Spider-Man’s Global Streaming Future Announced

[ShawnDK]

Sony has announced a new direction for its streaming plans, marking a significant shift for upcoming Spider-Man movies. Although he is part of the MCU, Sony Pictures owns the movie rights to Spider-Man and closely related characters. Sony manages streaming negotiations independently, which often means these films don't debut on Disney+ like other Marvel Studios productions. In recent years, Sony partnered with Netflix, allowing releases such as Spider-Man: No Way Home to become available on Netflix after their theatrical runs. This agreement was recently updated.

According to a press release, Netflix and Sony have renewed their Pay-1 licensing deal. This will keep new Sony movies appearing on Netflix after they finish their cinema and PVOD periods. The biggest development is that this deal will now extend globally, not just within the U.S. and select markets as before. The worldwide rollout is happening gradually and should be fully established by 2029.

Two Spider-Man movies are directly affected: Tom Holland’s fourth MCU film, Spider-Man: Brand New Day, slated for July 31, 2026, and the third Spider-Verse animated movie, Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse, scheduled for June 18, 2027. With the renewed deal, Netflix subscribers in the U.S., Germany, and Southeast Asia will continue to get these films first, since those regions were covered under the original arrangement. As Sony and Netflix expand this deal to additional countries, viewers worldwide will likely see Netflix becoming the primary streaming platform for Spider-Man titles.

The agreement also covers upcoming Sony projects like the live-action version of Nintendo’s The Legend of Zelda. However, future MCU films such as Avengers: Doomsday and Avengers: Secret Wars—which may feature Spider-Man—will remain on Disney+, due to Disney’s ownership of Marvel Studios.

[tarot]

This honestly sounds like Sony being petty and not leaving Spider-man onto Disney +.

[JohnF]

On 1/20/2026 at 4:33 PM, tarot said:

This honestly sounds like Sony being petty and not leaving Spider-man onto Disney +.

Yeah, I agree with you. Aside from company deals and whatnot, I can't help but think how Spiderman's presence in the MCU would have been a lot stronger in general if Sony wasn't involved, but that's how it is unfortunately...

[superboyprime777]

Love it

[since83]

Sony is beyond dumb. All they have to do is let the MCU do whatever, and they collect money for just owning the character. Put the character in tons of adds and make money. Then just focus on video games. They have contributed, as much as any other issues, to the MCU feeling off and characters just being wrong. Not letting them use; Uncle Ben, Mary Jane, any Osbournes, not even letting them have an Oscorp truck or billboard in the background, ect is infuriating. And not even a quick interaction with DD on his show is criminal.

[RobertD]

On 1/20/2026 at 7:23 AM, ShawnDK said:

Although Spider-Man is part of the MCU, Sony Pictures owns the character's rights 

This is not quite right.  Sony owns the character's film and long-form (over 44 minutes) television rights, not the outright rights, (right?).  There is a distinction.  Disney owns half-hour animated rights, video game rights, comic book rights and merchandising rights. I realize I'm being pedantic, but there are just too many people in the world who seem to think Sony owns everything regarding Spider-man and it's insane.  

[jscottt991]

On 1/20/2026 at 11:57 AM, since83 said:

Sony is beyond dumb. All they have to do is let the MCU do whatever, and they collect money for just owning the character. Put the character in tons of adds and make money. Then just focus on video games. They have contributed, as much as any other issues, to the MCU feeling off and characters just being wrong. Not letting them use; Uncle Ben, Mary Jane, any Osbournes, not even letting them have an Oscorp truck or billboard in the background, ect is infuriating. And not even a quick interaction with DD on his show is criminal.

Is this true? Is this why we don't have Mary Jane Watson and Uncle Ben? What purpose does holding them back serve Sony?

[since83]

On 1/20/2026 at 12:01 PM, RobertD said:

This is not quite right.  Sony owns the character's film and long-form (over 44 minutes) television rights, not the outright rights, (right?).  There is a distinction.  Disney owns half-hour animated rights, video game rights, comic book rights and merchandising rights. I realize I'm being pedantic, but there are just too many people in the world who seem to think Sony owns everything regarding Spider-man and it's insane.  

