What is Marvel's/Disney's plan in the 2060s, regarding the public domain?

In 2061, Black Panther will finally enter the public domain, 5 years after the Fantastic Four. By that point, most of the major Marvel characters and concepts will be in the public domain due to them having been created within a pretty short time span. This may not seem like much of a problem since only the earliest versions of these characters will enter the public domain. However, unlike DC and Disney, most of Marvel's major characters were created pretty much fully formed from the start.

Sure it would take a while for the more recognizable looks/aspects of characters like Iron Man, the X-Men, and DD to enter the public domain, however this would be a major issue for characters like the FF and Spider-Man for obvious reasons. With all that would be available atp, I doubt the only outcome would be low budget horror movies.

What do you think Marvel will do when 2061 comes around? If Sony somehow still has the rights to Spider-Man by then, could they just have their own versions of Johnny Storm or Stephen Strange randomly show up in Spider-Man movies without consulting Marvel? Could Marvel Studios retaliate by using Spider-Man and his 60s era rouges gallery freely in their movies? Could Universal make a Fantastic Four film without consulting Disney?

Commentaires

IcemaanN2025-10-08 23:12

Disney will give the US government ten morbillion dollars to keep the copyrights

DrManhattan_DDM2025-10-08 23:19

The Disney lawyers can probably reuse some of their old filings and just change a few details.

BenFranklinsCat2025-10-08 23:54

I like your optimism in thinking Disney and the US government will still be separate entities in the year 2060.

Front-Ear-56532025-10-09 00:17

I like your optimism in insinuating they still exist.

Khanfhan692025-10-09 23:19

For me it's pessimism. I don't want either to still exist by then. But they probably will, and the children will work in the Mickey Mouse Mines while the air they breathe outside is like 10% oxygen , 10% smog and 80% microplastics.

Legonistrasz2025-10-09 02:43

Or in existence by then. Either of them.

natedorough2025-10-09 04:34

Or that there will be an earth

mellyting2025-10-09 07:34

This. Ai is gonna take over, there is no 2060s

_PM_ME_PANGOLINS_2025-10-08 23:55

They didn’t do that for Mickey Mouse.

WolvieBats712025-10-08 23:56

Wasn't it steamboat willy not Mickey mouse?

_PM_ME_PANGOLINS_2025-10-09 00:04

Steamboat Willie is the name of the first cartoon in which Mickey Mouse appears.

WolvieBats712025-10-09 01:40

Oh, so what went public domain then? Kind of confusing to me

ArgentNoble2025-10-09 02:04

Yes, but now that scene is *technically* trademarked, as Disney has been using it in their branding. So there is now some questions as to whether it is legal to use that specific scene or not.

Fickle_Penguin2025-10-09 14:38

You can use that scene just fine as long as you don't use it for what Disney has trademarked it for. Such as logos that would suggest official endorsement from Disney. Anything that causes brand confusion.

The house of mouse lawyers are aggressive, so this is a I'd watch what others do and get away with and do that.

genericnewlurker2025-10-09 04:20

Steamboat Willie the animated short and the characters therein, went into public domain. However the term "Mickey Mouse" among other things like his silhouette, head logo, etc are covered by trademark so you can't call your works based on Mickey Mouse from Steamboat Willie, "Mickey Mouse". But you can do anything else with the characters or animations

Last Week Tonight started using him in the intro and had an entire segment dedicated to it entering the public domain

d-o_oI2025-10-09 09:13

You can use the character design and the name "Mickey Mouse". What you can't do is use the modern interpretations of the character beyond the one that appears in Steamboat Willie, as well as the stylized font and branding from Disney for Mickey Mouse.
# [USE THIS AND YOU'RE FINE (in theory…)](https://imgur.com/0TmCT8h)
# [USE THIS AS AN ALTERNATE WAY TO SUMMON THE HORDES OF DISNEY LAWYERS (ie, it's trademark)](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ba/aa/68/baaa68d160ac9b7664ee2f1f6d9bbb8d.jpg)

_PM_ME_PANGOLINS_2025-10-09 09:26

The other shorts from that year and the following few also.

