The Future of the MCU - Phase Four

[Midvillian1322]

This is the Hulks rights and Xmen rights argument all over again.

If Universal owns the rights to Dracula flat out and not to just there own specific version of Dracula. Then provide some evidence of this. It shouldn't be any different then Thor. As long as they don't cross a line that resembles Marvels Thor too closely, anyone can do whatever they want with Thor. Blade 3 Dracula/Drake was nothing like Universals version. Therefore there should be nothing they can do about it. I mean hotel transylvania Dracula outside of the family bend is pretty close to the traditional Universal version. Alot of its played for jokes but its there. If Universal could sue for Copyright infringement they would. Not doing so is leaving free money on the table. So I doubt they can, movie studios don't just let other studios use there intellectual property for nothing.

[Jokerz79]

No, he's not the wrong one here. You do not have to go through Universal to make a Dracula movie. There are some complicated rights and trademarks stuff to not do their specific Dracula, but you can do Dracula movies if you want no problem. Universal didn't allow Hotel Transylvania to be made, or Castlevania anime, or the BBC or Netflix films, or The Batman vs Dracula, or the Hellsing anime, or Blade Trinity, or Dracula 2000, or Bram Stoker's Dracula, or the Monster Squad, or Scooby Doo and the Reluctant Werewolf, or Billy the Kid Versus Dracula, or any of the other non-Universal Dracula movies I can't think of right now. Universal didn't give approval or ignore all these films and shows, they legitimately couldn't do anything about them.

Or Hammer Dracula films.

Given how many films and TV shows have specificly copied their version of Dracula over the books which is different it's safe to say Universal owns no rights at all to Dracula not Bram Stroker's which is public domain as stated here or their own Bella Lugosi Version.

[Vakanai]

Or Hammer Dracula films.

Given how many films and TV shows have specificly copied their version of Dracula over the books which is different it's safe to say Universal owns no rights at all to Dracula not Bram Stroker's which is public domain as stated here or their own Bella Lugosi Version.

I wasn't sure about Hammer. I vaguely remember reading or hearing about them having some sort of relationship with Universal back then, but it was probably nonsense.

[luprki]

You guys need to do a little research, it’s not hard to find.

[Steel Inquisitor]

You guys need to do a little research, it’s not hard to find.

What law are you citing? You haven't shown anyone any evidence to support you claims.

[Midvillian1322]

You guys need to do a little research, it’s not hard to find.

If it really was that easy you would of posted proof that your not just making stuff up. Dracula is publuc domain, your the one making a outlandish claim that Universal was able to lock down complete film rights to any version of Dracula. So just post your evidence since you claim its that easy find. Cause everything I can find says Universal owns therir specific version of Dracula and other companies own their version of Dracula.

[Killerbee911]

Research you say okay


Dracula arrives in the blogosphere thanks to public domain

Stoker did not register for a copyright on Dracula in the United States. In the United Kingdom, the work was protected for fifty years beyond Stoker's death in 1912 as dictated by law at the time—meaning that the book fully entered the public domain in 1962. As a result of its current public domain status, the full text of Dracula is widely available on the Internet where it can be appreciated by scholars and new audiences at no cost. Stoker's infamous Count, now a ubiquitous cultural icon, can be shared by all.

So clear as day Dracula the character is public domain-Fact

So what does Universal Own. Well this is the big hint

Lugosi v. Universal Pictures

Ruling
After eleven years of litigation, the trial judge ruled in favor of the Lugosi heirs, awarded them $70,000, and barred Universal Studios from merchandising Lugosi's likeness. The decision was appealed and the California Supreme Court ruled that "the right to exploit one's name and likeness is personal to the artist and must be exercised, if at all, by him during his lifetime." The result was a loss for the concept of inheriting personality rights in California.

Aftermath
The California Celebrities Rights Act of 1986 created an inheritable right to a person's name or likeness for 70 years after death. Legislation passed in 2007 extended that right retroactively to all persons who have died since January 1, 1938.

