When does Marvel 'lose' the Ultraverse?

[The Cool Thatguy]

Copyright is a use it or lose it thing in general, so I'm curious, when does Marvel have to use the Ultra verse characters again to retain copyright?

I mean yeah, they'll never give them up, but any math whiz out there know when they'll have to pull the trigger on that?

[Hypestyle]

Who knows? Marvel higher-ups won't reveal anything about the original contract, other than its "scary". Ah, well. It would be great to see updated versions of the characters, whether on their own world or in the main Marvel world. Too bad.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Who knows? Marvel higher-ups won't reveal anything about the original contract, other than its "scary". Ah, well. It would be great to see updated versions of the characters, whether on their own world or in the main Marvel world. Too bad.

Doesn't matter how scary it is, though. Copyright law would supersede that

[codystarbuck]

The copyright is good for quite a long time to come; but, that only covers the stories themselves. The characters and related elements are covered by trademarks, which have an expiration; but, which also have to be maintained through use. You can't just trademark something and not use it. That is part of the reason why you see characters pop up briefly, then disappear again. It helps keep the trademark active, even when the character isn't part of a regular title.

Corporations were behind the copyright extensions, particularly Disney and Warner, to prevent characters like Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain. In other words, don't hold your breath.

[The Cool Thatguy]

The copyright is good for quite a long time to come; but, that only covers the stories themselves. The characters and related elements are covered by trademarks, which have an expiration; but, which also have to be maintained through use. You can't just trademark something and not use it. That is part of the reason why you see characters pop up briefly, then disappear again. It helps keep the trademark active, even when the character isn't part of a regular title.

That's my point, though. How long will it be before copyright law forces Marvel to use the characters again?

[XPac]

If there was a time to use them even briefly you'd think it would be secret wars. Ah well ... I guess they still have a lot of time.

[alton]

Marvel/Disney should have sold the Ultraverse rights back to the Malibu comics creators.

I thought I read here a while ago that Marvel purchased Malibu for a color separation process that is probably obsolete by now. I wasn't buying comics at the time so I could be wrong and how that entailed gaining control over the creative end beats me. Basically copyrights are good for 75 yrs. so it will be a long time before Marvel has to do anything with these creations. I've dug a few of these out of back bins and I didn't think they were that good. I'd rather see Cross Gen surface again.

[simbob4000]

Never, because trademarks can last forever.

Why doesn't Marvel ever use these characters those? Seems like the kind of thing they could wrangle some kind of big event out of.

[JKtheMac]

The copyright is good for quite a long time to come; but, that only covers the stories themselves. The characters and related elements are covered by trademarks, which have an expiration; but, which also have to be maintained through use. You can't just trademark something and not use it. That is part of the reason why you see characters pop up briefly, then disappear again. It helps keep the trademark active, even when the character isn't part of a regular title.

Corporations were behind the copyright extensions, particularly Disney and Warner, to prevent characters like Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain. In other words, don't hold your breath.

Although the copyright issue has still to be rigorously tested in court, and many lawyers in the field suspect it could be challenged successfully if the right case could be brought, as the current situation appears to go against the spirit of the law. Plus the comic industry still has a whole tangled mess of "work for hire" misapplications that need testing. I live in hope someone will pull that monolith down and return us to sensible and simple copyright.

[Tiamatty]

I thought I read here a while ago that Marvel purchased Malibu for a color separation process that is probably obsolete by now.

That was the stated reason Marvel gave. The real reason was because DC was eyeing Malibu, and Marvel worried that it would allow DC to overtake them in the market. So they bought Malibu to prevent DC from buying them.

[JKtheMac]

That was the stated reason Marvel gave. The real reason was because DC was eyeing Malibu, and Marvel worried that it would allow DC to overtake them in the market. So they bought Malibu to prevent DC from buying them.

Given that the whole deal is apparently tied up with NDAs I don't think we will ever know. The co-signatories have remained silent and most of the current Marvel staff were not around at the time. Of course that kind of situation leads to all kinds of speculation and conspiracy theories precisely because they can't be dissolved by the truth.

[Icefalcon]

IIRC copyright is 70 years and trademark 10 years from last use.

[Tupiaz]

Tom Mason (who has one of the guys behind Malibu Comics) have stated he believes it is because Scott Rosenberg has a producer deal for all Malibu products.

"Ah, a good question that brings up old stuff. Here’s a couple of things. I went to the Hudnall link above, and he’s wrong on at least one point. Marvel never bought Malibu for its coloring department. That was never true. Marvel bought Malibu for only one reason: to keep it away from DC which had been negotiating to buy the company since April/May 1994. (Marvel actively and repeatedly tried to shut down the coloring department post-acquisition and it was only saved through the intervention of Mark Gruenwald and the guy who ran the coloring department Mike Giles.)

As far as I know, there are no creator contract issues with the Founders that would prevent the revival of the Ultraverse. I know that phantom issue gets tossed out there a lot, but both Tom Brevoort and Joe Quesada have stated that it’s not a creator contract issue that prevents Marvel from reviving it. And since I’m one of the people who has an Ultraverse contract and an interest in multiple characters, I would know. Also, Marvel owns the Ultraverse outright, so they don’t need anyone’s permission. (The Founders still keep in touch and we’ve all talked about it over the years – there’s nothing legal going on between the Founders and Marvel.)

Johanna is correct that the Ultraverse contracts for the Founders do have participation %. However, the Founders do not have an ownership stake, do not share in any “profits” (however that may be defined), and have no control over the properties. (Just as if they had created a character for the DCU.) Character Interest Agreements for the Ultraverse simply state that writers and artists who created specific characters will receive a very small percentage of the money that comes in based on their media exploitation. The agreements were based on standard terms at DC at the time for creators who created a character for the DCU. And those terms are in perpetuity, so if for some reason there’s a Sludge movie, Steve Gerber’s estate receives a check. But, those percentages are not onerous and not out of line with what DC was offering at the time."

[Gaastra]

As far as I know, there are no creator contract issues with the Founders that would prevent the revival of the Ultraverse. I know that phantom issue gets tossed out there a lot, but both Tom Brevoort and Joe Quesada have stated that it’s not a creator contract issue that prevents Marvel from reviving it. And since I’m one of the people who has an Ultraverse contract and an interest in multiple characters, I would know. Also, Marvel owns the Ultraverse outright, so they don’t need anyone’s permission. (The Founders still keep in touch and we’ve all talked about it over the years – there’s nothing legal going on between the Founders and Marvel.)

So all this time they could have just used them with no trouble. Then why are they not using them? Blast it marvel give us a ultraforce comic!

[ERON]

That lines up with what I had always heard - that they'd rather just sit on the characters than potentially have to pay contractually-obligated royalties to the original writers/artists by using them. I believe DC was in a similar situation for a long time with Black Lightning.

Also, OP was incorrect. Trademark is "use it or lose it," not copyright.