RabbiShekky2025-10-09 00:05

It’s Morbillion time!

Lenonn2025-10-09 01:54

Hell, by that point, we will be in a *Continuum*/*Alien Earth* situation in which the corporations **are** the governments and as such, they will hold to these rights indefinitely (or until the revolution).

henryhollaway2025-10-09 03:14

They’ll just do what they’ve done with all of their other characters that should have become public domain: bribe and lean on the government

TheMcWhopper2025-10-09 05:22

They didn't shell it out for mickey. There is no reason to suggest they will for marvel

d-o_oI2025-10-09 09:23

I think it's not a matter of whether they will or won't, it's the fact there's no avenues left to extend the copyright with Marvel. If they could, they would've done so for Mickey.

_woodlark_2025-10-08 23:13

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

but again, and longer this time!

OutsideIndoorTrack2025-10-08 23:15

I really don't mind that. I don't think people ever thought we'd have characters as evergreen and profitable 100 years after their creation like childhood and comic book characters

Caciulacdlac2025-10-08 23:27

The question is, why would anyone, except for the right owners, want this to happen?

MagicBez2025-10-08 23:33

> I don't think people ever thought we'd have characters as evergreen and profitable 100 years after their creation like childhood and comic book characters

Plenty of very old characters still show up everywhere. Greek/Roman gods are still everywhere (Hades, Percy Jackson etc.) Sherlock Holmes is still perpetually getting reimaginings, Dracula and Frankenstein too.

I think having them in the public domain is a good thing, a much more diverse and interesting range of stories get told and it's not like the creators of those stories need money to motivate them to make more cool stuff. If anything I think the copyright window should be reduced.

ChaseballBat2025-10-08 23:40

Not only that but it holds corporations to integrity. If they want to maintain the draw to their 'approved' versions then they better back it up with writing, acting, and production.

tommer82242025-10-09 00:31

Corporations and integrity. Two words that really don’t go together.

SgtMartinRiggs2025-10-08 23:38

But what good reason is there for anyone other than the actual creator (and maybe their immediate descendants) to be entitled to that profit in perpetuity?

Imagine not being able to use or perform the works of Shakespeare because some corporation happened to own the copyright 400 years ago when he died. It’s bad for culture and bad for innovation as well.

Majestic-Marcus2025-10-08 23:54

I don’t understand the bad for innovation argument.

How is not letting people use Captain America bad for in ovation? If anything wouldn’t that be *good* for innovation? Maybe the writer will create something new then.

SgtMartinRiggs2025-10-09 00:07

It’s bad for innovation because no one’s making new things, just buying, trading, and sitting on existing IPs

Sunny-Chameleon2025-10-09 00:12

Yeah, movies like lethal weapon 5 would not be possible with our current IP laws

Vengeance_202025-10-09 00:13

By that logic Disney couldn’t be as big as they are since all they’re original animated movies are based on public domain properties, and so are most of the Universal Monsters, and public domain has led to many great things like Ugly Stepsister, Lies of P and American McGee’s Alice among other things

SgtMartinRiggs2025-10-09 00:19

Exactly, shorter copyright terms and a diverse public domain are good for business and culture.

Eastern_Hornet_64322025-10-08 23:55

Sure but you're approaching this from the wrong angle. 100 years after the creation of a given work of art, *why should the creator, who is long dead by that point, still have exclusive control*?

There's TOO MUCH in terms of property rights. A person should enjoy the fruits of their labors. And they should be able to provide for their children too, sure. But multi-generational wealth *absolutely should not be a thing*. People should not be rich solely because their great-great-great grandfather was a good businessman or talented artist. Not unless EVERYONE gets to enjoy being rich, because if only SOME get to enjoy being rich because of stuff that happened centuries before they were born, that is completely and absolutely fucked up.

Sherlock Holmes is still an evergreen character, but that hasn't been harmed by his being in the public domain now. If anything, it's made him more popular. Anybody who wants to make a movie about Sherlock Holmes, can.

