The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - Part 10

[Stark Bauer]

"I think that there’s a good chance that if we had all of those characters—I really like the character of Annihilus,” Gunn said. “And there’s a chance that I would have done Annihilus as a villain in one of the movies.”

I sincerely hope that James Gunn stays with Marvel long enough to take over and oversee the Fantastic Four movie. He's got the right idea. You don't start with Doom, but whatever suits the story. He wanted to have Annihilus in Guardians vol 2...the man is a genius!


I know Feige has him lined up to take care of Phase 4 once Infinity War is done...Gunn has the right approach and execution to make Marvel even better

 

[aNarcHy2day]

I would guess that Elektra film delayed the reversion for Daredevil,so spin offs are fair game. SONY is going spin off crazy for a reason.

And that reason is to make money off the properties they have because I'm sure the Spiderman movies in production now count as Sony movies too.

 

[wobbly]

I don't think B is really possible in this circumstance. Cameron sold Terminator rights for a dollar (lol) and no other contingencies other than he couldn't be fired as a director for 1984's Terminator. Yet, he's still getting it back next year. I'm actually doing some research on this right now and have made no progress whatsoever.

Whatever the case it is food for thought. I'd table it as a 'maybe' rather than a certainty for now though. If Marvel do have that 'nuclear option' I guess we will know within the next decade.

Section 203 says nothing about brick and mortar being different. It's "except work for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright...is subject to termination"

I was just thinking property law (or real estate law) is a whole other minefield of legal quagmire. I wouldn't be surprised if there is something in there that can rule out copyright termination as allowed for IP licensing in any kind of publication media (books, films, music etc). But I'm obviously not a lawyer so it's entirely guesswork from me.

 

[Zarex]

It's nice to know that there is another possibility for bringing the FF into the MCU, but I strongly suspect FOX and Disney will work a deal out in the boardroom before they anyone takes it to the courts. With the Hulu skinny bundle and the Marvel TV shows on FOX owned networks, the two companies are much more simpatico than they have been in the past. And its best to have allies when facing competition in AT&T and Comcast that control both content AND distribution.

Many folks on these boards have long suspected that Disney/Marvel and FOX would come to some agreement that would grant the Murdoch's additional rights to the X-Men character family (Confirmed!) in exchange for early release of the FF family character live action rights. Despite the disappointing news from Gunn this week I still think that is the case.

 

[Lilbaz]

Next time someone from marvel does a q&a can someone just ask what fox gave marvel for the tv rights to legion etc...?

 

[NHawk19]

2 Fantastic 4 forums and 10 parts to this thread later . . . that's some dedication.

 

[Dark Raven]

2 Fantastic 4 forums and 10 parts to this thread later . . . that's some dedication.

It's more than 10 parts really. It's only 10 parts to the rebooted version of the thread. There were many more parts to the original version before it was closed.

 

[Zarex]

Okay, we've taken the hit here on the tin-foil hat forum. But we've dusted ourselves off and leapt back into action with even more non-sanctioned licensing legal mumbo jumbo. But there may be some good news. Kang, a character confirmed by Gunn to be inexplicably tied up with the FF character rights, is the main villain of Lego Marvel Super Heroes 2!

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/press...spLEGOregnbspMARVELSUPER_HEROES_2nbspnbsp.php


The prior iteration of the game featured a lot of non MCU characters, including the FF. But the last Lego Marvel game - Lego Marvel's Avengers - was heavily MCU influenced, and it looks as though this sequel could be the same. Could it mean that Kang is now part of the MCU? Keep Hope Alive!!!!

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Okay, we've taken the hit here on the tin-foil hat forum. But we've dusted ourselves off and leapt back into action with even more non-sanctioned licensing legal mumbo jumbo. But there may be some good news. Kang, a character confirmed by Gunn to be inexplicably tied up with the FF character rights, is the main villain of Lego Marvel Super Heroes 2!

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/press...spLEGOregnbspMARVELSUPER_HEROES_2nbspnbsp.php


The prior iteration of the game featured a lot of non MCU characters, including the FF. But the last Lego Marvel game - Lego Marvel's Avengers - was heavily MCU influenced, and it looks as though this sequel could be the same. Could it mean that Kang is now part of the MCU? Keep Hope Alive!!!!

