Any TV/Film Rights Issues You're Still Confused About?

I recently had to explain to a friend about the whole Disney/Marvel/Sony debacle, and why Sony is making a bunch of movies based on low-tier Spider-Man villains.

But then it occurred to me, there are a few rights issues that are still confusing to me. Here are a few.

[U][B]The Wizard of Oz[/B][/U]
For those who don't know, there used to be two companies, MGM (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer) and UA (United Artists). The former produced The Wizard of Oz in 1939. In 1981, the two companies merged. In 2019, Amazon bought MGM/UA. However, from what I've heard, this did not include rights to The Wizard of Oz, which are now held by Warner Bros. The 1939 film is on HBOMax, and WB is producing a new animated film, Toto, from the franchise, hitting in 2024.
So that's actually pretty simple, but I guess I'm just wondering, how did WB get the rights? Did they just buy it off of them?

[B][U]Batman (1966)[/U][/B]
In 1966, DC Comics licensed out the rights to Batman to 20th Century Fox. 20th Century Fox Television produced the famous TV series and, later that year, the film studio created the film version of it, before the series continued on for two more years. In 1969, the same year the series ended, DC's parent company also bought Warner Bros., and since then, Warner Bros. has release all the films!

However, I think Fox, and therefore now Disney, may still own the rights to the 1966 TV series. It's not on HBOMax, but its also not on Disney+, so I'm not sure what's going on with that!

[U][B]Power Rangers[/B][/U]
Clearly, Power Rangers is taken from a Japanese TV show, but I'm not sure who owns the American film/TV rights. The series aired on Fox and the two films in the '90s were made by 20th Century Fox. But then Disney bought them! Amazingly, they then sold them, making it one of four franchises I'm aware of that Disney once had, but no longer does (the others being Zorro, Gnomes, and Scream).
The 2017 film was made by Lionsgate, the 1995 movie is now on HBOMax, and apparently the most recent season aired on Nickelodeon, then streamed on Netflix? What's going on? Who owns this thing!

[U][B]Indiana Jones[/B][/U]
I would have thought the rights to Indiana Jones were purchased along with Star Wars and Willow when Disney bought Lucasfilm in 2012, but I think I heard something about them needing to buy them separately? Either way, it appears that while Disney owns the rights to make new media, Paramount still owns the first four films. Was Indiana not a part of Lucasfilm, or was there some issue with it kind of belonging in part to both it and Paramount?

[U][B]Spider-Man[/B][/U]
I've heard that, while Sony owns the film rights to Spidey, Disney actually still has the TV rights, which is why The Spectacular Spider-Man aired on Disney XD. If so, then they wouldn't need any permission from Sony to have him appear in What If, but that's also likely why Tom Holland didn't voice him in that series, as he's likely under contract at Sony, who didn't want to lease him (at least not for cheap).
What makes this a little iffy is that Sony produces the Daily Bugle videos for Youtube and TikTok, often starring stars of the films they produce with Marvel. So do Youtube and TikTok fall under "film rights," and not "TV rights?" That's very interesting!
But what really gets me is that I heard Disney also still owns the MERCHANDISING rights! Wait, what? So does that mean that Disney's raking in all the money from the toys based on Sony's movies? I'd imagine what's actually the case is that Sony can make money off merchandise from their movies, while Disney makes the money from other, more general Spidey merchandise.
ALSO, a friend said that, since Miles Morales was created after the Disney/Fox merger, Kevin Feige believes that he can use the character, even though Sony has already used him in their animated films. I wonder how that would work? I know that both Marvel and Fox were able to use Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch back in the day, so maybe a similar thing applies here?

[U][B]Namor[/B][/U]
I always heard that Disney/Marvel couldn't make a film about Namor because the rights were still held up at Universal, which didn't make any sense because Universal had NEVER MADE A FILM of him, while other studios were losing rights after not having made a film for 5 years. Now that Namor is making an appearance in Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, does that mean Disney now has the rights? Or are they only able to use him in films that concern other heroes, like they are with Hulk?

[U][B]Hulk[/B][/U]
Speaking of Hulk, there's another weird one. Apparently Universal only owned DISTRIBUTION rights, so Marvel could make the films, as long as they distributed them through Universal, hence why Hulk was the only Phase 1 Marvel Studios film distributed through Universal, not Paramount. But when Disney bought Marvel in 2009, they said no more of that! We at the House of Mouse are not interested in producing films we can't distribute! Hence, no Hulk 2 or 3 in the 14 years since. He can only appear in films focused on other characters, like Avengers or Thor! However, I heard something about those rights coming back to Disney/Marvel now. Does anyone know when Marvel will officially regain all rights to The Hulk?

