Shuster introduced in the strip prior to Superman being sold to DC- DC still has the rights to Lex Luthor, kryptonite, and, most importantly, SUPERMAN’S ABILITY TO FLY 3. The Shuster estate may very well lose their own bid to recapture copyrights- which would make DC co-owners of the copyright into the future and thus legally allowed to exploit the character as long as they account financially for him to the Siegel estate 4. This entire legal battle has been about copyright- trademarks in the US are covered by entirely different laws and ware not at the moment covered within the scope of the ruling. Under US law, a registered trademark is pretty much held in perpetuity as long as the registrant maintains that trademark (generally a trademark can’t lapse unless five or more years have passed since the registrant has used it- companies like DC frequently trot out new iterations of old characters and comic book titles every once in a while for just that reason). It is within the bounds of possibility that, if and when the Siegel and Shuster estates claim their copyright, they could succeed in having DC’s trademark rights terminated, but that hasn’t happened yet and, based on precedent, seems highly unlikely.

This puts the three parties (the Siegels, the Shusters, and Time Warner) in a symbiotic relationship- while the estates will have access to the stories they now “own” (as well as fees from a portion of everything going forward from the retroactive establishment of their claim back in 1999, since those works are considered derivative), and will presumably be able to generate revenue from reprints, etc, they will have to steer clear of using certain logos and other details, at least on their trade dress (much as DC can print “Captain Marvel” comics but can’t actually publish a book called “Captain Marvel” due to the possibility of “market confusion.”) Meanwhile, DC could conceivably still make money off of T-Shirts, belt buckles, etc, with the S-shield, but will have to pay a significant licensing fee to the Siegel and Shuster estates if they wish to continue creating new (derivative) material. The upshot is that it’s unlikely Marvel, Disney, etc. would ever do anything significant with Superman, for the simple reason that A. He’d be very hard to promote without the use of his name and logos on covers and in ads B. Key parts of the mythos do NOT fall under the Siegels’ claim and C. Use of the character would indirectly help DC profit by keeping the character relevant enough to allow them to sell their merchandise. Considering Marvel (or whomever) would ALSO be paying the Siegels licensing fees, the expense of acquiring a “Superman” who is not recognizable as the character (since he would not fly, have heat vision, live in a Fortress of Solitude, etc) would almost surely be a money loser. (I could see maybe a one-time use just as a thumbing-the-nose thing, but nothing permanent).

The movie rights are a separate issue, btw- the Siegels will be entitled to damages if a movie isn’t made, but that was not a rights issue- it was based on their claim that DC undersold the property to Warner Brothers because of their corporate relationship and therefore were undercutting the money the Siegels were entitled to.

And if Mr. Ingersoll is around he’s welcome to clarify or correct anything I just said! :)

In point of fact, I do believe that as part of the judgment against DC, if Warner Brothers can’t get a Superman Movie off the ground before 2011, they lose the motion picture rights to the Superman character as well.

Where’s Bob Ingersoll when you need him.

I think I could get around it.

I do wonder if this move by Marvel might be in anticipation of 2013 when DC/Time Warner loses the rights to Superman. With the Mouse backing their bid for the Man of Steel, Marvel becomes a strong contender.

Hmmm…I sense another groundless internet rumor brewing >:)

Cheers,
Dan