Would Marvel Animation have legal problems if they wanted to introduce Michelle Jones (Mj) for Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man? 🤔

I mean, if they continue with the idea of the series mirroring the MCU, but with Spider-Man characters, I think it makes sense to introduce Michelle in the future, but wouldn't that pose legal problems with Sony?

Considering that Michelle is, in essence, an "Original Creation" for Holland's saga, which they later turned into the Mary Jane variant in the MCU, and if they already have problems using the designs from the films, would the same apply to her character?

Commentaires

Altruistic_Eye_11572025-10-15 01:03

The funny thing would be if, to avoid copyright, they now use Mary Jane's name but with Michelle's design XD

Heavensrun2025-10-15 01:10

I'd just call her "MJ" and not worry about what it stands for.

Altruistic_Eye_11572025-10-15 01:31

and every time they ask her for her real name, someone or something interrupts her XD

DaNoahLP2025-10-15 06:47

Like with Timmys parents in Fairly Oddparents

Citizensnnippss2025-10-15 01:14

Probably not. Especially since No Way Home made her Michelle Jones-Watson.

I also doubt Sony has any rights to the characters created in their movies. If they did, they'd create tons more.

That would probably be their #1 priority if that were the case.

FX1142025-10-15 01:48

Why wouldn't they have the rights to characters created in their own movies? Who else would?

Citizensnnippss2025-10-15 01:54

I meant to say "besides film rights". Obviously they'd have those.

But I highly doubt they have, say, the comic book rights to Michelle Jones.

Altruistic_Eye_11572025-10-15 02:06

I want to bring up another detail: What if neither Marvel nor Sony can use the character individually because it was a joint creation?

For example, everything Sony created on its own is 100% Sony's, so they (if they wanted) would have full authority to use Dafoe's mask because it belongs to them. But in Morbius, they had to change the design of the Vulture's wings and helmet. Why? For the NWH concept art, the Vulture's helmet and wings were identical to those seen in Homecoming. The same goes for the Spider-Man concept art in Madame Web, where Spidey has the base design from Homecoming, but his spider is more similar to the one in Far From Home.

Perhaps it's because Sony can't use the character designs they created for Disney productions either, because they also have authority over that. And if that's true for the costumes, the same could be true for Michelle. She either can't use it, or if she could, it would be with a different design.

FX1142025-10-15 02:08

If they created a character, they'd have *all* rights to them. Of course, the comic rights for a single Spider-Man character would be useless, short of licensing her to Marvel.

Altruistic_Eye_11572025-10-15 02:13

Now that I think about it, it could also come into play that it's a Disney co-production, and that could change things a bit. For example, in Morbius, they changed the design of the Vulture's helmet and wings. Why? According to the concept art, they used the same helmet design for No Way Home. Or in the concept art for Madame Web, Peter's suit is different from the one in Homecoming, with the spider from Far From Home.

Perhaps since they're co-created with Disney, they also have authority over these versions, their designs, etc. And if Sony wants to use them, they should change their designs.

Prize-Individual94302025-10-15 02:57

[deleted]

FX1142025-10-15 04:54

Except Sony is the studio who made Michelle Jones, not Marvel comics.

Prize-Individual94302025-10-15 05:24

It was distributed through Sony's Columbia pictures, but it was made by Marvel Studios. She was a character made *for* the MCU to avoid using Maryjane Watson who is licensed to Sony

FX1142025-10-15 05:30

That's not true at all. Marvel was involved in the production, but Sony was the main production company, who financed the movie and had creative control.

Also, why would they avoid using one character owned by Sony in a movie where every single other character is owned by Sony?

Prize-Individual94302025-10-15 05:34

Don't look at me, Google said it...

FX1142025-10-15 05:37

Google isn't omniscient, *especially* Google AI. It's much better to actually look into things yourself and think about them critically.

Prize-Individual94302025-10-15 05:42

Okay well, I also looked at Wikipedia, and it says that both Kevin Fiege and Amy Pascal produced it and it was made by both Marvel studios and Columbia pictures. It was largely made by Marvel studios, but Sony at the end of the day had creative control. It was a joint effort, but Sony let Marvel take the wheel

FX1142025-10-15 05:53

Correct, and Sony retained final say and ownership of the movie.

Funmachine2025-10-15 15:05

That's not true. The MCU Spider-Man films *are* Marvel Studios productions. That was the whole deal. Marvel makes the films and Sony get to keep the box office, while Marvel gets the merchandise.

FX1142025-10-15 16:48

They're primarily Sony productions. This is all readily available information. Sony owns those movies, Marvel helps.

Funmachine2025-10-15 16:54

They are not. Marvel Studios produces the films, Sony distributes them. That was the whole point of the deal made to get Spider-Man in the MCU. Ultimately, yes, Sony has final say because they still own the rights, but it is a Marvel Studios film - hence why Marvel Studios has the studio splash at the start of the films, they make them.

John7117112025-10-15 01:48

I disagree i mean think about it they have never done it ever.
For instance Disney/Marvel will not put Kingpin in Sony Spider-man because if they do Sony would own a part of that version of the character if they wanted to put him in a live action or animated version.

