Disney should sue Fox

[Gr0oT]

Was there not a part in the contract which stipulated that Fox needn't to make a movie in a legitimate manner and that if it was produced in such a way that the characters and the property would be devalued that litigation could be considered?

I don't see why Disney doesn't make a move, the FF are scrap now for the next couple of decades.

 

[Avid Avenger]

.....

....


Yes.

 

[Smurphftw]

Was there not a part in the contract which stipulated that Fox needn't to make a movie in a legitimate manner and that if it was produced in such a way that the characters and the property would be devalued that litigation could be considered?

I don't see why Disney doesn't make a move, the FF are scrap now for the next couple of decades.

I believe the term is "good faith effort" which is vague and pretty hard to prove that Fox was in violation of that clause. In my opinion they, probably from a purely legal standpoint, just BARELY did enough. You can make a case that Disney has grounds to sue on that basis I think, but I also don't think they would win. Again, it's just too hard to prove.

However I don't think Fox will be able to do something similar in another 7 years. Disney could then claim that there's a pattern of behavior with Fox regarding the FF IP.

For the record, I don't have any real legal expertise, I'm just basically pulling these opinions out of my @ss, based purely on "gut feeling"

 

[ThePhantasm]

Yeah, the legalize means "don't pull another Corman," not "don't make a film that bombs against your intentions."

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

I'm not sure Marvel can sue for the way the film was produced but perhaps they can sue Fox for the way they dishonestly marketed the film - intentionally misrepresenting it as an MCU film.

 

[Quasar]

We should all be able to sue them for false advertising, considering probably 90% of the trailer scenes weren't in the movie.

 

[ThePhantasm]

What precisely about the advertising mislead you to think this would be a good film?

 

[TheVileOne]

They aren't going to sue Fox, so people need to put that out of their minds.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Yeah, the legalize means "don't pull another Corman," not "don't make a film that bombs against your intentions."

Yeah, I doubt Fox intended to lose this much money in the film. That cuts against the idea that it wasn't done in good faith (unlike the Corman film, which clearly was done to only technically comply with the contract). They sucked at it, but that's not the same thing as not being in good faith.

 

[Tony Stark]

I'm not sure Marvel can sue for the way the film was produced but perhaps they can sue Fox for the way they dishonestly marketed the film - intentionally misrepresenting it as an MCU film.

They can certainly sue for that, as it could be considered a trade mark breach. I don't know if they will or not, but if they do then they did it would be for this.

Anyone can sue for anything, but it would be hard to consider this a "good faith" violation, as Fox did pour money into this project, they hired people, etc., etc.

A "good faith" breach is closer to what happened with the Coreman film. It was filmed with the intention to never be released, and the actors and many people involved were duped into believing it was a serious production. People who might have declined the project, knowing they would never be recognized for their work.

 

[TheVileOne]

This was never misrepresented as an MCU film. As a licensed property, they have the license to show the Marvel logo in front of this film.

Again, a lawsuit between Disney and Fox isn't happening here. There was technically no breach of contract or violation of the licensing agreement. Them's the breaks.

I recall, Marvel did sue Sony Pictures over Spider-Man in the early 00's. As I recall, what happened there was that Marvel was upset that Sony marketed a double-feature of Spider-Man together with MIB2 in order to jack up the somewhat disappointing domestic ticket sales for that film. I think they were also disputing some of the money split over the property. Eventually, that dispute was resolved and Sony maintained the film license of Spider-Man.

Keep in mind this was well before Marvel Studios and we all loved the Spider-Man movies and were concerned the franchise was in jeopardy.

 

[Tony Stark]

Ragnaroknroll, was referring to ads that were shown close to release that did not use the Fox logo, and did use the Marvel logo. You are right they are allowed to use the Marvel logo. What they aren't allowed to do is call this "Marvel's Fantastic Four", which by the description I heard of the ads (I personally haven't seen them), came close to representing the film as that.

Marvel is still a registered Trademark and they have to abide by the use of the trademark even with a licensed property.

This is no different than the NFL licensing companies that are not officially sanctioned to make NFL team merchandise. The type of stuff they usually sell at Walmart or Target. They have a license to use the logo's but the companies cannot market it as "official NFL gear". If they did it would be a trademark infringement.

 

[Drz]

Guys, I got it! We could make a petition in Change.org and demand Disney to sue Fox.

 

[TheVileOne]

Ragnaroknroll, was referring to ads that were shown close to release that did not use the Fox logo, and did use the Marvel logo. You are right they are allowed to use the Marvel logo. What they aren't allowed to do is call this "Marvel's Fantastic Four", which by the description I heard of the ads (I personally haven't seen them), came close to representing the film as that.

Marvel is still a registered Trademark and they have to abide by the use of the trademark even with a licensed property.

This is no different than the NFL licensing companies that are not officially sanctioned to make NFL team merchandise. The type of stuff they usually sell at Walmart or Target. They have a license to use the logo's but the companies cannot market it as "official NFL gear". If they did it would be a trademark infringement.

Technically it is Marvel because the property originated at Marvel and Marvel owns the characters. Think about that. The creators do not even have an ownership of these characters, they are the property of Marvel. So technically, it's not wrong to call it Marvel's either.

If they do it with X-Men, put the Marvel label on there, they can't be all "It's OK with X-Men but not Fantastic Four." That's not how these things work.

It is very different from the NFL situation, especially if the licensing agreement allows this. There is no violation.

 

[Mike Murdock]

I recall, Marvel did sue Sony Pictures over Spider-Man in the early 00's. As I recall, what happened there was that Marvel was upset that Sony marketed a double-feature of Spider-Man together with MIB2 in order to jack up the somewhat disappointing domestic ticket sales for that film.

