Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the legal-web-slinging dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It now looks like Marvel has a dispute with
Sony over Spiderman. This short
report tells how Sony is trying to take over Spiderman. First we saw the
dispute between Marvel and Stan Lee, and now this."
I'm confused...
by
Xerithane
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I see Marvel has a point with the merchandising, that they are supposed to do most of it with the joint agreement. I'm not sure how Sony is violating Marvel's rights on the Spiderman franchise because as far as I can tell, they're making movies.
This is a really horrible report, so Google News comes to the rescue and I found a fanboy site with a lot more information.
Hope it helps, because the Drudge report was just confusing.
Re:I'm confused...
by
Dr+Caleb
·
· Score: 4, Informative
From reading the article, I glean that Sony is advertising Spidey in such a way as to not include Marvel in any way.
"Spiderman" by Sony Entertainment. No mention of Marvel anywhere. At least, that is what I get from "MARVEL is accusing SONY of doing everything it can to disassociate SPIDERMAN and MARVEL in the minds of retailers."
-- "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
I remember the day...
by
NineNine
·
· Score: 4, Informative
... when Spiderman wasn't a corporate trademark to be argued over, but just a cool comic book that I'd pick up and read. So nice to have the corporate legal eagles shit all over it.
Knowles Knows
by
Malicious
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Harry Knowles has explained the scenario pretty well already.
more careful reading
by
GunFodder
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I believe this quote is referring to Sony Pictures, the movie producing subsidiary of Sony. It is quite possible that the only profits Sony Pictures made last year were from Spiderman, so the economic impact of a loss of license would be huge.
Re:more careful reading
by
dragoncortez
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Actually, after a quick search to verify facts, it's quite clear that Sony Pictures would have made a sizable profit even without Spiderman last year. This article shows Sony with two other movies in the top ten from last year. So, I don't think there's any doubt the story is a bunch of bull.
Slashdot Mirror
I see Marvel has a point with the merchandising, that they are supposed to do most of it with the joint agreement. I'm not sure how Sony is violating Marvel's rights on the Spiderman franchise because as far as I can tell, they're making movies.
This is a really horrible report, so Google News comes to the rescue and I found a fanboy site with a lot more information.
Hope it helps, because the Drudge report was just confusing.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
... when Spiderman wasn't a corporate trademark to be argued over, but just a cool comic book that I'd pick up and read. So nice to have the corporate legal eagles shit all over it.
Harry Knowles has explained the scenario pretty well already.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
I believe this quote is referring to Sony Pictures, the movie producing subsidiary of Sony. It is quite possible that the only profits Sony Pictures made last year were from Spiderman, so the economic impact of a loss of license would be huge.