Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Courthouse Steps
CASE CAPTION: Marvel Enterprises Inc. and Marvel Characters Inc. v. The Walt Disney Co., The Walt Disney Studios Inc., BVS Entertainment, BVS International N.V. and ABC Family Worldwide, L.A. Superior Court # BC318855.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of written contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; accounting; unfair business practices; intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; and fraud.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Disney's accounting statements claim that series using Marvel characters continue to lose money and that Marvel is not entitled to any profit distribution despite increased demand for telecasts and home videos because of hit movies produced by studios other than Disney. Disney hadn't produced books and records, blaming poor record keeping by its predecessor, Fox Family. Disney overpaid for Fox Family by billions of dollars and failed to develop a viable marketing strategy for the valuable intellectual property of Marvel that it acquired. Fox made sweetheart deals with corporate affiliates and Disney continues to exploit them to support its claim that none of the series have recouped their costs and shown any profit. Disney has also failed to market the properties to avoid competition with its own animated programming. Disney has refused to allow Marvel to audit accountings through 2003 until disputes to 2002 have been resolved, in order to conceal handsome profits made when it repackaged and re-released “Spider-Man” videos to coincide with the May 2002 Sony “Spider-Man” movie release. The series feature “The Incredible Hulk,” “X-Men” and Spider-Man. Disney acquired some of them with Fox Family in 2001. (Disney got X-Men in an agreement with Saban Entertainment and Saban International in 1993.) Disney has refused to credit Marvel with nearly $16 million due under the Spider-Man agreement first made with Fox Family.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?