My hypothetical McFarlane Multiverse continuation.

I'm all for increased competition across companies within IPs, as that only benefits us as the consumer.

However, I'm also a realist and know that Mattel entered their very expensive and substantial financial bid for full rights and nothing less. Now that doesn't mean that there can't be something like where Todd does statues now for Marvel or Diamond was able to do a limited number of figures per year under the Marvel Select license... but I don't think this is a TMNT situation where basically anybody that wants to make figures gets to make figures. I don't think that is likely a rational or reasonable expectation for this particular intellectual property.

What is a wildcard in all of this is characters like Batman and Superman entering the "public domain" as copyrights expire relatively soon. I don't necessarily understand all of the legalities of that when it comes to action figures and likenesses, but then all bets may truly be off for those specific characters and anyone and everyone might truly be able to make those specific characters at that time. Someone who has a better understanding of those laws could probably better explain that.
 
altcunningham said:
I'm going to be so annoyed for a second if we don't get any answers or direction come SDCC.
Click to expand...
I honestly think it's too early. I don't expect any news from Mattel until after the first of the year. I certainly could be wrong, but that's my personal expectation.
 
Reno said:
I honestly think it's too early. I don't expect any news from Mattel until after the first of the year. I certainly could be wrong, but that's my personal expectation.
Click to expand...

I can see this side. Even Todd reveals/dates would be informative to me.
 
altcunningham said:
I'm going to be so annoyed for a second if we don't get any answers or direction come SDCC.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean. Some clarity would be nice. Todd says “negotiations are ongoing”, and “there’s a long runway for product coming out”. And that Supergirl figures are being worked on for Spring 2026. I’ve heard Mattel is taking over April 1st of 2026 or July 1st 2026. I’ve heard Todd can make figures up until 12/31/26 and I’ve also heard he’s done 12/31/25. Supergirl figures notwithstanding.

Meanwhile, what about DCD/DCC? DC clearly sees value in this brand and wants it to continue in some form. Jim Lee might have something to say about that.
 
Reno said:
I'm all for increased competition across companies within IPs, as that only benefits us as the consumer.

However, I'm also a realist and know that Mattel entered their very expensive and substantial financial bid for full rights and nothing less. Now that doesn't mean that there can't be something like where Todd does statues now for Marvel or Diamond was able to do a limited number of figures per year under the Marvel Select license... but I don't think this is a TMNT situation where basically anybody that wants to make figures gets to make figures. I don't think that is likely a rational or reasonable expectation for this particular intellectual property.

What is a wildcard in all of this is characters like Batman and Superman entering the "public domain" as copyrights expire relatively soon. I don't necessarily understand all of the legalities of that when it comes to action figures and likenesses, but then all bets may truly be off for those specific characters and anyone and everyone might truly be able to make those specific characters at that time. Someone who has a better understanding of those laws could probably better explain that.
Click to expand...

I don’t get what the obsession is over this Public Domain nonsense is. Obviously DC or Warner brothers are not going to relinquish the rights of their characters, especially not their biggest cash cows! If they were to do that it means they wouldn’t have a controlling interest in the books that they sell or the movies that they make and they can’t make residuals on existing published works. He’ll Marvel could print a Batman book and DC wouldn’t see a dime from it. This line of discussion is so nonsensical and people need to wake up. DC will not loose access to Batman or Superman. And they’re not going to sell them either. That kind of maneuver would outright bankrupt Warner Bros and DC and they would be stupid to take that kind of irreversible risk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Gardner Grayle said:
Here’s the thing for me. And granted, it’s certainly not a perfect analogy. But if Playmates and NECA can coexist with TMNT in Wal Mart and Target, I’m not sure what the issue would be with Todd and Mattel coexisting as well.
Click to expand...

Mattel being salty about losing the license to Todd may be the main thing.

Playmates and NECA coexist because Playmates didnt want to do what NECA is doing and let it happen. Remember at first NECA wasn't allowed at retail and could only do Con Exclusives and then limited on-line only offerings. I don't know for sure but I suspect Nickelodeon asked Playmates if they wanted to offer figures to the adult collectible market and when Playmates said they would rather do modern cartoon figures and vintage reissues and so Nickelodeon opened the license.

My guess is that if DC approached Mattel about allowing McFarlane to do a collector line Mattel would laugh and say no thanks we'll do that ourselves. I'm pretty sure the Master License allows Mattel right of first refusal before DC can go elsewhere and I don't think Mattel is going to want to share.

I could be wrong but I don't think I am.
 
PantherCult said:
Mattel being salty about losing the license to Todd may be the main thing.

Playmates and NECA coexist because Playmates didnt want to do what NECA is doing and let it happen. Remember at first NECA wasn't allowed at retail and could only do Con Exclusives and then limited on-line only offerings. I don't know for sure but I suspect Nickelodeon asked Playmates if they wanted to offer figures to the adult collectible market and when Playmates said they would rather do modern cartoon figures and vintage reissues and so Nickelodeon opened the license.

My guess is that if DC approached Mattel about allowing McFarlane to do a collector line Mattel would laugh and say no thanks we'll do that ourselves. I'm pretty sure the Master License allows Mattel right of first refusal before DC can go elsewhere and I don't think Mattel is going to want to share.

I could be wrong but I don't think I am.
Click to expand...

