movies that have trade mark/copy right

[PositiveEmotions]

If lets say a movie directer makes a movie and decides to have it trade mark does that mean in the future another company studios can get the rights and remake the movie? or is it the copy right that does that?​

 

[Escorpiius]

I'm no lawyer but if I'm right, then the company who wants to remake the movie, need to buy the official rights of the movie legally to whoever posses its trademark right.

It may be the director/production company (at times, both) but as far as I know, you need to buy the rights, otherwise the ones who posses the rights may file a case of plagiarism.
There are cases where you may amicably discuss and make the remake by only crediting the original owners in the movie.

 

[Nathan]

I'm no lawyer but if I'm right, then the company who wants to remake the movie, need to buy the official rights of the movie legally to whoever posses its trademark right.

It may be the director/production company (at times, both) but as far as I know, you need to buy the rights, otherwise the ones who posses the rights may file a case of plagiarism.
There are cases where you may amicably discuss and make the remake by only crediting the original owners in the movie.

As Escorpiius; for example, the movie Battleships, they had to include Hasbro since Hasbro, are the owners of the name 'Battleships', and the movie itself included the concept of the game itself.

 

[PositiveEmotions]

Yea but battle ships is based on a classic board game im talking about old movies having them to remake it. Some studio companies just remake a movie straight out the bat without any offficial news if they even bought the rights or not its why i asked if the " trade mark " or " copy right " makes any difference

 

[Escorpiius]

Yea but battle ships is based on a classic board game im talking about old movies having them to remake it. Some studio companies just remake a movie straight out the bat without any offficial news if they even bought the rights or not its why i asked if the " trade mark " or " copy right " makes any difference

Please state an example of that movie.

 

[Mercy]

Please state an example of that movie.

Yeah, I would love to hear that as well.

 

[PositiveEmotions]

Like freddy gruker and friday the thirteenth they didnt say snythin about buything the rights and they just made the movie the only movies that they had to go to court was superman and the crow. The crow bc the original director didnt want the other director to remake it but original director lost so now they gonna remake it but there has been no word on it. Superman they had a huge fights bc superman was under the rights of the original creators of superman even tho they died their family had the rights (i could be wrong here) so they bought superman its why the movie man of steel its a whole new story so they so anyways

 

[hatusi]

is it the copy right

 

[Escorpiius]

Like freddy gruker and Friday the thirteenth they didnt say snythin about buything the rights and they just made the movie the only movies that they had to go to court was superman and the crow. The crow bc the original director didnt want the other director to remake it but original director lost so now they gonna remake it but there has been no word on it. Superman they had a huge fights bc superman was under the rights of the original creators of superman even tho they died their family had the rights (i could be wrong here) so they bought superman its why the movie man of steel its a whole new story so they so anyways

On Friday the 13th:

New Line Cinema's Toby Emmerich approached Platinum Dunes producers Michael Bay, Brad Fuller, and Andrew Form about restarting Friday the 13th in the same fashion that they had done with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise. They agreed, and spent over a year securing the film rights from all the involved parties: Paramount Pictures, New Line, and Crystal Lake Entertainment. Crystal Lake Entertainment is run by Friday the 13th creator Sean S. Cunningham.[8] Paramount executives approached the Platinum Dunes producers and gave them license to use anything from the original films, including the title; Paramount was given the rights to distribute the film internationally.

So, yeah they did bought the rights.

As for The Crow, Relativity Rights has been fighting for the rights and finance of it since long. However, the delay of the reboot is beyond its rights' issue. It's more because they keep changing directors and cast. See

You must be registered for see links

As for Superman, they had 2 legal rights' fight - which they both won as far as I've read.

The first one was towards the original Superman movie makers. The claims of the original makers is that they have the rights of the plot of their Superman and thus, Warner Bros will need to buy its right if they want to make a reboot since reboot consist mostly of frame-by-frame recreation. However, since the plot of C.Nolan/Goyer was completely different to the Original, the case of the original makers became baseless.

And for any Superhero movie, you don't need rights to buy its name since those titles are copyrighted by the Comics' party first. In the case of Iron Man, it doesn't matter if there was a movie/series before they made it. Fact is as long Marvel is associated, they can use the name. Same for Warner Bros where DC Comics is an affiliate associate. Thus, as long as this association stays, Warner Bros can make any movies based on a DC Comic hero - without worrying about title copyrights issues. Man of Steel, The Dark Knight ect.. fits that bill.

And yeah, the second legal case that Man of Steel was involved where they had to buy rights of a Domain name. It was silly but as per reports, something that they have done very often for other movies.

You must be registered for see links

 

[PositiveEmotions]

On Friday the 13th:



So, yeah they did bought the rights.

As for The Crow, Relativity Rights has been fighting for the rights and finance of it since long. However, the delay of the reboot is beyond its rights' issue. It's more because they keep changing directors and cast. See

You must be registered for see links

As for Superman, they had 2 legal rights' fight - which they both won as far as I've read.

The first one was towards the original Superman movie makers. The claims of the original makers is that they have the rights of the plot of their Superman and thus, Warner Bros will need to buy its right if they want to make a reboot since reboot consist mostly of frame-by-frame recreation. However, since the plot of C.Nolan/Goyer was completely different to the Original, the case of the original makers became baseless.

And for any Superhero movie, you don't need rights to buy its name since those titles are copyrighted by the Comics' party first. In the case of Iron Man, it doesn't matter if there was a movie/series before they made it. Fact is as long Marvel is associated, they can use the name. Same for Warner Bros where DC Comics is an affiliate associate. Thus, as long as this association stays, Warner Bros can make any movies based on a DC Comic hero - without worrying about title copyrights issues. Man of Steel, The Dark Knight ect.. fits that bill.

And yeah, the second legal case that Man of Steel was involved where they had to buy rights of a Domain name. It was silly but as per reports, something that they have done very often for other movies.

You must be registered for see links

yea i know what you mean there thats why im confured bc the passed superman movies they had no trouble because warner bros accepted the remakes of them movies and superman returns is basically a follow up of superman 2 only the man of steel that had to go thro all that trouble of buying the rights and as for the crow was also a big issue but they didnt want a remake but same time they did​