Who owns the rights
Who owns the rights
Who owns the rights#1
Posted: 6/9/16 at 1:24am
when a show gets adapted for the screen does the studio or whoever adapts it only owns the rights to a movie version or for the show itself? Like for the upcoming in the heights movie adaption. Does Harvey Weinstein own in the heights or is it still a property of Jeff seller
edit: I could be entirely wrong in my thinking. Does jeff seller even own the rights to ITH? Or does Lin? Or is split?
someone explain. I might lose it.
Who owns the rights#2
Posted: 6/9/16 at 2:57am
The author(s) own the rights. The producer has a license. The studio/film producer owns the film.
Who owns the rights#3
Posted: 6/9/16 at 9:18am
For the stage show, someone involved with the original production will own the rights (i.e. one of the authors or producers or even the director). When they sell the film rights, generally the owner of the film has total ownership of the material for conversion to film, and the owners have little-to-know control over the product. The owner of the film rights has no rights to the stage production.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/28/13
Who owns the rights#4
Posted: 6/9/16 at 10:43am
Theatrical presentations only have to do with grand, or dramatic, rights. It's a completely different animal than film or television. Here's some reading to get you started: http://www.musicalamerica.com/news/newsstory.cfm?archived=0&storyid=31868&categoryid=7
Who owns the rights#5
Posted: 6/9/16 at 12:18pm
@fosse, you managed to mangle just about every concept but at the core of it is that all of these things are contractual but that concept either eludes you or causes you to disregard the typical way things are done.
@Liza, that's all true but is a non-sequitur.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/28/13
Who owns the rights#7
Posted: 6/9/16 at 2:37pm
@Liza, if it is obnoxious to note that you linked an article that is irrelevant to what's being discussed then so be it.
Who owns the rights#8
Posted: 6/9/16 at 4:29pm
HogansHero said: "@fosse, you managed to mangle just about every concept but at the core of it is that all of these things are contractual but that concept either eludes you or causes you to disregard the typical way things are done. "
Nope, but nice try.
1) Someone on the original creative team will own the rights to the property. Think Cameron Macintosh (a producer), Michael Bennett (a director), Andrew Lloyd Webber (Composer/producer). It can be a collective, and if it was a work-for-hire, than the hiring party could own the rights. Yes, it is contractual, but it can be any of the parties, which is what I said. My basic response was correct.
**EDIT I should have noted that "generally, someone on the original creative team will own the rights to the property". Yes it is possible that there is someone else that may own the rights, but there is no reason to get into the specifics for this type of inquiry and response. But the creators of the original material will own all the rights until they are sold. Like I say above, it is contractual when talking about a collective of creators who will have the ownership rights for licensing etc. But that's getting nit-picky.
2) The owner of the original material sells the film rights. This will always include home video release and soundtrack release. It will also include merchandising and use of the material for promotion (i.e., the leads can perform songs from a movie musical without needing to acquire the stage rights to perform specific material). Any third-party copyrighted material would need to be worked out with THAT rights-holder for use in the film (i.e., The Rocky Horror Picture Show in The Perks of Being a Wallflower).
3) It is NOT a license. The owner of the film rights will own the material outright for purposes of making the movie. This gives them the right to move around the songs, to change the structure, alter the plot, cut characters, etc. A license, which is the link Liza posted, can be revoked by the rights-holders. When it comes to film rights, that can't happen. The rights-holder will own them until THEY decide to get rid of them (unless there is a rider reverting the rights to the original rights holder if the film isn't made in a certain amount of time).
4) The owner of the original material MIGHT be able to get some creative control, but it will be fairly minimal, and since no movie executive in his right mind would give the original owner final cut, then the changes can be made in the cutting room (just ask P.L. Travers how that works). Even J.K. Rowling can't use any ideas created in the Harry Potter series and shop them around for movie release, because Warner Bros., through David Heyman, owns the film rights to Harry Potter and all of its characters.
I didn't feel the need to go through all of this in response to the OP, because it was merely a generic answer. But it wasn't mangled or wrong.
Who owns the rights#9
Posted: 6/9/16 at 5:08pm
@Fosse, We are not talking about the same mangling LOL.
1. The producer is not referred to as a part of the creative team and that was the mangling I meant. Obviously, in the standard model, the creators own the rights, but there are of course instances where the producer does. In the last quarter century I cannot think of an example where a director has the rights, when the director is not also an author. I'd be curious if you have an example.
2. What you say now is correct; the film rights holder gets the film rights, which of course includes ownership of the resultant film (unless it is conveyed away) but has no ownership of the underlying material. It is an exploitation right, and nothing more.
3. The film rights are an exclusive license, whether called that or not. No biggie but most deals have an out date.
4. The extent of control is contractual and can be more or less depending on who you are, how in demand the property is, etc. In general, of course, you are right, but only because that's how most contracts work.
I don't think we are that far apart in reality; mostly just at the boring edges and in the even more boring definition of terms.
Videos