Not exactly on topic, but I totally remember going to one of those shows!

Although my biggest memory is just how long a double feature feels (although maybe Men in Black 2 didn't help).

 

[Mysteryman]

I don't know about Disney suing Fox, but I sure would like to see Fox sue Trank.

 

[starscream22]

Guys, I got it! We could make a petition in Change.org and demand Disney to sue Fox.

Better yet we can start listening to the people who've been WRONG for the past 12+ months if we ever wish to stop entertaining any type of plausible solutions.

 

[starscream22]

.............Anyway The Mouse and his dream team should be watching over this blame game between Fox and Trank like a hawk. Who knows what might slip through the cracks.

Fox is looking for a scapegoat while Trank is fighting for his livelihood. Perhaps Marvel-Disney can/will use that.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Technically it is Marvel because the property originated at Marvel and Marvel owns the characters. Think about that. The creators do not even have an ownership of these characters, they are the property of Marvel. So technically, it's not wrong to call it Marvel's either.

If they do it with X-Men, put the Marvel label on there, they can't be all "It's OK with X-Men but not Fantastic Four." That's not how these things work.

It is very different from the NFL situation, especially if the licensing agreement allows this. There is no violation.

Removing the 20th Century Fox logo from the their TV spots and only featuring the Marvel logo was a blatant attempt to mislead audiences into thinking this was a Marvel Studios production. It was was dishonest and a misuse of the logo. Fox was trying to piggyback off the MCU plain as day.

After this debacle, Marvel needs to revise the logo they provide to third party studios producing their films to try and eliminate this kind of confusion. The difference between the two logos is too subtle and now that Marvel is not using their fanfare (for whatever reason) it's even less apparent.

 

[starscream22]

Removing the 20th Century Fox logo from the their TV spots and only featuring the Marvel logo was a blatant attempt to mislead audiences into thinking this was a Marvel Studios production. It was was dishonest and a misuse of the logo. Fox was trying to piggyback off the MCU plain as day.

After this debacle, Marvel needs to revise the logo they provide to third party studios producing their films to try and eliminate this kind of confusion. The difference between the two logos is too subtle and now that Marvel is not using their fanfare (for whatever reason) it's even less apparent.

Yeah and this isn't the first time these useless hacks have done this to the real Marvel. Its aggravating and pathetic.

If nothing else Marvel should definitely make the "Studios" portion of the logo BIGGER as well as other stand out details to distinguish their films from from Fox's crap in the future.

There were way too many reviews/articles actually blaming Marvel for this crappy rights grab.

 

[gdw]

We should all be able to sue them for false advertising, considering probably 90% of the trailer scenes weren't in the movie.

Lol, I wonder if there's actually something there.
The trailers very much seemed like they were selling something very different than what we got.

Wonder if it could set a legal precedence? There are plenty of laws in place regarding false advertizing in all other arenas.

All that said, I'm not for more laws or government interference in ANYTHING, but I am curious if a case could be made.

Now, it's pretty much impossible not to show cut material in marketing, unless every and all marketing is done after the film is finished and locked, which is completely unreasonable, especially today.
Trailers and teasers are cut long before the final cut is locked, and often use different takes, and even footage from scenes which are later deleted.

However, It's pretty ridiculous how bad the F4 marketing did this. I don't think I've ever seen a movie marketed so much off the cutting room floor.

 

[MahvelBaby!]

It may just not even be worth the trouble for Disney

 

[Tony Stark]

Technically it is Marvel because the property originated at Marvel and Marvel owns the characters. Think about that. The creators do not even have an ownership of these characters, they are the property of Marvel. So technically, it's not wrong to call it Marvel's either.

If they do it with X-Men, put the Marvel label on there, they can't be all "It's OK with X-Men but not Fantastic Four." That's not how these things work.

It is very different from the NFL situation, especially if the licensing agreement allows this. There is no violation.

That is not correct. Yes Marvel does own the characters, no Fox does not have the right to use the Marvel TM as they choose. It is a licensing agreement.

It's the exact same thing as the NFL licensing. In order to use the NFL logo or any team logo, any said company has to obtain a licensing agreement through the NFL. If there are improper uses of the NFL logo or team logo's the NFL can sue for TM infringement.

If they marketed the film as "Marvel's Fantastic Four" for example, they could easily be sued for infringement, because that's how Marvel Studios have been marketing their films since Disney acquisition, i.e. "Marvel's The Avengers".

The licensing agreement would specify where and how the TM could be displayed.

 

[Tony Stark]

Yeah and this isn't the first time these useless hacks have done this to the real Marvel. Its aggravating and pathetic.

If nothing else Marvel should definitely make the "Studios" portion of the logo BIGGER as well as other stand out details to distinguish their films from from Fox's crap in the future.

There were way too many reviews/articles actually blaming Marvel for this crappy rights grab.

This is so true, and from alot of publications that should have known better. I remember one that was titled "Marvel's first big misstep". The article went on to talk about the success of Iron Man, Avengers, and even Ant-man, but that this was a huge misstep for them.

Anyone who thinks that it's not confusing on who owns the rights to the characters, these were major Hollywood publications that didn't know it was not a Marvel Studios production.

 

[Shikamaru]

I'm not sure if simply excluding the Fox logo would constitute as marketing the film as "Marvel's Fantastic Four". It's a different story if the tv spots directly state those words, but I don't believe any of them did. Even if you can, they runs the risk of coming off as inconsistent. If other Sony or Fox films have done the same without Marvel/Disney going after them, it would make their case appear less sympathetic.

Regardless, I don't think Disney would go through the trouble of a lawsuit even if they could. It would only hinder their relationship with Fox even further and affect other brands like Star Wars in the process.