It's probably a sad commentary on our lives that Kang being a Lego character is such big news to us...

...but that is a very interesting find.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

It's more than 10 parts really. It's only 10 parts to the rebooted version of the thread. There were many more parts to the original version before it was closed.

Looks like this is 22 (since the very first thread doesn't have a number and the second part starts at '1') http://forums.superherohype.com/search.php?searchid=28161551 and we've just matched the number of original threads with rebooted ones.

And I'm sure we'd be a good bit higher than that if the Foxholm Syndrome people hadn't shut us down for that period because the concept of not wanting Fox to continue making films wasn't 'positive' enough.

 

[Zarex]

There are threads out there with folks obsessing about Rotten Tomatoes scores, discussing how Batman v Superman is a misunderstood masterpiece and how "haters" both overestimate (You're setting the film up to fail!! smh) and underestimate (There's no WAY this movie featuring my favorite characters doesn't earn eleventy billion dollars!!) BO predictions. I find this forum to be one of the sanest.

 

[ADollarADay]

A marriage is a contract that is never-ending... until one party dies or files for divorce. We don't really spend a lot of time thinking about or talking about the idea that someone can file for divorce until it actually happens, and I think that's the situation here.

Until Marvel actually files for divorce, I don't think either Fox or Marvel are going to say: " Don't forget, Marvel could file for divorce next year."

I went down a rabbit hole yesterday and this is what I found:

1) A company can be an author

The author of a work is responsible for its creation. Normally, the author is the person who actually creates the authorship being claimed. The only exception occurs when authorship is created as a work made for hire. In this case, the employer is considered the author, not the employee who created the authorship.

This would probably be the case for Marvel's deals in the 90s where they would the author

2) This is how termination rights work, in a nice chart format. Includes both 304 (pre 1978) and 203 (post 1978).

https://www.sunsteinlaw.com/media/2012_01 Copyright_Chart.pdf

3) Rights of publication is, for example, the right to distribute copies for sale. Link also shows the earliest and latest you can serve a termination notice.

4) Termination for grants after 01/01/1978 are 35 years from publication or 40 years from execution, whatever comes first

In the case of Marvel contracts that would mean:
Fantastic Four - Date of execution (1986), Date of publication (1994). Earliest reversion would be 2026 (1986 + 40). Earliest notice would be 2016 and latest would be 2024.
XMen - Date of execution (1993), Date of publication (2000). Earliest reversion would be 2033 (1993 + 40). Earliest notice would be 2023 and latest would be 2031.
Orlando Theme Park rights - Date of execution (1994), Date of publication (1999). Earliest reversion would be 2034 (1994 + 40/1999+35). Earliest notice would be 2024 and latest would be 2032.
Spiderman - Date of execution (1999), Date of publication (2002). Earliest reversion would be 2037 (2002 + 35). Earliest notice would be 2027 and latest would be 2035.
No idea on deadpool or hulk/namor licenses as I don't know when the grants were executed.

5) Even mortgages are considered transfer of ownership and can be terminated

6) Notice must be given 2-10 years prior to termination date. There's a window, it's complicated, there's a window to give notice and failure to do so may result in never recapturing the rights.

7) It is a very complicated process, especially because Marvel has reversion clauses in all their contracts, including the theme park one. Theoretically, they would be able to invoke statutory reversion, even with those in place.

8) This is what the author can terminate under section 203:

An author can terminate almost any transfer of her copyright if the grant was executed on or after January 1, 1978. The grant must fulfill the following qualifications:

a) Not be a work for hire
b) Executed by the author and no one else
c) Not a grant made via a will

You can only terminate rights once as well.

9) Same link as above, derivative work can not be terminated. That means all movies, and theme park rides, already made cannot be terminated.

