Who owns the rights to the Kingpin?

Discussion in 'Marvel Films' started by TheFantasticJoe, Apr 28, 2013.

  1. TheFantasticJoe

    TheFantasticJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sony originally owned the rights to use the Kingpin, since that character is most notably associated with Spider-Man. However, Fox bought out the rights so they could use him for Daredevil. Now that Daredevil is back at Marvel, did the Kingpin rights revert back to Sony, or does Marvel have them now?
     
    #1
  2. Zarex

    Zarex Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    Messages:
    7,268
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ari Avad has stated that the character rights fell under the Spider-man contract with Sony, and were loaned to FOX for use in the Daredevil movie. Greg Weisman, however, has stated that he was unable to use the Kingpin in the Spectacular Spider-man cartoon he produced with Sony because the rights were held by FOX at the time.

    Kingpin may be another one of the "shared rights" entities, joining Pietro, Wanda and the Skrulls as characters that can be used by more than one company.
     
    #2
  3. Mr. Dent

    Mr. Dent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2012
    Messages:
    8,941
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe Arad lied or the situation changed over the years. But if he fell under the Daredevil license, then Marvel has him now.
     
    #3
  4. Nelson/Murdock

    Nelson/Murdock Attorneys at Law

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which is very weird, because Kingpin was used by Sony back in 2003 for the CGI Spidey cartoon. So clearly there was some sharing or joint ownership going on back then, but the true nature of the arrangement seems to be unknown.
     
    #4
  5. metaphysician

    metaphysician Not a Side-Kick

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    11,233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Or it could be the rights for movie and cartoon are separate and unrelated.
     
    #5
  6. Nelson/Murdock

    Nelson/Murdock Attorneys at Law

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sony's 2003 Spidey series and Spectacular Spider-Man were both cartoons, so it's clearly not just that.
     
    #6
  7. JerseyJoker

    JerseyJoker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    1,853
    Likes Received:
    0
    The specifics of the rights could of been renegotiated between 2003 and when Spec Spidey came out though. Since Fox was probably in the midst of getting another DD film thrown together before they lost the rights.
     
    #7
  8. Endeavor

    Endeavor Que bolá con el timbeque?

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    8,912
    Likes Received:
    72
    Bigscreen and tv/dvd licenses are separate.

    For example: Fox owns all the mutants for film releases, but for tv Marvel/Disney can use the X-Men if they wish to produce a cartoon series.
     
    #8
  9. spideymouse

    spideymouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,529
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does make me wonder if Fox and Sony own the live-action rights to their Marvel characters, because if they owned the full tv rights to X-Men and Spider-Man, they could also show up in the MCU-related Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. series.
     
    #9
  10. Endeavor

    Endeavor Que bolá con el timbeque?

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    8,912
    Likes Received:
    72
    I've wondered about that too. I guess it depends on the specifics that are stated on the signed license contracts... I'd love to get my hands on one of those.
     
    #10
  11. The Overlord

    The Overlord Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    8,644
    Likes Received:
    0
    But still it seemed like Fox was planning on using the Kingpin in their DD sequel while it was still in development and if Sony owns the rights to Kingpin, why was he not present in any of the Spider-Man movies?
     
    #11
  12. Endeavor

    Endeavor Que bolá con el timbeque?

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    8,912
    Likes Received:
    72
    I think that means Fox didn't just borrow Kingpin from Sony, but actually bought out the rights from them. It's possible Avi just wasn't accurate in his statements.
     
    #12
  13. Mr. Dent

    Mr. Dent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2012
    Messages:
    8,941
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sony and Fox own the live action rights. Marvel can only make cartoons out of them.
     
    #13
  14. Kahran Ramsus

    Kahran Ramsus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Messages:
    11,446
    Likes Received:
    98
    From what I remember, they had to get permission from Fox, which is why it was the MCD version of Kingpin in the show.

    And yes, the Fox reboot of Daredevil was going to have Kingpin in it. Then the film fell apart and the Daredevil rights reverted to Marvel.
     