Actually that’s not what happened at all. I distinctly remember the war between Neca and playmates that went on for years between 2008-2015 where Neca outright tried to make 7” scaled action figures for the collector market (of which they got their blessing from Mirage Studios as the time along with Surge licensing) and playmates fought dirty to try and keep Neca from doing just that. So much to the point where Playmates tried to make 7” scaled TMNT Classics figures (which nobody wanted) and then they outright tried to sue Neca for damages.

Finally Viacom stepped in and forced Playmates to drop the lawsuit after a lower court told them that this suit violates antitrust laws and Playmates has no sole jurisdiction over the Ninja Turtles property, especially after Neca has already been given permission by the licensor themselves to make action figures in the adult collector market. Viacom for their part went one step further and re-upped the original agreement with Neca and since then, playmates has agreed to play nice with their top competitor. Also this opened Pandora’s box wide open since the turtle license has now exploded to over dozens of companies both foreign and domestic and playmates can’t do squat to obtain a stranglehold on this license that was once their golden ticket, all because daddy Viacom spanked them and told them to behave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fair enough... My understanding was skewed. I still don't see WB/DC riding quite so hard to Todd's defense... but clearly I can be very wrong.

I still don't think its at all likely Todd holds on to rights for a retail DC action figure line.

But there's no harm in you huys continuing to hope and wish.
 
Stoopid_Sandwich said:
I don’t get what the obsession is over this Public Domain nonsense is. Obviously DC or Warner brothers are not going to relinquish the rights of their characters, especially not their biggest cash cows! If they were to do that it means they wouldn’t have a controlling interest in the books that they sell or the movies that they make and they can’t make residuals on existing published works. He’ll Marvel could print a Batman book and DC wouldn’t see a dime from it. This line of discussion is so nonsensical and people need to wake up. DC will not loose access to Batman or Superman. And they’re not going to sell them either. That kind of maneuver would outright bankrupt Warner Bros and DC and they would be stupid to take that kind of irreversible risk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You may understand the copyright laws better than I as I'm no lawyer or publisher, but my understanding is that under US copyright law, copyrighted works generally enter the public domain after 95 years following initial publication. It's not that DC would relinquish or sell their rights, it's that those exclusive rights expire. Those rights do not remain exclusive for perpetuity.

I looked this up and those dates will be 2034 for Superman and 2035 for Batman, so those are still further off than I originally believed. For some reason I thought they were more imminent. Captain America will be 2036 for Marvel. Betty Boop will be in 2026. Donald Duck in 2030. Wonder Woman in 2037. There are actually quite a few articles about this out there. I only have a cursory interest so haven't really read those articles, but a quick google search found them.

It's my understanding that at that point they will be like Tarzan, Dracula, Santa Claus, Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur, Zorro, etc and be able to be used by anyone. This is what happened to characters like Winnie the Pooh and Bambi that allowed indy film makers to make horror movies about those characters, for example and for Disney to have no recourse.

Now I believe this also applies to specific versions of the character and each "new version" starts a new 95-year period, so it's complex. I have no idea how this translates across other mediums like action figures for example - but am assuming it's similar. It's still a decade off for the characters we're talking about though, so I guess that it doesn't really matter for quite some time yet. I thought that it was sooner for some reason.
 
Last edited:
Batman was created in April 1939 and Superman was June 1938 so they are nearing their 100th anniversary in just about 13-14 years respectively . They may have had time to reauthorize the rights by now.

Now as far as I’m aware the rights for patents and copyright holders are usually reauthorized to the license holder except in instances that a personal copyright belongs to a smaller group, such as a family owned business or a restaurant. If there are no next of kin or the restaurant isn’t tied to an estate the copyright and their assets will be dissolved and will be sold at auction or authorized for public domain.

Such is the case for the Steamboat Willy version of Mickey Mouse. Because that version of the mouse is not directly tied to Walt Disney pictures or the entity that is the Disney Company. It was more or less a prototype of Mickey Mouse and was never sold to Disney, just a private little proof of concept that never went anywhere. So you might not see Batman and Superman go up for public domain but what you might see is Bob Kane’s original draft for Batman which was “Bird-Man”, and likewise the Reign of the Superman short story by Joel Shuster and Jerry Siegel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So get ready for this guy to, like, hunt down teenagers with a chainsaw or something in a micro-budget slasher film:

Edit: well fuck, I was gonna put a picture of that dippy first Kane sketch, but Tapatalk isn’t working for me.
 
AceofKnaves said:
So get ready for this guy to, like, hunt down teenagers with a chainsaw or something in a micro-budget slasher film:

Edit: well fuck, I was gonna put a picture of that dippy first Kane sketch, but Tapatalk isn’t working for me.
Click to expand...

Are you using the subscription based model? Because the free version limits pictures to a monthly stipend. Regardless I got you covered

9914b6805ef5d966f773c331f2b4984b.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Generally people would have the rights to reprint the earliest Superman stories but DC would retain the trademark. So this theoretical book of Superman reprints of his earliest adventures couldn’t be called “Superman”. DC May have trademarked all types of things around it too like Man of Steel etc.

For example Fantagraphics reprints early Krazy Kat comics (read them they are great) but can’t call the books Krazy Kat. They are called Krazy and Ignatz.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top