| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 06:07:38
The two interested parties made their opening arguments in the case dealing with which company the rights to the D&D movie franchise belongs to, Hasbro (holder of all other D&D IP) or Sweetpea Entertainment (production company responsible for the three existing D&D movies).
Link: http://deadline.com/2014/09/dungeons-and-dragons-movie-rights-trial-sequel-lawsuit-warner-bros-universal-835320/#respond
This one could be interesting (from my albeit layman's legal understanding) as Hasbro doesn't seem to have a definitive smoking canon in this case against Sweetpea, because there is evidence they've acknowledge Sweetpea as the rights holder throughout the years and signed off on the various direct-to-DVD or direct-to-cable sequels. Hasbro is making claims the distribution matters (and it might if the contract language can be interpreted in such a way) and that Sweetpea's production partner Silver Pictures only paid a lower (non-sequel movie) sum as a licensing fee for the 2010 sequel.
The article notes this might have some wide reaching implications for the movie industry at large because it could (re)define the concept of a sequel, which is especially relevant in today's entertainment market with frequent reboots, serial franchises, and complex partnerships to get big blockbuster films off the ground. |
| 1 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 06:22:01
Well it looks interesting, that Hasbro signed off on movies in the past it would appear Hasbro retains the right to not sign off on a sequel. A concept that because permission to use copyright material once grants the rights to unlimited sequels appears to fly into the face of what copyright is meant to protect.
Clearly the actual contract matters as under laying document. |
|
|