    #14
  15. dnno1

    dnno1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    12,986
    Likes Received:
    0
    The film rights to Daredevil was licensed to 20th Century Fox Pictures, and so went the rights to Kingpin. Now, television rights are a different animal and those could have been licensed to someone else.
     
    #15
  16. metaphysician

    metaphysician Not a Side-Kick

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    11,233
    Likes Received:
    0
    I suspect, even if Marvel technically has the live action TV rights, they won't overly use them as a loophole. For one thing, it would create a mess continuity-wise that they probably don't wish to deal with, given that SHIELD is an in-continuity TV series. For another, wholesale use of X-Men in the TV show would probably give Fox a prima facie case for a law suit, on the grounds that it demonstrates bad faith and causes harm to the value of the IP they paid and contracted to use. I doubt they would actually *win* in the end, but it'd probably be enough to keep lawyers busy for years.
     
    #16
  17. Kahran Ramsus

    Kahran Ramsus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Messages:
    11,446
    Likes Received:
    98
    Didn't Fox already cause a stink with some mutant tv show a few years back?
     
    #17
  18. metaphysician

    metaphysician Not a Side-Kick

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    11,233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, right, I had forgotten about Mutant X. Granted, that's a more clear cut case than I was really pondering ( seriously, it totally was an X-Men clone intended to bypass the rights issue ), but clearly Fox considered their rights to encompass live action TV.
     
    #18
  19. spideymouse

    spideymouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,529
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, that's a great point and a great clue as to who owns the live action rights to these licensed characters. Though at the time, I think Fox also owned the animation rights. I still would like to know who owns what in terms of live action TV rights. A Hugh Jackman or Andrew Garfield cameo on the SHIELD show would be awesome, albeit admittedly unlikely.
     
    #19
  20. Mr. Dent

    Mr. Dent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2012
    Messages:
    8,941
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know, I feel like Ben Urich and Kingpin should really fall under that legal moral zone where both studios can use them, as is the case with the Maximoffs and (probably) Viper, since both of those characters just as much a part of Spidey's mythos as they are Daredevil's.

    I know for a fact Sony owns all live-action rights to Spider-Man, including TV. It was in an article about the Sony/Marvel deal when it first happened that I came across a few weeks back. It would be a pain to look up but I could probably find it.

    EDIT: And here it is:

    http://articles.latimes.com/1999/mar/02/business/fi-13115

     
    #20
    Last edited: May 11, 2013
  21. spideymouse

    spideymouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,529
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for that article--it's pretty interesting. What confuses the subject for me, however, is the following from Spec Spidey producer Greg Weisman when Sony gave up the TV rights to Marvel:
    www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?rid=836
    Whether "live action Spider-Man features" means the live action movies only or also live action television is unclear, but when Weisman says "Sony returned the television rights (including the animated television rights)," it sounds like it could have meant the live action television rights as well. Later in a followup IGN article, it's made clear that "Weisman noted he had "no clue" as to what Sony gained regarding Spider-Man's film rights that they didn't already have that led them to give up the TV rights to the character."

    Ever since Sony gave up TV rights to the character, I have been wondering this question about live action vs. animated TV.
     
    #21
  22. Mr. Dent

    Mr. Dent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2012
    Messages:
    8,941
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm assuming it's just the animation rights.
     
    #22
  23. spideymouse

    spideymouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,529
    Likes Received:
    0
    But that's just an assumption. There is no indication either way of how that deal went down. There has been no action by Marvel or by Sony towards any live action TV version of Spider-Man or Spider-Man related characters, so to me there's just not enough information.
     
    #23
  24. Mr. Dent

    Mr. Dent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2012
    Messages:
    8,941
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only way I see one happening is if they give the film series a break anyway, which I doubt will happen anytime soon.
     
    #24
  25. spideymouse

    spideymouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,529
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, the way I read the original question is whether Marvel has the TV rights to these characters, not whether a Spider-Man TV show will happen anytime soon (it won't). The answer to the original question would have immediate implications for possible appearances in the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. show, a potential Daredevil show, or any other Marvel-produced TV venture.
     
    #25

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"