by Madeline Rains, edited by BNSesq

The backbone of Marvel Comics has always been the wealth of intellectual property possessed by the company. Its success was based around complete ownership of its characters, until Marvel ultimately sold its film rights for select characters to other studios in the 1990’s, following financial turmoil. Marvel’s struggle to regain those film rights illustrates the intrinsic value of licensing in the entertainment industry and the importance of protecting the rights of intellectual property. Marvel’s history, ongoing struggle to gain control of its character catalogue, and connection to Disney, makes it the perfect example of what can happen if intellectual property rights are not protected.

In 1939, Timely Comics was founded on the hopes that it could cash in on the growing popularity of comic books in America. At the beginning, Timely Comics created many characters that modern audiences would recognize today, including the Human Torch and, of course, Captain America. The characters and the comic strips they graced became wildly popular, and the comic book industry boomed. But by the early 1950’s the “Golden Age” of comics was over and readers lost interest in superheroes. Timely Comics pivoted in genre, changed the company’s name to Atlas Comics, and stayed afloat until DC Comics burst onto the scene with its superheroes in 1956. After seeing the revival of the superhero industry Atlas Comics changed the name once again to Marvel Comics in the 1960’s. During this subsequent “Silver Age” of comics, Marvel and DC reigned supreme as arch rivals in a competitive craft.[1]

Image result for captain americaMarvel would soon became a powerful force with which to be reckoned, as Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko joined the company and created outlandish characters, bold storylines and eye-catching art.[2] Marvel’s trio of writers and artists harnessed a creative spark that allowed Marvel’s content to become king in the comic industry. The recently deceased Lee, along with Kirby and Ditko had the origins of an idea that would affect generations to come through comics such as The Fantastic Four, The Amazing Spider-Man, X-Men and The Incredible Hulk.[3] Lee, Kirby, and Ditko created some of today’s most iconic characters through their work for Marvel. While many comic books have an underlying story of good and evil that cannot be protectable by copyright, the storylines, characters and the designs were protected by copyright law under the consideration of work-for-hire. Marvel’s story arcs and characters became its most valuable asset.[4] Comics became collectors’ items during the 1980’s with consumers buying up vast numbers in the hope that one day they would be worth a fortune. As the industry boomed, Neil Gaiman, writer of the Sandman series, predicted the bubble would burst. DC and Marvel ignored his predictions and continued to sell comics that practically flew off the shelves and in 1989 Ron Perelman purchased Marvel for $82.5 million.[5]

In 1993 the bubble burst and the comic book industry collapsed under its own weight. Some accused Perelman’s footloose business tactics of jeopardizing the market and causing the collapse. Comic sales crashed by 70% and by 1995 Marvel found itself in crippling debt. As a last-ditch effort to right a sinking ship Perelman combined his other business interests to create Marvel Studios in hopes that the characters that so many people loved would make it to the silver screen and reignite the industry.[6] But to carry this out, Marvel had to make a deal with the devil–the movie studios of the time. Marvel sold the film rights of some of its most well-known characters for quick cash to dig itself out of bankruptcy. What was once Marvel’s most valuable asset, its characters, were now in the hands of other companies that had complete artistic control over new film adaptations. Marvel sold Spider-Man and his rogue’s gallery to Sony Pictures, Iron Man was taken by New Line Cinema, 20th Century Fox received all the characters associated with the X-men and the Fantastic Four, and Universal Pictures purchased the Hulk and Namor with the contingency of heavyhanded clauses.[7] The terms of character licensing allowed Marvel to partition out the aspects of the exclusive rights of their intellectual property that it wished to sell to the studios and limit them solely to that usage. The movie studios could only make films with those characters and were barred from using them to manufacture toys or create video games, for example.[8] Marvel’s silver screen dreams were finally realized, but its catalogue of valuable characters was fragmented almost to the point of being unusable.

