These might seem like somewhat unrelated questions. Sure, they both involve Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy franchise. But one is about a theme park ride and the other a movie. Yet the two questions are intimately related, and could have profound legal consequences for the Walt Disney Company and its parks.
Let's catch up. Actor Vin Diesel, who voices Groot in the Guardians of the Galaxy, spilled on Facebook this week that the Guardians characters would be appearing in the upcoming Avengers film, which opens in 2018. Disney-owned Marvel takes an aggressive approach toward connecting its characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, so the slip didn't blow anyone away with shock.
So what does this have to do with theme parks? As any long-time Theme Park Insider reader knows, Universal Studios back in the 1990s secured the theme park rights to Marvel characters for Universal Orlando. For a while, it even had the global rights to use Marvel in its theme parks. Those rights have elapsed, but they remain in the Japan market for the next several years, and in perpetuity in Orlando. That deal, which you can read on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission website, effectively prohibits Disney from using most Marvel characters, or even the word "Marvel," inside the theme parks of the Walt Disney World Resort.
Notice that I wrote "most." The contract, which Marvel signed long before Disney acquired it, prohibits other theme parks from using the characters that Universal does, along with any other members of those characters families and their associated villains. If you speak legalese, here is the relevant subsection of the contract, IV.B.1.a.1.i. (Note that MCA was Universal's parent company at the time, which is why it's mentioned as a party in the deal.)
East of The Mississippi - any other theme park is limited to using characters not currently being used by MCA at the time such other license is granted. [For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is “being used by MCA” if (x) it or another character of the same “family” (e.g., any member of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, THE AVENGERS or villains associated with a hero being used) is more than an incidental element of an attraction, is presented as a costumed character, or is more than an incidental element of the theming of a retail store or food facility; and, (y) in addition, if such character or another character from the same “family” is an element in any MCA marketing during the previous year. Any character who is only used as a costume character will not be considered to be “being used by MCA” unless it appears as more than an incidental element in MCA’s marketing.]
The question of what constitutes membership in a character "family" is key here. The contract explicitly references the Avengers, which are represented at Islands of Adventure in the Incredible Hulk Coaster. That provision prohibits Walt Disney World, or any other theme park east of the Mississippi, from using any of the characters in the Avengers family, or the villains fighting them, in their theme parks.
But does an appearance in an Avengers film constitute making the Guardians of the Galaxy members of the Avengers "family"? That is literally a multi-million dollar question for the Walt Disney Company. One could make a common-sense argument that a visiting a family isn't the same as being adopted by it. But this is contract law, where what's written on the page rules over whatever logical argument one might try to make. If Disney were to go ahead and develop a Guardians-themed attraction at Disney World, then put those characters in an Avengers film, Universal owner Comcast could sue Marvel for breach of contract, arguing that by appearing the Avengers film, the Guardians have effectively become members of that family.
If a judge or jury buys that argument, Disney World would have to close that attraction, remove all Guardians branding from the Disney World parks and all of its promotional material (every guidemap, billboard, and ad... anywhere) and potentially have to pay Comcast many millions of dollars in damages.
I cannot imagine any lawyer allowing Disney to take that risk.
So either Disney needs to
I also can't imagine that Comcast would agree to the option 1 deal with Disney as nothing more than a corporate favor. Comcast and NBCUniversal would need to get something from Disney in return (a la the Oswald the Lucky Rabbit/Al Michaels deal). That's why we take any Guardians-related rumor for Disney World with a Gibraltar-sized grain of salt.
Whatever the outcome, though, we know this — some lawyers are keeping busy.
You Might Also Like:
So if Universal has the same definitions of 'families' as we did there's not much they can do about Guardians appearing in theme parks, regardless of whether the characters appear in the Avengers movie. I mean, Spider-Man will be in that movie too but in terms of licensing will still be in his own family.
If Disney were to add Luke and Rey to the next version of Infinity Wars using some Iger Synergy/Comic Book logic, would Disney no longer be allowed to use Star Wars characters in their parks? Would Rey and BB8 be free to appear in their Spiderman ride?
The obvious answer is no, that's ridiculous. Which is exactly why no, the GoTG appearing in a MCU movie today has no bearing on what the contract gave Universal the rights to 20 years ago.
And is finally why no, Universal does not have the rights to the MCU specifically appearing in their parks. They have the rights to Iron Man, but not Paramount/Disney's Robert Downey Jr. portrayal.
The meet and greet was a very exclusive one time exception while the movie was out.
I think Disney can use Marvel as soon as Marvel Superhero Island is changed into something else (probably never)
Disney will just take the mojo and power of these characters and reduce them to character meet and greets or shirts of them riding Dumbo eating Mickey ice cream.
I wish the someone would bring a lawsuit against Disney for ruining Darth Vader by reducing him to a Dumbo riding ice cream eating weenie that gets defeated by kids every half hour. Did Darth loose Space Jam?
Universal has clearly shown that they no longer need Marvel and in fact have decided their future lies with Harry Potter and the HP additions, look at the new contract they just signed with WB. Therefore, it would not be shocking if Marvel took this to arbitration to regain their rights or demand for additional money inclusion in the enlarged Universal parks in Orlando. Universal can not have it both ways. Marvel has to be an extremely important part of the development or give up the rights. No single company can ever hold another company hostage over the development of their IP and if Universal continues down the path of minimizing Marvel's importance at Universal Florida then Disney has a legal responsibility to it's stockholders to fight Comcast over this.
Here is the statement.
"in addition, if such character or another character from the same “family” is an element in any MCA marketing during the previous year.
GotG currently has no home at Universal and if it did it would not be allowed to use the Disney version of the characters. Just like the can't make the Hulk look like Mark Ruffalo.
My question what if Universal build an Avenger attraction that includes the Guardian. What would happen then?
Brian
By the time most 'movie' based rides come out, the movie is 3-5 years old already and irrelevant.
Imagineers my ass, more like copy cats these days!
Did innovation die at Disney with Walt?????
Designing a ride, let alone a world, over one Guardians of the Galaxy movie that came out four years ago? Oh wait, Avatar world will change the amusement park landscape! You know, that movie from a decade ago that nobody cares about anymore?
ENOUGH is ENOUGH. What happened to imagination and originality?
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