No I am indeed Not on the legal team, so whatever. But they have definitely not done right by Spidey Or themselves. They keep stepping on their own...toes in trying to be greedy instead of letting the character be all he can be and reaping those rewards.

[since83]

On 1/20/2026 at 2:11 PM, jscottt991 said:

Is this true? Is this why we don't have Mary Jane Watson and Uncle Ben? What purpose does holding them back serve Sony?

From everything I've read through the years, Yes. They want them for their eventual reboot of the Sony Spiderverse. Coogler wanted Kraven in Black Panther and couldn't cause they wanted to make another joke of a movie. MCU wanted to use Norman Osborn and were told no. They wanted to have Oscorp mentioned in several projects and it got denied. No Ben, so we got the Tony connection. A lot of what people complain about with MCU Spidey is Sony saying no. Imo they are being Penny smart and dollar stupid by weakening their own IP.

[jscottt991]

On 1/20/2026 at 4:37 PM, since83 said:

From everything I've read through the years, Yes. They want them for their eventual reboot of the Sony Spiderverse. Coogler wanted Kraven in Black Panther and couldn't cause they wanted to make another joke of a movie. MCU wanted to use Norman Osborn and were told no. They wanted to have Oscorp mentioned in several projects and it got denied. No Ben, so we got the Tony connection. A lot of what people complain about with MCU Spidey is Sony saying no. Imo they are being Penny smart and dollar stupid by weakening their own IP.

Well, personally I'd rather have Spidey in his own universe (like with the Raimi films) rather than hanging around with the Avengers anyway.  But I had been angry at Disney all this time over Mary Jane Watson and Gwen Stacy. Maybe that's been misplaced. 

[tarot]

On 1/20/2026 at 10:35 PM, jscottt991 said:

Well, personally I'd rather have Spidey in his own universe (like with the Raimi films) rather than hanging around with the Avengers anyway.  But I had been angry at Disney all this time over Mary Jane Watson and Gwen Stacy. Maybe that's been misplaced. 

nonsense. Spider-man should be part of a bigger universe but at the same time a small corner of it. he shouldn't be in a separate universe to everyone. This thought just proves that Sony has fudged up the licence.

[jscottt991]

On 1/20/2026 at 5:49 PM, tarot said:

nonsense. Spider-man should be part of a bigger universe but at the same time a small corner of it. he shouldn't be in a separate universe to everyone. This thought just proves that Sony has fudged up the licence.

I think there is room to disagree here. Spider-Man and Batman, while not the same, work better when they are fighting their Rogue Gallery and protecting their city less from total annihilation and more from the day-to-day problems of crime, even super villainy.  I just find it odd (laughable even) to see them fighting god-like beings bent on destroying the planet or even universe.  Give me Spider-Man taking on Hobgoblin any day over him fighting Thanos. I respect elements of comic history, but in the film universe, I'd rather focus on Spider-Man and his world, and not the broader Marvel Universe.

And, like Batman, it's hard for me to not view Spider-Man as the main character in whatever he's in.  So having Spider-Man tag along with fifteen other heroes and have less screen time than B and C list characters is a waste.  So that's why I'm not even sure I like the idea of him in a small corner of a big universe. 

[since83]

So Spidey did always feel like his own corner, much like the X Men, but he needs to interact with the FF and X Men ect. sometimes. He should show up for big stuff. But I agree, in a sense, that we've been robbed of our Friendly Neighborhood Spidey. I just blame Sony more. When the MCU gets to use him, they wanna make it count, so to speak. But I want Spidey fighting the likes of Beetle Grizzley and Slyde more than Thanos and Dr Doom. I just wish these two billion dollar companies could work together.

[Emplach]

I know it's business but it would be nice and tidy if all MCU appearances of Spider-Man went to Disney+ at the same rate as other MCU content. 
The nice part of this news for me is that the Sony/Netflix deal will be global in the future so those in other countries will eventually get these movies streaming at the same time.

[Satam]

On 1/20/2026 at 1:01 PM, RobertD said:

This is not quite right.  Sony owns the character's film and long-form (over 44 minutes) television rights, not the outright rights, (right?).  There is a distinction.  Disney owns half-hour animated rights, video game rights, comic book rights and merchandising rights. I realize I'm being pedantic, but there are just too many people in the world who seem to think Sony owns everything regarding Spider-man and it's insane.  