And feel free to add anything you'd like to discuss!

Okay here are some of the answers.

The 4 Already Existing Indy Films and Young Indy Chronicles Distribution Rights are held by Paramounts. All film rights are held by Disney and hence the new movie will go to Disney Plus.

No clue if there is an expiration date for the Hulk distribution rights.

Spidey Sony has the Live Action Film and TV Rights to Spider-Man. Marvel/Disney has animation rights for anything under 45 minutes while Sony has animation rights for anything over 45 minutes. This how Disney did Ultimate Spider-Man, Marvel's Spider-Man, and now Freshman Year while Sony has the Spiderverse films. Also it was the Marvel getting bought by Disney that originally got Spectacular Spider-Man canceled Sony at the time had a piece of the animation rights.

Marvel/Disney has all the Merchandising Rights to Spider-Man.

See Disney bought back the full merchandising rights and animation rights for under 45 minutes from Sony not long after buying Marvel. Sony has since regretted this decision.

The Miles rights thing is a fan fantasy to get him in the MCU. Hey I'd love to see Miles replace Peter once Holland's moves on instead of a another reboot but it would have to be a Sony film even if in the MCU. Silk was created after Miles and Sony has been developing a film for her for years meaning they get film rights to all Spider-Man characters even post merger.

An interesting aspect to the Wizard of Oz is who ever has the old film rights potentially have the rights to the iconic Ruby Slippers. They were Silver in the books Red was exclusive to the 1939 film. When Disney made Return to Oz in 85 they made a deal to use the Red Slippers.

Batman 66 is a good old fashion pissing contest between Studios who don't want to share the rights and the fans have always paid for it on the home video end.

Today WB owns all looney tunes but for decades the rights were split up by more than one company. It was a mess and confusing.

[video=youtube;Xxxqg0XHxTw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxxqg0XHxTw[/video]

[video=youtube;_qYgqou_Fjo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qYgqou_Fjo[/video]

Macross/Robotech/and parts of it that include Transformers/Battletech/EXo-Squad was a huge mess in many ways.


I think British rights are a bit different but Doctor Who has had a few struggles over the use of the Daleks.

Ditto with James Bond. THUNDERBALL's rights were a huge mess in part because the novel version of the story introduces Blofeld and SPECTRE, and was allegedly based on an earlier Bond movie concept Fleming worked on with Kevin McClory. So SPECTRE/Blofeld couldn't be used for years (apart from the independent NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN by McClory) until it was all settled. Technically he didn't trademark Blofeld's likeness & his cat though (although the cat does show up in NSNA it was not part of novel Blofeld) so they got away with a pseudo-Blofeld in FYEO.

[QUOTE=ChrisIII;6212517]Macross/Robotech/and parts of it that include Transformers/Battletech/EXo-Squad was a huge mess in many ways.


I think British rights are a bit different but Doctor Who has had a few struggles over the use of the Daleks.

Ditto with James Bond. THUNDERBALL's rights were a huge mess in part because the novel version of the story introduces Blofeld and SPECTRE, and was allegedly based on an earlier Bond movie concept Fleming worked on with Kevin McClory. So SPECTRE/Blofeld couldn't be used for years (apart from the independent NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN by McClory) until it was all settled. Technically he didn't trademark Blofeld's likeness & his cat though (although the cat does show up in NSNA it was not part of novel Blofeld) so they got away with a pseudo-Blofeld in FYEO.[/QUOTE]

The Dalek issue was all the BBC owns is the design the name and backstory is owned by Terry Nation the writer who created them for Who. Well his estate now owns them and when the BBC started new Who they reached an agreement with his estate and it's why they must use the Daleks so often in New Who vs let's say the Master who never even showed up in the Matt Smith run.

Another case like the Daleks is Rom and the Space Knights. Technically the Space Knights and Dire Wraiths and their backstories are owned by Marvel while Rom is owned by Hasbro. I know recently in the last few years the Rom comics used the Dire Wraiths so either a deal was reached with Marvel or they didn't care or it slipped thru the cracks.

Man thing is what I wanna know because as far as I know Lionsgate still has solo movie rights.

[QUOTE=Jokerz79;6212596]The Dalek issue was all the BBC owns is the design the name and backstory is owned by Terry Nation the writer who created them for Who. Well his estate now owns them and when the BBC started new Who they reached an agreement with his estate and it's why they must use the Daleks so often in New Who vs let's say the Master who never even showed up in the Matt Smith run.[/QUOTE]

The BBC also owns the sound design too, I think. So they way they look and sound is entirely them but, as you point out, is useless without the name and backstory.

