>>6353005Your reading comprehension is my-dad-is-the-president-of-nintendo tier.
>"properties which are not incorporated and are primarily kept seperate apart from the MU" and excluded from agreement. >MU = visual image and description in official handbookThus, anything Kaiyodo/Mezco makes up isn't in the handbook.
In other sections, it says any other designs must be submitted and approved separately (read: so Marvel can take the design and make it theirs forever).
And this is Hasbro's license. Again, Kaiyodo's/Mezco's/etc are likely very very specific and way more limited than Hasbro's license, since they wouldn't be seeking to create a catchall agreement to be as indefinite as possible.
Getting a license as a one time release is pretty normal, especially when it comes to eastern collector companies. This is why certain toys are never re-released despite their popularity, whereas other designs have been released (not strictly talking about Marvel here). Reupping is also pretty expensive and getting enough reorders is a gamble, especially for expensive licenses (Marvel's). It's no shock why they don't do re-releases for some and do re-release others
As for who gets the design: it's Marvel's. Always. Instantly. It is a very standard work clause.
BTW, here's the bit on royalties.
Again, Marvel and almost everyone identifies every nearly design ever created and people get paid for their work (depending on their contract).
BTW 2: here's the bit that explains that the licensee can't claim shit to anything Hasbro/Mezco/Kaiyodo design for the characters, because it all belongs to Marvel.
You're being very desperate now to argue... what exactly? That Kaiyodo isn't paying less?
To try and pretend there aren't different licenses and royalties to pay depending on the subject?
The only way you can ever prove your case is if you're able to get your hands on a handbook to show every design ever made is in there and how/what royalties are paid.
