So Fox owns X-Men and Marvel Studios owns Avengers…but how do you figure in future ancillary characters?
Example: Boliver Trask. Does Fox have to purchase the rights to every new character they want to use? Marvel would seem to have a huge amount of leverage there. And if Fox owns all the characters under some sort of umbrella…then what’s to keep them from screwing over Marvel re: the usage of Scarlet Witch? (who first appeared in an X-Men comic)
It seems to come down to “Is said character directly tied to the franchise they own?” Fox got Silver Surfer because he was tied in to Fantastic Four. Fox and Marvel both have Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, but Marvel studio can’t call them “mutants” in the movies.
Fox can’t mess with Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver because, while they are mutants, they are also closely tied to the Avengers.
The contract language would be interesting to read. As the OP wonders, just how far into secondary characters does the language go?
According to one article I read, the contract states that both companies can use Quicksilver, and they can even use the same actor to play him.
Fox movies are not allowed to mention any connection to the Avengers.
Marvel movies are not allowed to mention any connection to the X-Men or Magneto, or even that he is a mutant.
I’m always a bit surprised how much Fox/Sony seem to get away with, but I guess the contracts are pretty explicit about things like this. For example, Rhino is in the new Spider-man film, but he’s appeared in just as many Hulk comics. Also, Silver Surfer is not a supporting Fantastic Four character, he is clearly a character in his own right.
What happens to new mutant characters that Marvel creates? Do they automatically revert to Fox as soon as they are created? Also, if Fox or Sony started doing something that damaged the character (eg if Sony decided to make a Spider-man porno), would Marvel be able to reclaim the rights?
I’d be interested in the specific text of the contract as well. Fox and Disney are both claiming they own the characters of Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch and the two characters are appearing in both X-Men: Days of Future Past and Avengers: Age of Ultron.
Bolivar Trask is a much simpler case. It appears that character was explicitly licensed to Fox. So, obviously, were the Beast and Wolverine - which is why we won’t see them in the movie Avengers.
For what it’s worth, it appears that many of the individuals at the creative level making these movies are not seeking a war. They’d like to do crossovers if the studios can work out the legal details. Hugh Jackman, for example, has said that he would love to play Wolverine in an Avengers movie.
I’m sure there is contract language covering things like this. If Marvel could convince a judge that Sony was damaging the characters in all media they could easily get an injunction to prevent release.
But as Little Nemo notes, at this point it is greed keeping the franchises apart, not malice.
I can’t work out why the studios aren’t falling over themselves to work with Marvel. Everyone gets to make pots of money, and the fans would be really happy.
Unfortunately, with the recent announcements from Fox and Sony, it appears both studios would prefer to run their franchises into the ground until everyone on the planet is completely and utterly sick of them. Fox is currently developing X-men movie spin-offs for Gambit, Deadpool, Mystique and X-force. Sony is doing the same with Venom, Black Cat, Sinister Six and Spider Slayers.
They’re doing it because these movies will make money right now, while the current executives are in charge, and they will fail later, when different executives are in charge.
An outsider’s view of this matter - This seems to have been an ill-advised deal for Marvel as their character’s tales are are often so intertwined with one another that you have to create an entirely new narrative just to remove the linkage (Carol Danvers/Ms. Marvel for example is linked to both The Avengers and The X-Men through the comic book version of Rogue. How are they going to handle things if they decide to introduce her?)
While I can see where Marvel’s chief concern was (and is) money, they are walking down a path which will eventually (as I see can see it) lead to litigation
They’re also doing it to keep the licenses. If Fox and Sony don’t use the characters, the rights revert back to Marvel. That’s how Marvel got back the rights to characters like Blade, Daredevil, and Punisher.
The deals were done with the other studios before before Marvel was bought by Disney. If they had it all to do over again today, I can pretty much guarantee you that they wouldn’t have farmed out the X-Men or FF IPs to other studios.
And that is why I can see where this is going to end in either arbitration or litigation,especially since the Marvel Universe is proving to be such a lucrative resource for so many. It seems unlikely that anybody would have thought that Iron Man, The Avengers or Captain America would have been the cash cows which they have become.
Hopefully (if only to ensure an uninterrupted flow of feature films and television programs) they are sitting down now and hashing out how the future of the Marvel Universe is going to go.
Not in this case. They have to produce a movie every couple of years, true, but I’m pretty sure the rights aren’t going to change if they don’t squirt out a substandard movie for every bit part player in their respective franchise universes.
I mean, Spider Slayers? Come ON!
If push comes to shove, Disney can always buy Fox and Sony. 
Hey, Fox? Cable & Deadpool.
You’re welcome.
There was a recent article that said Marvel Studios has the next 15 or so years of movies planned out.
Here you go. Kevin Feige (president of Marvel Studios) is reported to have a “roadmap” on the wall of his office, with plans for movies stretching out to 2028:
Honestly, splitting the X-Men off from the rest of the Marvel Universe is perfect and keeps Marvel from doing some half-assed Avengers/X-Men crossover. Think about it, why would the X-Men be hated in a world where Tony Stark, Captain America, and Thor are revered? It’s moronic to put them in the same universe (just as it is to mix Batman and Superman) and Marvel is better off without that option on the table.
There are several books about Marvel’s history that talk about the movies. They all say almost exactly the same thing: For decades Marvel was desperate to get Hollywood to do anything, anything at all with Marvel characters. That’s why Stan Lee went to Hollywood. In the 1970s. And they failed and failed and failed and failed. As that Businessweek article points out, Disney’s stock went down when they bought Marvel. They couldn’t follow a strategic plan. They were competing for crumbs and dregs.
This turnabout has stunned everyone. They’ll be spending the next couple of decades trying to redo the past and pull everything together. And they’ll fail, of course. Superhero movies won’t last another 15 years at the rate they’re churning them out. The fad will be over and something else will become hot. Disney will eventually wind up with all the properties, a gigantic bundle that nobody will want and will be too large to sell off.
I love irony.