Then you have individual rights issues such as Nyssa was owned by her creator Johnny Byrne (they had to pay him royalties when they made her a full-time companion) and the Brigadier is with estates of Haisman and Lincoln (so both the BBC and Big Finish have deals in place there to use/reference him).

[QUOTE=Jokerz79;6212207]No clue if there is an expiration date for the Hulk distribution rights.[/QUOTE]

So, the deal Marvel reached with Universal gave Universal first refusal on distribution rights. Marvel owns the Hulk and Hulk related characters. They can develop and make a film starring The Hulk, but they can't automatically distribute it themselves and any profits from said distribution get shared with Universal as a result.

This deal applies to "solo" related Hulk films. Those that carry the name Hulk (Not She-hulk though), Incredible Hulk etc. That's why Marvel stopped making Hulk films after 2008 because their overall profit from it were impacted.

Now, paperwork filed indicate this deal length was for 15 years and would be automatically renewed with each subsequent Hulk film. Given the date the deal commenced, the expiration is June 2023. After that point Marvel owns them lock and stock.

It's no surprise that we are suddenly seeing a wealth of Hulk characters being used in current MCU. And all signs are pointing to another Hulk film in the future. The reason they can is because they'll be free to do so.

Think there were some British rights loopholes in the 90s when there were some independent direct to video films with UNIT, Sarah Jane Smith, Sontarans and the Autons.

To a lesser degree the pseudo Doctor Who series and audios with the 80's Doctors (Before Big Finish did it more officially). Ditto with the environmental thriller featuring Pertwee and the 80's Doctors.

[QUOTE]Man thing is what I wanna know because as far as I know Lionsgate still has solo movie rights.[/QUOTE]

Man-thing is in werewolf by night so they can use him there at least.

Spider-man rights were a mess for decades.

Nightman show led to a rights mess over him and marvel as well.

While book rights to Dracula, Frankenstein, the Phantom of the Opera et al are a separate matter, Universal owns the rights to their iteration of all these creature features. THE MUNSTERS was produced by Universal so they could use their image. And the Hammer Horror movies got the rights from Universal to remake their monster movies. But other studios have to come up with versions of the horrors that are distinctive enough that they don't infringe on Universal's rights.

[QUOTE=Somecrazyaussie;6212796]So, the deal Marvel reached with Universal gave Universal first refusal on distribution rights. Marvel owns the Hulk and Hulk related characters. They can develop and make a film starring The Hulk, but they can't automatically distribute it themselves and any profits from said distribution get shared with Universal as a result.

This deal applies to "solo" related Hulk films. Those that carry the name Hulk (Not She-hulk though), Incredible Hulk etc. That's why Marvel stopped making Hulk films after 2008 because their overall profit from it were impacted.

Now, paperwork filed indicate this deal length was for 15 years and would be automatically renewed with each subsequent Hulk film. Given the date the deal commenced, the expiration is June 2023. After that point Marvel owns them lock and stock.

It's no surprise that we are suddenly seeing a wealth of Hulk characters being used in current MCU. And all signs are pointing to another Hulk film in the future. The reason they can is because they'll be free to do so.[/QUOTE]

I remember reading somewhere universal can still make a solo hulk movie if they wanted and MCU can only use hulk in team up movies that's why the revengers were In Thor Ragnarok.

Strap in, 'cause here's the weird double-headed legal drama of [I]Friday the 13th[/I]...

In the beginning, [I]Friday the 13th[/I] was produced and distributed by Paramount Pictures, and they ran that gravy train all through the 80s until the slasher craze kinda fizzled come the 90s. They didn't want to do anymore, so Sean S. Cunningham--the guy who directed the first movie--bought the rights and brought them over to New Line Cinema to cash in on a prospective Jason Voorhees versus [I]Nightmare on Elm Street[/I]'s Freddy Krueger film.

However, Cunningham and New Line only had the rights to the character of Jason Voorhees and his associated lore. The previous movies, including the actual title "[I]Friday the 13th[/I]" were sill owned by Paramount. This is why all New Line Jason movies are titled "[I]Jason[/I]..." as opposed to [I]Friday the 13th[/I]--[I]Jason Goes to Hell[/I], [I]Jason X[/I], and [I]Freddy vs. Jason[/I]. This is also why, while [I]Freddy vs. Jason[/I] includes flashback clips from previous [I]Nightmare[/I] movies, they show nothing from prior [I]Friday[/I] movies, and why for a long time if you got a [I]F13[/I] box set, it would only be parts 1-8, but not 9, X, or [I]Freddy vs[/I].