10) This table makes it clear that copyright by corporation can be reversed. The only difference how long the copyright is granted for (i.e. 95 years for corporation vs life of author + 70 years for individual(s))



It looks good for Marvel and Disney, but with that said, I have no idea what I'm talking about. This is all internet research and I'm not a lawyer. Furthermore, Lucas didn't get the distribution rights back for Indiana Jones and Disney had to make a deal with Paramount for Indy 5 where Para still get some participation on all future Indy movies and still distributes the previous 4. Either Lucas missed the window to get it back or he just couldn't do it. I have no idea, I will let people draw their own conclusions.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I went down a rabbit hole yesterday and this is what I found:

1) A company can be an author



This would probably be the case for Marvel's deals in the 90s where they would the author

2) This is how termination rights work, in a nice chart format. Includes both 304 (pre 1978) and 203 (post 1978).

https://www.sunsteinlaw.com/media/2012_01 Copyright_Chart.pdf

3) Rights of publication is, for example, the right to distribute copies for sale. Link also shows the earliest and latest you can serve a termination notice.

4) Termination for grants after 01/01/1978 are 35 years from publication or 40 years from execution, whatever comes first

In the case of Marvel contracts that would mean:
Fantastic Four - Date of execution (1986), Date of publication (1994). Earliest reversion would be 2026 (1986 + 40). Earliest notice would be 2016 and latest would be 2024.
XMen - Date of execution (1993), Date of publication (2000). Earliest reversion would be 2033 (1993 + 40). Earliest notice would be 2023 and latest would be 2031.
Orlando Theme Park rights - Date of execution (1994), Date of publication (1999). Earliest reversion would be 2034 (1994 + 40/1999+35). Earliest notice would be 2024 and latest would be 2032.
Spiderman - Date of execution (1999), Date of publication (2002). Earliest reversion would be 2037 (2002 + 35). Earliest notice would be 2027 and latest would be 2035.
No idea on deadpool or hulk/namor licenses as I don't know when the grants were executed.

5) Even mortgages are considered transfer of ownership and can be terminated

6) Notice must be given 2-10 years prior to termination date. There's a window, it's complicated, there's a window to give notice and failure to do so may result in never recapturing the rights.

7) It is a very complicated process, especially because Marvel has reversion clauses in all their contracts, including the theme park one. Theoretically, they would be able to invoke statutory reversion, even with those in place.

8) This is what the author can terminate under section 203:



You can only terminate rights once as well.

9) Same link as above, derivative work can not be terminated. That means all movies, and theme park rides, already made cannot be terminated.

10) This table makes it clear that copyright by corporation can be reversed. The only difference how long the copyright is granted for (i.e. 95 years for corporation vs life of author + 70 years for individual(s))



It looks good for Marvel and Disney, but with that said, I have no idea what I'm talking about. This is all internet research and I'm not a lawyer. Furthermore, Lucas didn't get the distribution rights back for Indiana Jones and Disney had to make a deal with Paramount for Indy 5 where Para still get some participation on all future Indy movies and still distributes the previous 4. Either Lucas missed the window to get it back or he just couldn't do it. I have no idea, I will let people draw their own conclusions.

Wow! Nice! I'm going to have to dig through this when I have a little more time.

I'm tending to believe Fox doesn't have the "right to publish" though.

It seems to me when we are talking about "the right to distribute copies for sale", we are talking about the original - not variations.

So if Fox had been granted the permission to reprint FF comic books, they would have the right to publish. Making films based on the characters would be more analogous to me to printing T-Shirts with the characters. Fox is creating new products based on the comic-books, but they aren't actually reprinting the comic books.

 

[ADollarADay]

Wow! Nice! I'm going to have to dig through this when I have a little more time.

I'm tending to believe Fox doesn't have the "right to publish" though.

It seems to me when were are talking about "the right to distribute copies for sale", we are talking about the original - not variations.

So if Fox had been granted the permission to reprint FF comic books, they would have the right to publish. Making films based on the characters would be more analogous to me to printing T-Shirts with the characters. Fox is creating new products based on the comic-books, but they aren't actually reprinting the comic books.

That makes sense.

EDIT: If there's no publication, then the reversion would be grant + 35. For FF that would be 1986 + 35 (assuming it didn't revert from Constantin and then it was sold again to Fox, kinda like what happened to Spiderman). That would mean reversion by 2021 at the earliest. Earliest to serve termination notice would have been 2011.

 

[wobbly]

I went down a rabbit hole yesterday and this is what I found:

1) A company can be an author



This would probably be the case for Marvel's deals in the 90s where they would the author

2) This is how termination rights work, in a nice chart format. Includes both 304 (pre 1978) and 203 (post 1978).

https://www.sunsteinlaw.com/media/2012_01 Copyright_Chart.pdf

3) Rights of publication is, for example, the right to distribute copies for sale. Link also shows the earliest and latest you can serve a termination notice.