And I reject the idea that nobody ever thought we'd have characters today that are still popular after 100 years. My guy, have you heard that Christopher Nolan is making a movie based on The Odyssey, to be released next year? Should we be tracking down the "rightful heirs to Homer's estate" so they can sue Nolan?

hissboombah2025-10-09 00:03

lol Thor is literally one of those characters

Dedli2025-10-09 00:49

Man, how would companies even survive if characters like Thor, Dracula, and Hercules were in the public domain and anyone could include them as characters?

Wait a minute...

Gemnist2025-10-09 01:02

Disney has stopped fighting that because it’s become too legally taxing. Hence why Winnie the Pooh and Mickey Mouse are now in the public domain.

HankSteakfist2025-10-09 01:33

Yeah but those happened under a normal Presidency. All it takes is a 'donation' in the form of a defamation case settlement to get the government to push the courts in a direction where they'd enact this.

Shawnj22025-10-09 09:27

Not when it comes to getting laws passed since they need 10 democrats in the senate to agree with what they want to do for anything to get passed in order to hit 60 votes to bypass the filibuster in addition to the law making it past the house where republicans hold a slim majority.

ObviousAnswerGuy2025-10-09 04:36

but only the aspects of the characters (95 years going back from whatever year we are in) can be used.

To use another example, Superman will enter the public domain in 2034. But in that year, only aspects from superman in 1939 can be used. So if someone makes a superman cartoon in 2034, and makes him fly, that would be copyright infringement, because technically he didnt fy until 1940.

Either way, Disney will have to start to be more creative with their representation of their characters in order to maintain creative control going forward.

Gemnist2025-10-09 04:45

I get that. OP even brings it up, but like they said, most of Marvel's characters were very well-formed right out of the gate. For example, with Captain America (the first major one to get released into the public domain), they can do a whole movie of him in costume, alongside Bucky, punching Hitler in the jaw right out of the gate. Maybe a bit similar to First Avenger, but it would be a fully-formed Captain America story that feels authentic to the character, instead of the usual "let's turn this beloved colorful character into a horror monster" concept OP mentioned.

GameOnDevin2025-10-08 23:14

I mean that is a long time from now, tons of stuff can change in 30 years, I would imagine Disney would find a loophole, but as of right now who knows.

Caciulacdlac2025-10-08 23:14

Lol. This guy thinks we will still be alive by 2061.

__wasitacatisaw__2025-10-08 23:34

Speak for yourself, I will be

jrodfantastic2025-10-08 23:50

Not after society collapses

__wasitacatisaw__2025-10-09 00:10

In the fat chance that happens, I’m very prepared.

Unless someone decides to waste a nuclear bomb to target a very rural area I live in

clocktickmakemecrazy2025-10-09 00:22

Now now, haha buddy, you just gave them a challenge, didn't you?

Odd-Sound-5802025-10-09 00:10

i'm strong i'll be fine

Tenebril2025-10-09 02:12

Bro you jinxed it

__wasitacatisaw__2025-10-09 02:27

There’s had been fears of collapse of society since start of civilization, we will be fine

stormsgrimm2025-10-09 03:00

Nuclear bombs haven't been around since the start of civilization

ChazzleDazzlicious2025-10-09 00:48

Literally came here to say this. Do what you want, I'll be dead lol

FeralPsychopath2025-10-09 00:57

Or the distribution and control of media is still the same.

DannyHewson2025-10-08 23:15

*Sony exec leans into frame behind Tom Holland.*

"Til you're ninety."

MrDoom4e52025-10-08 23:26

Spider-Man: Retirement Home.

DannyHewson2025-10-08 23:28

Calling it now, Tom Holland, aged 103, to cameo in "Spider-Man: 2099", on its release in 2099.