Fast forward some years...Warner Bros. has bought out New Line Cinema and now owns everything they have--including Jason--and they want to capitalize on the brief slasher remake run that started with 2003's [I]Texas Chainsaw Massacre[/I]. And it turns out Paramount wants in, too. So, they work out a deal where they co-produce a new Jason movie that gets to be titled [I]Friday the 13th[/I] in 2009.

It makes a healthy profit, so naturally, there's immediate talk of making a sequel. And here's where things gets pear-shaped, because although both Warner and Paramount want to make another one, neither wants to share the profits with the other, and neither is willing to just buy-out the other. So, the [I]Friday the 13th[/I] franchise basically ends up stuck in a weird stare-down between the two companies, waiting to see who blinks first and sells.

I don't know for certain if this has been resolved yet. And if it has, I don't know who's won. It's worth noting they recently released a [I]F13[/I] box set that includes every movie. Also, Jason did appear alongside other Warner owned IPs in [I]Ready Player One[/I].

Unfortunately, that's not the end of [I]Friday the 13th[/I]'s legal woes.

As said, although Jason and [I]F13[/I] are or were caught in a stalemate between Warner and Paramount, the actual rights to the IP belonged to Sean Cunningham--who, it's worth nothing, directed only the first movie and had nothing to do with the franchise until he bought the rights from Paramount after 1989's [I]Jason Takes Manhattan[/I].

The script for the first [I]Friday the 13th[/I] was written by Victor Miller. Meaning he came up with the idea of Camp Crystal Lake, Jason downing, and his mother going nuts and killing people...basically, the foundation of the franchise. Though paid for the first movie, he believes...since it's gone on to become this decade-spanning franchise worth millions in merchandise among other things...he's owed a cut.

As current owner of the rights, it's on Cunningham to pay him or prove he's not owed a dime. Naturally, Cunningham has been shooting for the latter.

His first argument is that Miller wrote the script as "work-for-hire" and therefore should only have been paid for the only movie he wrote (which he was). Problem is that wasn't put into writing, as at the time, no one thought this movie was going to be any more than a forgettable pot-boiler. So no one was inking out a thorough contract dealing with potential merchandise sales or sequel deals.
His second argument is that, although Miller came up with the backstory of Jason drowning in Crystal Lake and his mother killing people, he had nothing to do with the sequels that had Jason come back to life, wear a hockey mask, and be this hulking brute. Therefore, Cunningham argues, Miller shouldn't receive money for anything related to Jason beyond the first movie.

Fun little aside...it's amusing Cunningham would go for that second argument considering he's had nothing to do with Jason as he's currently known either. He dropped out after the first movie and had nothing to do with the franchise until [I]Jason Goes to Hell[/I] years later. Adding to the irony, according to the director of [I]Jason Goes to Hell[/I], one of Cunningham's directives was "get Jason out of the damn mask"...as he apparently hated the hockey mask.

Anyway, this has basically put a complete freeze and [B]anything[/B] happening with [I]Friday the 13th[/I]. Regardless of who can produce the movies, nothing's getting done until this is settled. This is also why that [I]F13[/I] video game had to shut down even though it was still doing very well and the developers were in the middle of creating DLC.

Last I heard, the courts have ruled in favor of Victor Miller on the grounds that Cunningham can't prove he wrote the first movie as work-for-hire, but Cunningham is appealing.
There's even been suggestion that Cunningham might try to effectively split Jason down the middle in order to make new movies without having to pay Miller. Which would mean having a big dude in a hockey mask, but make no mention of Crystal Lake or Jason's mother or anything Miller actually had a hand in, which...I don't see that flying.

As far as I know, [I]Friday the 13th[/I] is still stuck in legal hell. As said, Cunningham is appealing, and even if that fails, they'll need to work out what exactly Miller is owed and what would he get paid for future films.

And this is why we haven't seen a new [I]Friday the 13th[/I] movie in over ten years.

[QUOTE=choptop;6213816]I remember reading somewhere universal can still make a solo hulk movie if they wanted and MCU can only use hulk in team up movies that's why the revengers were In Thor Ragnarok.[/QUOTE]

Not according to the contracts. 15 years. And Marvel can make another solo Hulk film. They always could. They just chose not to due to the deal in place. They circumvented that.

The Bixby tv show universal will still control though.