By 2005, Marvel regained financial stability and put its plans into motion to create films under its own moniker after seeing how successful other film companies were becoming with Marvel’s characters.[9] The company was able to grapple the rights to Iron Man away from New Line Cinema whose option had expired after their inability to bring a film to the big screen and the rights to the Hulk from Universal Studios thanks to the time sensitive clauses built into the negotiations.[10] Marvel Studios began to blossom as Kevin Feige was employed to oversee the future of the Marvel cinematic universe. In 2008, Marvel Studios burst onto the scene with a $585 million dollar blockbuster in Iron Man. Marvel’s ambition caught the attention of Disney, who in 2009 bought the fledgling film studio for a staggering $4.3 billion, a far cry from the $82.5 million that Perelman spent in 1989. With Disney backing Marvel’s endeavors the comic giant was able to reclaim the intellectual property rights it sold on the verge of bankruptcy.[11] Since Marvel characters began to grace the silver screen in 1986 the catalogue of superhero films have generated $12 billion in total gross revenue and shows no signs of slowing down.[12]

The value of Marvel’s characters shot it to stardom, delivered it from bankruptcy and earned it billions in film revenue. Without its strong characters, storylines, branding and quick decision to sell its rights Marvel would have been another comic company that succumbed to the market crash. Marvel’s struggle speaks volumes about the intrinsic value of intellectual property and the importance of licensing.

Madeline Raheadshot ins is a senior at Belmont University majoring in Entertainment Industry Studies and minoring in Business Administration. This article was written with her love of the film and television industries in mind. She is a lifelong Tennessean and loves the city of Nashville. She plans to stay local as she transitions from Belmont into the workforce.

 


[1] DeForest, Tim. “Marvel Comics.” Encyclopædia Brittanica. Encyclopædia Brittanica, Inc.,September 6,2018. Accessed October 26, 2018.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Marvel-Comics.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Lambie, Ryan. “How Marvel Went From Bankruptcy to Billions.” Den of Geek. April 17, 2018. Accessed October 26, 2018. https://www.denofgeek.com/us/books-comics/marvel/243710/how-marvel-went-from-bankruptcy-to-billions.

[4] Sudhindra, Nicole J.S. “Marvel Superhero Licensing.” WIPO. WIPO, June 2012. Accessed October 26, 2018.

http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2012/03/article_0005.html.

[5] Lambie, supra.

[6] Lambie, supra

[7] Perilstein, Zach. “A Visual Guide to Explain the Evolution of Marvel Character Rights.” Boardwalk Times. Boardwalk Times. Accessed October 26, 2018.

[8] Rob Aft and Charles-Edouard Renault. “From Script to Screen: The Importance of Copyright in the Distribution of Films.” World Intellectual Property Organization. Accessed October 26, 2018.

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/950/wipo_pub_950.pdf

[9] Johnson, Derek. 2012. “Cinematic Destiny: Marvel Studios and the Trade Stories of Industrial Convergence.” Cinema Journal 52 (1): 1–24. Accessed October 26, 2018. https://bunchproxy.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=82990603&site=ehost-live.

[10] Sudhindra, supra.

[11] Lambie, Ryan. “How Marvel Went From Bankruptcy to Billions.”

[12] “Marvel Comics.” Box Office Mojo. Box Office Mojo, n.d. Accessed October 26, 2018.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=marvelcomics.htm.

 

By Samantha Jervey*

When Walt Disney decided to personally license the image of Mickey Mouse in 1929, he had no idea that he would start a licensing revolution.[1]


This deliberate act made by Walt is what ultimately laid the foundation for his company, thus bringing to life what is now known today as Disney Consumer Products. Disney Consumer Products is one of many business divisions that belong to The Walt Disney Company.
[2] In essence, they are in the business of “deliver[ing] innovative and engaging product experiences across thousands of categories from toys and apparel to books and fine art.”[3] That being so, character licensing plays a huge role in Disney’s business dealings, which thanks to Kay Kamen, is an area that the company is well versed in. Kay Kamen joined the Disney team in 1932 when he was appointed to take charge of Disney Licensing.[4] It was then that he set the standard for character licensing within the entertainment industry thereby making it possible for Disney to grow into the world’s largest licensor today.[5] Out of their vast set of properties, Disney owes much of their licensing success to the Disney Princess brand. The brand is a promising niche to marketers, in addition to having mass appeal to consumers, making it an attractive product to licensees all around. Furthermore, analytical licensing charts and merchandise sales trends suggest that the Disney Princess brand will forever be timeless in the eyes of little girls and women alike.