Upbeat_Tension_80772025-10-08 23:42

Spider-Man: Can You Help Me Go Home?

tecpaocelotl12025-10-09 00:14

There is a storyline in the comics. Deadpool is in a retirement with spiderman. Lol.

djprofitt2025-10-09 03:50

Spider-Man: Brand New Hip

FoggyInc2025-10-09 09:21

I understood that reference

Banjo-Oz2025-10-08 23:18

I personally like to imagine Disney won't be around by then, but they will likely be Weyland-Yutani at that point.

hissboombah2025-10-09 00:06

Apple-Disney

mongmich22025-10-08 23:19

Those versions of the characters fall into the public domain. Their plan will be to keep using those characters as they have been. Don’t see why anything would change

goztrobo2025-10-09 02:54

What’s public domain?

rubicmumic2025-10-09 03:03

Basically anyone can use these characters in their own works without obtaining permission from marvel or disney

goztrobo2025-10-09 03:03

Wow. How did this weird rule even come about in the first place? Is this unique to only Disney?

outride20002025-10-09 03:11

It applies to everyone. Hence why anyone can write a Sherlock Holmes book.

isaidwhatisaidok2025-10-09 03:32

It was put in place when creations were typically tied to an individual who had a certain life expectancy versus now where so much creative work is created and owned by corporations.

arobkinca2025-10-09 08:33

Owned by corporations, they create nothing. Their employees create.

Worthyness2025-10-09 07:16

The idea is basically that the creative work will be with its creator to get them royalties and such for most of their life and then cemented as cultural works to be used by others afterwards. but by totally legal mechanisms in the US government system known as "lobbying", many companies have been given the chance to extend the "lifetime of the creator" to "lifetime+". it applies to basically any work in the US. Other countries will have their own laws about that sort of thing

Skychu7682025-10-09 08:26

You can legally own an idea or concept for certain period only which is generally around 90-100 years

Just like anyone can make a story on Iliad & The Odyssey, Norse Mythology, Dracula etc. since they are under public domain

Skychu7682025-10-09 09:33

Characters like Iron Man, Spider-Man etc. will be free to use like King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes, Gilgamesh, Zeus etc.

jmarquiso2025-10-08 23:23

Same thing Disney does EVERY time.

(That said, Superman is public domain - but a distinct version of Superman)

ContentAssumption2042025-10-08 23:25

Superman doesn’t enter the PD till the 2030s.

Disney’s already lost the original version of Mickey.

Proud-Ad-1462025-10-08 23:29

Well it seems like you have your answer: Disney is already "losing" IP to the public domain. They fought for longer C protections but eventually it graduated. Anybody can use it now. That's what'll happen in 2061 unless extensions are granted.

jmarquiso2025-10-08 23:33

Yeah - Disney managed to argue that the character of Steamboat Willie is different from modern Mickey. So basically some aesthetic changes every few decades.

JWofGuelph2025-10-08 23:30

That's why Disney Animation started using Steamboat Willie as their intro in movies so they can sue to protect their trademark on an active property even tho they lost the copyright. Now the courts are debating how far Disney can enforce Trademark on characters in the public domain

ContentAssumption2042025-10-08 23:34

Have they actually used that trick against any of the recent low budget Steamboat Willie projects that have come out following Mickey’s entry into the public domain?

JWofGuelph2025-10-08 23:38

That's kind of the weird part. The Steamboat Willie and Winnie the Pooh horror films went through, I assume there is enough distance in the characters, but an insurance or personal injury lawyer made a tv ad with Steamboat Willie characters involved in an accident and calling them, and that was challenged. There is a line that can't be crossed and I'm assuming it may be direct copies of the characters in question for the purpose of business. Somehow, the horror films don't count

jmarquiso2025-10-08 23:41

Also Trademark and Copyright are different things, and challenged differently in court.

Since they're using Steamboat Willie in their intro, the Trademark is for something like Use of Steamboat Willie in a logo representing a company - and the lawyer you mentioned is using the characters to advertise.

jmarquiso2025-10-08 23:32

You're right, I'm sorry. The Siegal and Shuster estates are fighting WB for the rights still, but it's set to enter public domain in 2034.