It can be interpreted that Sony owns this version of MJ.

Citizensnnippss2025-10-15 01:53

>For instance Disney/Marvel will not put Kingpin in Sony Spider-man because if they do Sony would own a part of that version of the character

No, they wouldn't. That's why they're using the Hulk and Punisher in Brand New Day.

John7117112025-10-15 02:00

Your confusing this for Hulk and Punisher yoru right Sony will never get those characters unless Disney sells them to Sony which will can't say never happen but ya it's not going to happen that way.

Sony already has Kingpin rights directly from the contract

"Kingpin” and related characters listed on the attached Schedule 7B, but

SPE may not use any of these until after Fox’s production rights to

Daredevil expire. Marvel’s use of Kingpin is restricted to use in

connection with Daredevil and other characters with which he appeared

prior to 9/15/11"

My point is Sony if they wanted to could make him a skinny guy who wears black and they would own that version of him.

The comic version they can always both exploit

You see the Tv Version if brought over to the films would have the same backstory they don't want to let Sony share that backstory if they brought it to a Sony Film. They could also put it in their own tv series if they wanted or own film.

Atrion212025-10-15 01:23

Sony only has live action rights so if its animated and not tom holland marvel can do whatever, or so i think.

John7117112025-10-15 01:50

Sony also have animated 44 minutes and up rights. They do own things they create. I mean think about it while Disney brought back Blade he was not Universal Blade.

Prize-Individual94302025-10-15 02:53

[deleted]

DigificWriter2025-10-15 08:28

This entire comment is just straight-up false.

Sony owns all of the Tom Holland solo films and the licensing rights to all of the characters within said films save for Tony Stark, Happy Hogan, Talos/Nick Fury, and Soren/Maria Hill.

Yes, the films were joint productions between Sony and Marvel Studios, but that does not in any way give Marvel Studios any control or ownership over them.

Marvel Studios does own the licensing rights to Spider-Man and related characters specifically as it pertains to Animated Television, but they would still have to very specifically license the character of Michele Jones-Watson from Sony in order to use her in animation because she was created to appear exclusively in live-action film and Sony thusly owns the rights to her character.

ChildofObama2025-10-15 03:33

If they introduce MJ,

I think the character will still resemble Zendaya, but she’ll actually be called Mary Jane and have something resembling the comic accurate traits.

Altruistic_Eye_11572025-10-15 04:27

Possibly those details would be his personality (which can be justified with the nexus event that was the destruction of Midtown) and the red hair

spidervenom6192025-10-15 06:33

Or you know she would still be similar to Michelle and they would never just called her Michelle Jones or Mary Jane just like in MCU, the comics, the video Games, the other movies, etc.

Quick_Werewolf_87662025-10-15 03:54

whats the upside of adding an angry 10 year old Brazilian boy to the show?

eagc72025-10-15 04:11

Depends on how the rights thing works, the only example i can think of a movie only character making to other media that didn't originate from Marvel own projects is Abraham Whistler from New Line Cinemas Blade movies showing up in the Fox 90s Marvel Animated Universe

depressedwolfchild2025-10-15 08:16

Probably not. But personally I don't think they'll do that, at least not very soon. The whole point of the nexus event in YFNSM was to distance the show from the MCU's path. It would be redundant to introduce MJ right after they just managed to do their own thing. Especially with both Pearl and Nico being there as possible love interests for the future.

boinkmagoink2025-10-15 08:33

Michelle Jones

coaldiamond12025-10-15 20:37

In theory yes, if they had a version of MJ identical to Zendaya's version, that would be copyright infringement because technically she's owned by Sony. But Sony would have to sue, and I don't see that happening. I also don't see Marvel doing that, they could have a similar character that's Mary Jane Watson and called MJ voiced by a different actress and it'd be basically the same thing.

OnlinePosterPerson2025-10-16 00:43

Original creation for holland’s saga is a strange way to refer to a character named MJ in her first appearance

EXGShadow2025-10-16 13:14

Does anyone want to? I guess some people like Zendaya, but Michelle is such a nothing character. I'd take TASM Gwen or even Sam Raimi's poorly written MJ over her

aresef2025-10-16 17:06

In half-hour animated series, Marvel has the rights to use Spider-Man. However, for the same reason Tom Holland can't voice that Spider-Man, they may have legal issues if they draw from the movie concepts or characterizations.

ExultantSandwich2025-10-18 09:14

yeah we know they can’t use the suit. That’s why Avengers Campus Spider-Man has a *legally distinct* suit. That design also got used for his appearance in What If.

I’d say they likely cannot use Michelle Jones.

However making Mary Jane a mixed race teenager would be within their rights. Bringing in Ganke Lee would obviously be fair game. Bringing in Ned Leeds and having him be filipino, also likely okay.

Honestly Sony/Marvel have stuck relatively close to established canon, so all of those elements are not tied to Sony. It would be impossible to enforce some sort of race quota on derivative works, but unique names are a clear line in the sand

Hot-Flight60892025-10-18 23:34

They'd prob just use Mary Jane tbh