As a large company with such a wide range of licensable properties, Disney is responsible for keeping track of their character database in an orderly and functional fashion. They have done so by dividing their licensing unit into fivestrategic brand priorities, one of which is Disney Princess and Disney Fairies. The Disney Princess brand first appeared as a cohesive collection under Andy Mooney when he was appointed as chairman of DCP in 2000.[6] In its entirety, the Disney Princess royal court accounts for 11 princess characters that embody a rich legacy and a unique set of inner qualities and values.[7] The elite group includes Ariel, Aurora, Belle, Cinderella, Jasmine, Merida, Mulan, Pocahontas, Rapunzel, Snow White and Tiana, each of whom serves as a role model to young women across the globe.[8] Families today love the traits that these women inspire among their daughters, “such as being spirited, graceful, smart, kind, compassionate, courageous, heroic, adventurous, passionate, confident, and brave.”[9] That being said, the brand is clearly marketed towards a target age group, although it has grown into something bigger than itself. Mary Beech, vice president and general manager of Global Studio Franchise Development, states how Disney is “hitting a key developmental pattern for little girls, ages 2 to 5.”[10] They are doing so through intricate storytelling and top-level character appeal, which in return, is stealing the hearts of little girls.[11] Furthermore, Disney’s understanding of who they are as a brand, along with marketing strategy, has helped to lay a foundation for their licensing success.

Seeing how the brand did not premiere as a cohesive collection until 2000, it did not take long for Disney Princess to conquer the licensing industry. Disney consistently ranks as Number 1 on most lists of global licensing, consistently generating worldwide revenues in the high 26-29 billion dollar range. As a reaffirmation of how well the company had been doing, in 2012, The Licensing Letter released their second annual list of “best-selling licensed entertainment merchandise” based on 2011 retail sales in North America.[12] The list accounted for many classic brands, including Star Wars and Sesame Street, with Disney Princess charting strong at number one.[13] In North American retail sales, the Princess brand made $1.6 billion, while reaching an impressive $3 billion in global sales.[14] These numbers were based on the sales of physical consumer goods alone and included “t-shirts, stationary, toys and electronics.”[15] Furthermore, it is important to note that this list did not take into account merchandise manufactured by the property owner, but solely licensed products “that outside manufacturers pay an average royalty of 8.7% of the wholesale cost to produce.”[16] Finally, the numbers also exclude licensing revenue from other powerful Disney brands such as Pooh ($1.09 Billion), Cars ($1.05 Billion), Toy Story ($685 Million), Disney Fairies ($435 Million), nor Disney’s subsidiary, Marvel Comics, which is reported separately and generally garners around 5 billion in worldwide sales, all of which also consistently rank in the top ten.

Disney’s success in licensing relies heavily on the demand of consumers, which is so great that manufacturers have no choice but to license their products in order to create supply. Ira Mayer, publisher and executive editor of the Licensing Letter, believes the reason that the Disney Princess is in such demand is that “there are surprisingly few girl properties like it [sic].”[17] In fact, product licensing is a fraction of Disney’s overall revenue, but that profit is due to its strong brand loyalty.[18] Because Disney’s properties, specifically those licensed by Disney Princess, are in such high demand, the company can afford to license its characters at “an above-average royalty of 15% or higher.”[19] This gives Disney Princess a rare advantage in the entertainment industry due to unrivaled product demand.