I remember this was part of the original costume changes from the classic trunks so the Siegal and Shuster version becomes public domain, but the modernized Superman or post Golden Age Superman are still under Copyright for a few more decades.

neodraykl2025-10-09 00:04

Yeah 2034 for Superman, 2035 for Batman, Namor and the Human Torch. Captain America and Wonder Woman are shortly thereafter.

Comics are gonna get weird soon.

Citizensnnippss2025-10-08 23:31

We will see how WB handles Superman and Batman in 2034/2035.

ExLuckMaster2025-10-08 23:36

Batman v Superman: Blood and Justice coming soon.

Main-Key-12712025-10-09 04:41

Batman v superman the battle of no prep time (the writer is a big superman fan)

d-o_oI2025-10-09 10:26

Snyder fans rejoice.

Jaideco2025-10-09 00:57

This is the only serious answer… Marvel will watch this and spend the next twenty years working out how to handle it when their turn comes around.

Personally, I doubt that it will be a huge problem for them. They will have well used those assets by then and will be headlining newer toys in their collection.

TheWasabinator2025-10-09 02:38

Captain America public domain 2040, Bucky 2041, Submariner 2041

ObviousAnswerGuy2025-10-09 04:40

Bucky will be public domain, but "Winter Soldier" wasn't created until 20 years ago. And they have differentiated the character of Namor in the MCU well enough to be different by now.

As for Cap, they can only use the aspects of the character from 95 years ago from whatever year they are in. So for example, his round shield wasn't introduced until 1941

got_No_Time_to_BLEED2025-10-09 03:11

Isn’t it that only the Batman from the 40s design is public domain but madden Batman with the redesigns are still copy written?

Citizensnnippss2025-10-09 03:52

At first. But by 2040 a lot of the core batman elements will be public domain. The joker, Robin, The bat cave, Alfred, etc.

John7117112025-10-08 23:36

I mean Thor already there and has been for several thousand years at this point. Anyone can use him at any time Superman V Thor Spider-man V Thor.

ContentAssumption2042025-10-08 23:59

By 2061, the more recognizable Marvel interpretation of Thor and his mythos will be public domain rather than just the Norse version, which might as well be a completely different character.

Bacon8ir2025-10-09 01:07

That’s because Thor isn’t a marvel (exclusive) character. He’s apart of Norse mythology…

wildmaiden2025-10-09 02:19

Yeah that was his point

Michael_Gibb2025-10-08 23:36

They'll trademark the names. So long as they're renewed and kept in use by the owner, those don't expire.

CharlesKellyRatKing2025-10-08 23:43

In capitalism, companies focus on quarterly revenue/growth. I don't think they are talking about what to do in 35 years, when most of the people there will be gone anyway

jimababwe2025-10-08 23:54

I’ll probably be dead so I don’t care.

Chance-Impress-87622025-10-08 23:54

36 years from now? I imagine they'll be trying to advance the storyline to a point where those characters are irrelevant to their business decisions while changing their status quo enough that using the characters in their very early appearance forms isn't an attractive prospect.

vinternet2025-10-08 23:55

They are a publicly traded company, and that will be, like, three CEOs and a whole generation of investors from now. They are literally *not* thinking about it, except insofar as they continue to invent new characters (Kamala Khan, Ironheart, Grogu, Anna, Elsa, Olaf, etc.).

TheManIsInsane2025-10-09 03:08

My first thought about this was literally, "A massive media conglomerate, having a plan beyond making sure next quarter's earnings are higher? Not in this society."

Maximus3612025-10-08 23:55

I don’t care. I actually will be 90.😂

AngelDGr2025-10-08 23:59

I'm not very knowledgeable about this kind of things... But aren't Marvel heroes trademarks?

A trademark last an undefined amount of time, yeah, those heroes will be public domain, but it would work just like how you can make a short about the old Mickey Mouse but never called him "Mickey Mouse", because Mickey Mouse is a trademark, and Disney could still sue you

I don't think Sony could make a random Ghost Rider character without consulting Marvel without getting into trouble

ContentAssumption2042025-10-09 00:07

I’m pretty sure you can’t use the name of the character in the title or any promotional stuff. The character can still be referred to by their name in the work itself.