4) Termination for grants after 01/01/1978 are 35 years from publication or 40 years from execution, whatever comes first

In the case of Marvel contracts that would mean:
Fantastic Four - Date of execution (1986), Date of publication (1994). Earliest reversion would be 2026 (1986 + 40). Earliest notice would be 2016 and latest would be 2024.
XMen - Date of execution (1993), Date of publication (2000). Earliest reversion would be 2033 (1993 + 40). Earliest notice would be 2023 and latest would be 2031.
Orlando Theme Park rights - Date of execution (1994), Date of publication (1999). Earliest reversion would be 2034 (1994 + 40/1999+35). Earliest notice would be 2024 and latest would be 2032.
Spiderman - Date of execution (1999), Date of publication (2002). Earliest reversion would be 2037 (2002 + 35). Earliest notice would be 2027 and latest would be 2035.
No idea on deadpool or hulk/namor licenses as I don't know when the grants were executed.

5) Even mortgages are considered transfer of ownership and can be terminated

6) Notice must be given 2-10 years prior to termination date. There's a window, it's complicated, there's a window to give notice and failure to do so may result in never recapturing the rights.

7) It is a very complicated process, especially because Marvel has reversion clauses in all their contracts, including the theme park one. Theoretically, they would be able to invoke statutory reversion, even with those in place.

8) This is what the author can terminate under section 203:



You can only terminate rights once as well.

9) Same link as above, derivative work can not be terminated. That means all movies, and theme park rides, already made cannot be terminated.

10) This table makes it clear that copyright by corporation can be reversed. The only difference how long the copyright is granted for (i.e. 95 years for corporation vs life of author + 70 years for individual(s))



It looks good for Marvel and Disney, but with that said, I have no idea what I'm talking about. This is all internet research and I'm not a lawyer. Furthermore, Lucas didn't get the distribution rights back for Indiana Jones and Disney had to make a deal with Paramount for Indy 5 where Para still get some participation on all future Indy movies and still distributes the previous 4. Either Lucas missed the window to get it back or he just couldn't do it. I have no idea, I will let people draw their own conclusions.

Thanks for doing that research

All that would suggest Marvel should have that option (and it would include the Theme parks too), but it remains to be seen if they pursue it.

Obviously they have not done so yet as I cant see any termination notices flying under any of the assorted observers radar.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Thanks for doing that research

All that would suggest Marvel should have that option (and it would include the Theme parks too), but it remains to be seen if they pursue it.

Obviously they have not done so yet as I cant see any termination notices flying under any of the assorted observers radar.

If this is an option, I'd be very surprised if Marvel doesn't send letters to Fox, Sony and Universal on the earliest possible dates.

And as for If we'll hear about it, I think Marvel/Disney will want their shareholders to know, and the licensees will likely feel obligated to let their shareholders know also. And since they're publicly traded companies, that means the information will be public.

 

[ADollarADay]

I did some more digging. I don't think it's an option.

http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Loren_BOOK.pdf

However, another important consequence of the exclusion of works made for hire from the types of agreements that can be terminated is that the “author” of a work made for hire, i.e., the employer or commissioning party, does not have a right to terminate any assignment or license into which it might enter.

Imagine ACME Software company employs software programmers who create a new software program. ACME sells that program to Microsoft. Thirty-five years later, ACME will not be able to terminate that transfer to Microsoft, even though ACME was the “author” of that program.
The software, created by employees within the scope of their employment, was a work made for hire and thus the agreement transferring copyright in that work to Microsoft is expressly excluded from the § 203 termination right, even though ACME is the “author.” 17 U.S.C. § 203(a).

Even though Marvel is the author through work for hire, they cannot legally terminate the grant. Back to square one.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I did some more digging. I don't think it's an option.

http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Loren_BOOK.pdf





Even though Marvel is the author through work for hire, they cannot legally terminate the grant. Back to square one.

Yeah, that example seems to match.

 

[wobbly]

I did some more digging. I don't think it's an option.

http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Loren_BOOK.pdf





Even though Marvel is the author through work for hire, they cannot legally terminate the grant. Back to square one.