I don't think it's pedantic. I think all of us here at Marvelous News strive to be factually correct. I have rewritten the forum version of the story slightly to reflect that Sony owns Spider-Man's movie rights, but not the character outright. I excluded the long-form tv stuff, as I have a headache and honestly couldn't figure out how to integrate that into what Shawn wrote and did not want to do any drastic rewriting of another staff member's news piece.
You are completely correct, btw.

[Goldbug]

I'm not entirely a fan of the Sony movies. They have gotten better. 
I do love the animated Spiderverse stuff. 

[LoneWolfSones]

So my understanding of the rights (as just some rando on the net), is as follows...

• Sony owns the movie rights and rights to the Insomniac games. 
• Marvel/Disney still retains rights to the character, particularly comics, TV (that friendly neighborhood Spidey show on D+ iirc), merchandise like toys, etc. 

The thing is we have history to kind of illustrate this as well. 

Sony had the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy with Avi Arad kind of calling the shots which is where it went off the rails. Avi Arad insisted on Venom being in Spider-Man 3 because he was a toy guy. And to his credit? At least he owned up to the mistake...

https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/venom-producer-avi-arad-spider-man-3-accepts-blame/

Quote

“In all fairness, I’ll take the guilt because of what Sam Raimi used to say in all of these interviews feeling guilty that I forced him into it. And you know what I learned? Don’t force anybody into anything. Therefore, [Sam] wasn’t interested in the inside to make how is Venom like us? How do we deal with the Venom, and Marvel is all metaphors.” - Avi Arad

Raimi, a lifelong fan of classic Spider-Man, admitted the character was shoe-horned into the plot by Arad, who pushed for the inclusion of the fan-favorite villain and sometimes anti-hero.

“I had worked on the story with my brother Ivan, and primarily it was a story that featured the Sandman. It was really about Peter, Mary Jane, Harry, and that new character,” Raimi told Empire Magazine in 2009.

“But when we were done, Avi Arad, my partner and the former president of Marvel at the time, said to me, Sam, you’re so, you’re not paying attention to the fans enough. You need to think about them. You’ve made two movies now with your favorite villains, and now you’re about to make another one with your favorite villains. The fans love Venom, he is the fan favorite.” -Sam Raimi

At the time (to my understanding) Sony had merchandising rights to Spider-Man. 
 

Quote

The Original Agreement: Following a 1999 agreement, Sony secured film rights and a 50% split of toy revenue generated from the films.

So Sony was still profiting from the toys. 

They rebooted Spider-Man with Andrew Garfield with TASM1. Apparently, the contractual deal was that Sony must produce a new Spider-Man film every 5 years and 9 months. So from Spider-Man 3 to TASM1 was 5 years. TASM2 (according to Google), would have been against this deadline, but really they had already put out TASM1 so that 5 year 9 month window would have been from TASM1. And it was something like 2 years between TASM 1 and TASM2. 

After TASM2's performance underwhelmed to expectation, Sony sought to renegotiate, and in the deal to share Spider-Man with the MCU? Sony retained the profit of the films. While they, in turn, ceded the merchandising rights back to Disney/Marvel. 
https://qz.com/1020387/spider-man-is-back-in-the-marvel-universe-but-the-film-studio-wont-get-a-penny-of-the-profits
 

I believe if Sony doesn't make a Spidey film within that window? The film rights go back to Marvel/Disney. But it also may explain why we see different packaging on certain MCU Spidey figures. 

 

It's weird though, that Garfield is the odd one out when you consider Tobey Maguire's Raimi films were Sony-produced as well. Even the Molina Doc Ock and Dafoe Goblin legends figures kind of use packaging design that was derived from No Way Home. 

 

But it explains why Sony has also been messing the bed with ill-conceived spinoff films. They feel like they are being made explicitly to retain the movie rights. 

TLDR: at the end of the day, I don't really care what streaming platform it hits first, as I will likely have already seen it in theater. It sounds like these Spidey films will hit Disney+, just not first? I still prefer physical media for films I really care about and want to watch again. (collect steelbooks too). Though the price on those is going up as well. I skipped Madame Webb and Kraven because they didn't look like they would be good.