FX1142025-10-09 00:13

They'll keep a close hold on the various story elements that haven't fallen into public domain yet, and people using the characters will have to be careful to avoid them.

LuxLocke2025-10-09 00:50

… you think humans will survive the nuclear fallout?

PartyPoison982025-10-09 00:52

They'll probably be fine RE their interpretation of the characters.

It's like how Mickey Mouse's first appearance is now public domain, but Mickey Mouse as a whole isn't.

checker2802025-10-09 00:57

Public domain only applies to the version of the character 100 years ago. It won’t allow you to use the 2060 versions.

ContentAssumption2042025-10-09 01:32

As I said in the post, the original 60s versions of characters like Spider Man, the Fantastic Four, Marvel's interpretation of Thor, Cap, and Doctor Strange, aren't very different from the modern versions of those characters.

The Marvel heroes aren't like the DC heroes, where it took years for them to become recognizable as the versions of the characters we are familiar with (Superman couldn't even fly originally). You would get pretty much all of the fundamentals by 2061, when the first 6 years of Marvel stories enter the public domain.

If they've remained stagnant for this long, what are the odds that these characters will all receive huge revamps that actually stick within the next 36 years.

Far_Order59332025-10-09 01:03

Lobby Congress. Just Straight up Lobby Congress

Thomas_JCG2025-10-09 01:08

The thing about something being in public domain is that it doesn't guarantee that anyone will do something good with it. If the year is 2060 and Disney is doing the "Beyond Infinity Saga" and Sony is doing "Spider-Man but Black Panther is in it for no good reason", I know which one I'm paying to see.

KaijuKing0072025-10-09 01:16

It's thirty years away, so they have time to come up with something. And you'd be surprised how much of the Marvel Universe will take even longer to become public domain.

No_Ruin69572025-10-09 01:20

So I can make a Daredevil movie with the yellow suit and the Owl as the villain with Foggy and Karen in 2060? I’m hyped.

HankSteakfist2025-10-09 01:31

Wouldn't it be legally dangerous to make Superman, Batman or Spider-Man comics using the public domain, since though the characters may be legally available, only the stories they appeared in early in their career are actually allowed to be used. Sort of like with Sherlock Holmes, only certain stories were allowed to be adapted and not later books until more recently.

And since DC and Marvel have been telling these stories for a long long time, pumping out multiple books per month, a lot of the actual stories in those books will be covered under copyrights. It's like how the Simpsons have told almost every conceivable story about a family of five living in a small town.

So for example, you wouldn't be able to make a story about a monster called Judgement Day killing Superman, or a hulking masked man called Scourge breaking Batman's back.

CanYouDigItDeep2025-10-09 01:35

Ahhh the good old days back when laws were made to benefit people and not companies…

blackbutterfree2025-10-09 01:51

You're asking us about something that is *checks notes* 36 years away. How about we wait and see what WB and DC will do with the Trinity in the next decade? And what Marvel does with Captain America? Then we'll know what to expect later on.

arteriu2025-10-09 02:01

since america decided that corporations are people by the 2060s president walt disney pepsi comcast will be the economy and own all they own now and more.

mrmonster4592025-10-09 02:32

TBH, nothing much happens when characters enter public domain. So little actually enters public domain (it's not like all Fantastic Four comics will enter the public domain at once, only the original comics) that there's really not much one can do. So yeah, some comics that will be like, a century old by then entering the public domain won't change much.

Sorta like how when Winnie the Pooh and Mickey Mouse finally entered public domain, all that changed was that trashy studios were able to make low budget horror movies with them. Things continued business as usual at Disney.

CaptHayfever2025-10-09 02:33

Trademark is a different beast than copyright; as long as Disney keeps actively using the IP, they can extend trademark indefinitely. Somebody could make a "Spider-Man: Blood & Honey" ripoff, but they wouldn't be able to make it look like the "official" version.