Ah, that settles it. Oh well, lol.

 

[GeckoMoria]

Okay, we've taken the hit here on the tin-foil hat forum. But we've dusted ourselves off and leapt back into action with even more non-sanctioned licensing legal mumbo jumbo. But there may be some good news. Kang, a character confirmed by Gunn to be inexplicably tied up with the FF character rights, is the main villain of Lego Marvel Super Heroes 2!

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/press...spLEGOregnbspMARVELSUPER_HEROES_2nbspnbsp.php


The prior iteration of the game featured a lot of non MCU characters, including the FF. But the last Lego Marvel game - Lego Marvel's Avengers - was heavily MCU influenced, and it looks as though this sequel could be the same. Could it mean that Kang is now part of the MCU? Keep Hope Alive!!!!

It means absolutely nothing sicne the last game had X-mena nd F4 and Doom as one of the main villains. The Lego marvel heroes games aren'r help up in politics and the first game proved that.

No, Marvel doesn't have Kang since they don't have the F4 rights...

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I was thinking about this thread and how strong it's going and that brought a question to my mind:

Where's the Fox Fantastic Four anticipation thread?

I know there are people who pop on here occasionally and claim they want to see Fox continue to make FF films and they also claim Fox will, so why aren't those people talking about the upcoming Fox FF?

Why are people not speculating about when we'll get the announcement and anxiously awaiting hearing who will direct it and speculating about who the villains will be etc?

The anticipation for a Marvel FF film is muted by the fact they don't have the rights, but there's nothing holding people back from getting excited about a Fox FF film, is there?

It would seem to me that the people who claim they want a Fox FF film and believe Fox will keep the rights by making another film don't actually give a crap about that hypothetical film.

So if Fox made another FF film, who would they even be making it for?

 

[Zarex]

It means absolutely nothing sicne the last game had X-mena nd F4 and Doom as one of the main villains. The Lego marvel heroes games aren'r help up in politics and the first game proved that.

No, Marvel doesn't have Kang since they don't have the F4 rights...

The second game, Lego Marvel's Avengers, proved that Lego Marvel Heroes games ARE motivated by cinematic licensing rights. The film contained lots of non-Avengers characters, including ones that hadn't yet been introduced into the MCU, but no characters licensed out to FOX. And the art for the Lego Marvel Superhero cover, unlike its predecessor, also contained no FOX characters.

Can your inside sources confirm that the Kang rights have not been transferred to Marvel, as was done with Ego?

 

[UltimatePyro9]

I was thinking about this thread and how strong it's going and that brought a question to my mind:

Where's the Fox Fantastic Four anticipation thread?

I know there are people who pop on here occasionally and claim they want to see Fox continue to make FF films and they also claim Fox will, so why aren't those people talking about the upcoming Fox FF?

Why are people not speculating about when we'll get the announcement and anxiously awaiting hearing who will direct it and speculating about who the villains will be etc?

The anticipation for a Marvel FF film is muted by the fact they don't have the rights, but there's nothing holding people back from getting excited about a Fox FF film, is there?

It would seem to me that the people who claim they want a Fox FF film and believe Fox will keep the rights by making another film don't actually give a crap about that hypothetical film.

So if Fox made another FF film, who would they even be making it for?

I would say that this is the Fox Fantastic Four anticipation thread... if only that we're anticipating what Fox is going to do with the Fantastic Four. Will they make yet another Fant4stic? Will they make a spin-off movie? If so, who will the get to direct it? Will the film rights finally revert to Marvel? All we're doing here basically is waiting, speculating and anticipating.

And I guess Fox could make a FF film for the very, very few fans who still think that Fox are capable of doing the Fantastic Four better than Marvel. Fox, the same company that used the Thing's cheesy battle cry 'It's clobberin' time' as a phrase said by bully older brother before he gets smacked around.

 

[FVD]

Well, we and the Satriani fans out there who would know the reference if they used that one song from a certain album. But, SS would work if they used the Kirby-esque SS that album cover held.

I can see a potential MCU Silver Surfer movie using Satriani's Surfing with the Alien during the closing credits. Heck, I wouldn't object to a cameo by Satch too.

 

[I Am The Knight]

It's probably a sad commentary on our lives that Kang being a Lego character is such big news to us...