Here is another article about it

https://law.wm.edu/library/news/coun...ct-dispute.php

Area that I need to find out more on but as I understand it now Lugosi estate owns the rights to his face and voice not Universal. What does Universal own? well the rights to their version the character and stories used in their movies. And Merchandising and licences rights to those characters. In the case of Dracula it basically means -Opera Clothes, Pale Face w/Slick Black Hair, & Middle-Europe accent.

So the best way for me to explain this that ANYBODY can come along make a film on Bram Stokers version of the character (that is a little bit more trickier with a film by Colombia pictures sitting around) which mean Universal can't do crap about versions of Dracula being around(thank you public domain) but if anybody makes version that gets to close their version (Opera Clothes, Pale Face w/Slick Black Hair, & Middle-Europe accent) they can sue them.


Some thing else worth reading

Dracula vs. Nosferatu: A True Copyright Horror Story

The quick note is they straight up copy Dracula, got sued and loss, was force to destroy all the copies,through a glitch copy got to remain. And bunch of Vampire movies today are drawing from this source.

[BeastieRunner]

CBR used to have a trademark FAQ, circa 2006? Anyway ...

There are 105 US active trademarks involving Dracula and they run the gamut from media to software to makeup to clothes etc. The world list balloons it further.
https://www.trademarkia.com/trademar...spx?tn=dracula

I think it's safe to say not one entity owns it.

There are some "gotcha's!" like with Frankenstein in there, but Dracula is public domain and Tomb of Dracula is still owned by Marvel, where they would be drawing from if they used him ever.

[DrNewGod]

I get that Feige wanted to hurt Perlmutter but Inhumans has good characters in it. Are they persona non grata as a property forever because of his grudge with Perlmutter?

The Inhumans are a fascinating bunch, at least to me, but they're also a problematic bunch to interpret faithfully. In their purest form, they are active practitioners of eugenics, have a genetocracy, and feature a manufactured slave race of manually skilled inferiors.

That can be handled well, but it takes a deft hand.

[Vakanai]

You guys need to do a little research, it’s not hard to find.

We have. We've collectively have listed non-Universal Dracula films, the book's public domain status, some public domain laws and rules. And you've... listed nothing and provided no evidence. You have just said we're wrong and keep telling us to look it up. It's getting to the point where I'm starting to think that you have nothing and are purposefully trolling us.

[luprki]

You all are getting the novel mixup with film rights. The novel is public domain, the film right aren’t.
I’ve already said Universal let other studios use these characters, so non-Universal Dracula’s do exist.

[Frobisher]

I don’t really get what is happening here, but I hope everyone is ok and has someone they can talk to.

[Vakanai]

You all are getting the novel mixup with film rights. The novel is public domain, the film right aren’t.
I’ve already said Universal let other studios use these characters, so non-Universal Dracula’s do exist.

And we keep telling you, Universal doesn't let them use these characters, Universal has no say. Universal only owns the rights to the films they made and their specific versions of the character kind of. That's it. You can't go around selling the Dracula movies they made without getting sued, they own those. They own those specific film rights. But they don't own the rights to having Dracula in film period. Wherever you got this idea, it's wrong. If it wasn't, you'd cite a source or law but you haven't because you can't because it's wrong.

[Midvillian1322]

You all are getting the novel mixup with film rights. The novel is public domain, the film right aren’t.
I’ve already said Universal let other studios use these characters, so non-Universal Dracula’s do exist.

Lol your either messing with everyone or just refuse to admit you were wrong. The character of Dracula is public domain, Universals movie isn't. So Universal owns the rights to theyre version of Dracula, thats it. Studios don't let others use they're intelectual property at all. This whole dumb debate started when you said Universal wouldn't let Marvel use Dracula. So what they only let some studios use Dracula?

Your the one telling people to do research and 5mins of searching and people posted evidence your wrong. You haven't provided anything.

[lowfyr]

You all are getting the novel mixup with film rights. The novel is public domain, the film right aren’t.
I’ve already said Universal let other studios use these characters, so non-Universal Dracula’s do exist.

Sorry, but that is not how that kind of stuff work. Not with Dracula or any other public domain character.