Riley__642025-10-09 02:41

I don’t think they’ll have much to worry about because of the fact that they’ll know most people will still be more interested in the actual marvel versions rather than the versions being used by other studios.

It’ll also probably be a couple of years before actual interesting stories start coming out as the general trend for public domain is let’s see how messed up we can make this compared to the original and then people start making actual interesting versions of the stories.

So the first few things made in the public domain will probably be around the lines of what if Spider-Man was a serial killer which will interest a small crowd but not a large one.

goblinite22025-10-09 02:51

Same as Marvel, lean into new characters like Ms Marvel, Kate Hawkeye, and the like.

goztrobo2025-10-09 02:54

Someone help me out, what does public domain mean?

justin215862025-10-09 03:08

Here’s the answer. You’ll likely see more significant changes to costumes and logos to further differentiate the modern versions from their original counterparts.

Mickey Mouse is a great example. You can tell a Mickey Mouse story, but it’s not going to resemble the current character all that much.

esar242025-10-09 03:09

The same thing they did when steamboat willie's mickey went into public domain.

Nothing.

AgeofPhoenix2025-10-09 03:17

I think people misunderstand public domain law. Its just going to be whatever version that was introduced atthat time.

This is also assuming they don't change the laws regarding the public domain. The more companies are prolific and last longer than people the more likely that will be.

WildcatPat332025-10-09 03:23

I’m not sure why people are saying that Disney/Marvel aren’t thinking about this.
If a random guy on Reddit is thinking about, SOMEBODY at Marvel/Disney should be!
Great post, person

BLAGTIER2025-10-09 04:08

Supporting characters and aspects of characters get their own protection from when they were introduced. For example Harry Osborn has an additional 3 years of protection. And then Harry's Goblin has an additional 9 years(12 years total over Spider-Man). Copywrite can be effectively evergreened by continuing to introduce new popular elements.

The funny thing is making Spider-Man married and having Mayday as his daughter, something Marvel Comics editorial hates, would give decades of additional protection.

Score-Emergency2025-10-09 04:23

Disney manages work quarterly and at max has a 10 year plan. This falls squarely in the space of 'someone else's problem'

matty_nice2025-10-09 04:29

It won't really matter as the rights holders like Disney will still own the trademarks to things lke the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, etc.

Owning the trademark makes it really hard for other companies to profit from these copyrights. So while you could make a movie featuring Spider-Man, you won't make a lot of money doing so, which means you won't spend a lot of money making it.

CosmicOutfield2025-10-09 04:49

The real question is if kids at that time will still be interested like previous generations.

Few-Pineapple-15422025-10-09 04:55

They definitely don’t have a plan for it right now, I’d imagine they’ll see how DC handles it in the coming decades and take notes

Moon_Beans12025-10-09 05:15

I assume they will just maintain their trademarks on all the visuals and titles etc so that Captain America is technically public domain but you'd get sued if you tried to sell a comic with the iconic costume and shield or with the name 'Captain America' on its cover in the familiar logo.

hell20_2025-10-09 05:37

MFW low budget Marvel Zombies:

Kingkrool19942025-10-09 06:51

Hopefully nothing at all, so we can make cool shit.

CX3162025-10-09 06:58

Sift through the ash wastes for the paperwork, check them with a geigercounter to make sure they're safe to hold onto, and then go look under a rock to find one of disney's lawyers

throwaway4231throw2025-10-09 08:35

I mean, Pooh has been in the public domain for years now, and the only thing that people tried with it was a horror movie that was based on the novelty of having him in public domain. Since then things seem to have gone back to business as usual.

Skychu7682025-10-09 09:24

Most of Black Panther's Wakandan stuff debuted decade later.

There isn't much to do with character early on beside a African Batman clone

Solid-Move-14112025-10-09 09:27

Iron Man Mark-2 armor debuted few months later just in 1963 which will be public domain in 2058

cajun_vegeta2025-10-09 09:47

A.i will allow you to create your own movie.

![gif](giphy|l0IycBz4icBmwxV6M|downsized)