Depending on who you talk to, factors on both sides of the fence were crucial to this massive failing, which felt all the more tragic considering the long road the character had traveled in his cinematic achievements. The wild ride that saw Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland each occupying and vacating the web-slinging role through various periods of time started way before their time, and will undoubtedly continue to be interesting in this brave new world outside of the MCU.
So as a quick study guide, we've provided a nice, simple history as to how we got to this very point in Sony and Marvel's shared relationship with Spider-Man, and where things might be going in the future. To start us off right, let's go back to the halcyon year of , where the earliest traces of Spider-Man and Sony's history begin to crop up at the movies.
While this debut would be limited to international territories, it still started Peter Parker on his big screen odyssey, with other studios eager to pick up the baton in its wake.
The big players that tried, and failed, to get things off the ground at this point were B-movie workhorse Cannon Films and MGM in its pre-Sony partnership with Carolco Pictures. But as it stands, MGM would trade its stake in the rights to Spider-Man in a negotiation with Sony that would lead to Spider-Man and James Bond both landing in their current, comfortable homes. The solution to their woes was simple: MGM and Sony made each other whole by trading off their respective rights to the franchises they were competing with.
THR now reports that Marvel is filing a lawsuit against the Ditko estate, alleging that "these blockbuster characters are ineligible for copyright termination as works made for hire" — a stipulation which would effectively render the Ditko estate's termination notices void. Check out the full excerpt below:. The suits seek declaratory relief that these blockbuster characters are ineligible for copyright termination as works made for hire.
If Marvel loses, Disney would be letting ownership of characters worth billions slip from its fingertips. Under the termination provisions of copyright law, authors or their heirs can reclaim rights once granted to publishers after waiting a statutory set period of time. According to the termination notice, Marvel would lose rights to its iconic character in June From the moviegoing audience's perspective, the loss of so many iconic characters from the MCU may be highly disappointing.
Spider-Man is one of Marvel's biggest brands, so why does Sony Pictures own the rights? CNNMoney Sponsors. SmartAsset Paid Partner. While the movies make a huge amount of money at the box office, the merchandise rights can and often do make even more. But in , when Sony was in need of a cash injection, it made the decision to sell the merchandising rights back to Marvel. This move was something which Sony needed to do in order to keep the studio running, but it has cost it in the long-run.
Ever since Marvel began developing its own films via Marvel Studios, many fans have been vocal in suggesting that Sony should give the Spider-Man movie rights back to Marvel — but should the studio do this? Legally, Sony does not have to give the rights back to Spider-Man , unless it fails to produce Spidey movies within the allotted time.
Please feel free to share the information as you see fit. Should you wish to know more about the Spider-Man movie series, please take a look around this blog. Alternatively, take a look at one of the recommended reads below. Like Liked by 1 person. Beautifully compiled, to the point, accurate, unambiguous, thorough and well written.
I ended up reading the whole composition even though I got the information I needed within the first paragraph. Thoroughly enjoyed it, the writer has mastered the art of information giving. Become a teacher, my friend, schools need you. Like Like.
But why in every Spider-Man movie include Venom movie , there is a mention like Spider-Man and related characters copyright Marvel. Because the characters originated in Marvel Comics. Marvel owns the copyright to the characters, and uses them however it sees fit in comics, cartoons, and toys, but under a licensing agreement with Sony, the characters that appear in films are owned by Sony, until such time as the rights revert back to Marvel.
Does Sony need to pay a royalties to Marvel Comics for each Spider-man movie? I seen somewhere that Sony pay a royalties to Marvel. With regards to the original trilogy and every other Spider-Man movie you mention the disclaimer is included as Spider-Man and associated characters are still owned by Marvel Comics. With regard to a live-action TV series, I believe Marvel could create a live-action show, but this would not happen anytime soon — and unlikely to with Tom Holland.
Following on from my answer to your previous question, Marvel is unlikely to make an MCU Spider-Man television series. I hope this answers your questions. This article is so perfectly executed. Absolutely precise and concise. You answered every question I could possibly have about this topic.
Thank you, Alex Wiggan!
0コメント