In addition to having high consumer value, the Disney Princess brand is more successful than most due to its adaptability in the market place. In truth, Disney Princess could probably license their properties in any market and still be successful, although the biggest licensing opportunities currently lie in the field of merchandise. Out of their assortment of licensed products, the brand encompasses, though is not limited to “toys, apparel, accessories, home décor, Kellydress_thumb.jpg consumer electronics, school supplies, and personal care.”[20] In addition to those lucrative products, they have found a niche within the wedding industry, such as with licensee Kirstie Kelly, who recently created a bridal collection inspired by the Disney Princess brand.[21] In fact, the company derives most of its product ideas from three core categories: dolls, role play, and books.[22] In Beech’s opinion, these three things are what have inspired growth into new markets, such as “live events and products for adults.”[23] Having this type of awareness and understanding of what consumers want has definitely helped Disney Princess stand out among their peers. They know exactly who their buyers are, along with what they are looking for in a product, and that is “style, sparkle and storytelling.”[24] In short, Disney Princess is not limited by age or expectation in the licensing world.

It is important to note that when you are a company as big as Disney, it is vital that you keep a watchful eye on the use of your properties to ensure their reputation. This is a lesson Disney learned the hard way in 2010 when they went to court to file a copyright and trademark infringement claim. In Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Away Discount, Disney caught their Defendant in the act of making and selling unlicensed merchandise.[25] Though the relevant facts in the instant case were brief, the Plaintiff, Disney, did indeed “own the exclusive rights to a number of trademarks and copyrights” that the Defendants were found violating.[26] The properties that were infringed included Disney’s Disney Princess, Winnie the Pooh, as well as a number of other big licensing names for Disney.[27] What this illustrates is that Disney keeps a watchful eye on suspicious behavior involving their copyrights and trademarks. As one of the biggest licensors in the world, it is a necessity to do so. While recovering monies lost is always important, it more important to maintain the reputable brand name of your characters, which is something that Disney is avidly passionate about. After all, it would be a shame for an infringer to forfeit the magic and persona of the Disney Princess brand that many girls have grown to love worldwide.

In conclusion, Disney’s Disney Princess brand is well deserving of the title as the entertainment industry’s top merchandise licensor. They have poured much time and energy into establishing themselves as a reputable name and it is crazy to think that it all started with Walt licensing the image of Mickey Mouse himself. Since Andy Mooney’s decision to group the ladies under a brand umbrella, Disney Princess has reached success far beyond anyone’s imagination. There are no limits when it comes to licensing opportunities with these girls, which is what makes them such a rare and hot commodity. With every t-shirt, bedspread, doll, or wedding dress, Disney Princess leaves a magical imprint on the hearts of their consumers. That being so, come 10 to 20 years from now, the beautiful stories and lessons left behind by these princesses will live on far beyond their inception.

 *Samantha Jervey is a student at Belmont University majoring in Entertainment Industry Studies with a minor in dance.   This article was written as an assignment in Mr. Shrum’s Entertainment Law & Licensing class.  Her passions include music, writing, learning, and helping others. Having attended high school at Governor’s School for the Arts in Norfolk, Virginia, Samantha is dedicated to promoting the value of arts in education. She spends most of her time in the Nashville community looking for new ways to support and grow her knowledge of the entertainment industry.

 

 

 

 

 


 

[1] Disney Consumer Products, “About Us.” Accessed March 14, 2014. https://www.disneyconsumerproducts.com/Home/display.jsp?contentId=dcp_home_ourbusinesses_company_overview_us

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Disney Princess Power. (2009). License! Global, 12(4), 40.

[7] Disney Consumer Products, “About Us.” Accessed March 14, 2014. https://www.disneyconsumerproducts.com/Home/display.jsp?contentId=dcp_home_ourbusinesses_company_overview_us

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Disney Princess Power. (2009). License! Global, 12(4), 40.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Jenna Goudreau, Forbes, last modified September 17, 2012, http://www.forbes.com.

[13] Jenna Goudreau, Forbes, last modified September 17, 2012, http://www.forbes.com.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Disney Princess Power. (2009). License! Global, 12(4), 40.

[21] Disney Princess Power. (2009). License! Global, 12(4), 40.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86119. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2014/03/23.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]