King Kong's Rights Issues

[CyberpunkCentral]

Can someone give me a simple answer on how the King Kong rights work? Like, I could read up right now on how the rights issues work, but it's too convoluted. I need you guys take on this. As far as I know, King Kong is basically a public domain character. Which means, anyone can use him. However, there are still rights issues somewhere. So I don't know. Give me your guys take on this.

[BluBonnet]

I've heard the story about the rights is just bananas!

[Galactus123]

I think the book that came just before the movie is in public domain if I remember right. Universal owns the movie rights.

James Rolfe talked about it in his video:

King Kong (1976) King Kong Lives (1986) Movie Reviews - Cinemassacre's Kongathon - YouTube

Around 8:00.

[Josep5349]

Great apes should have the right to life and freedom, according to a resolution passed in the Spanish parliament, in what could become landmark legislation to enshrine human rights for chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos.

[bratpack]

Whew I thought this was gonna be some peta animal rights issues thread for Kong after what happened in GvK LOL we are certainly gonna be witness to that outrage someday soon maybe in the next v movie when ever that happens LOL

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

Can someone give me a simple answer on how the King Kong rights work? .

If you know a HBO Max password you can watch Godzilla vs Kong for free.

Was this the question ?

[Zillamon51]

If Kong is public domain, why is The Asylum not pumping out Kong movies on SyFy every six months? They should be up to "Kong vs. Sharknado" by now!

[mwynn]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_K...n%20the%201933

[GuruAskew]

Originally Posted by Zillamon51

If Kong is public domain, why is The Asylum not pumping out Kong movies on SyFy every six months? They should be up to "Kong vs. Sharknado" by now!

There are several animated movies and TV series from the last 25 years or so that took advantage of the property’s public domain status.

Kong stuff always kinda underperforms and doing it in live action is significantly more expensive and technically challenging whether you do a guy in a suit or stop-motion or CGI.

The novelization is in the public domain which means pretty much everything in the original is fair game except for things like actor likenesses and specific character and production design. You couldn’t do a 1:1 recreation of Kong without paying Warner or Universal or Paramount or Toho or whoever owns the particular version you would set about making, but if you make a giant gorilla figure that is Kong to 99% of the world. Two collectible companies, NECA and Mezco, have Kong figures currently available, they are completely unlicensed and don’t feature any legal indica crediting a film studio or licensing company.

The 2005 Ubisoft video game was licensed because it was based on the Jackson film. The full, proper title of the game was Peter Jackson’s King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie, that was done to differentiate the game from a wave of unlicensed shovelware games that never materialized.

[kylor]

They really ought to stop monkeying around with those rights.

[Snikt]

Originally Posted by kylor

They really ought to stop monkeying around with those rights.

These rights issues really are a monkey in a wrench...

[RodChester]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

Can someone give me a simple answer on how the King Kong rights work? Like, I could read up right now on how the rights issues work, but it's too convoluted. I need you guys take on this. As far as I know, King Kong is basically a public domain character. Which means, anyone can use him. However, there are still rights issues somewhere. So I don't know. Give me your guys take on this.

If you can’t bring yourself to read the Wikipedia page, how are you going to read whatever gets posted here?

[vertigop1ayer]

There've been enough legal disputes over the decades that this probably isn't sufficiently settled, but for the time being it's generally seen as:

- Universal owns the naming rights "King Kong" (the MonsterVerse specifically does not refer to him as "King Kong" but rather "Kong"), US rights to King Kong vs Godzilla, US rights to King Kong Escapes, and all rights to the 2005 remake of King Kong

- Warner Brothers owns the rights to King Kong (1933), Son of Kong, Kong: Skull Island, and Godzilla vs Kong

- Paramount owns the rights to King Kong (1976)

- De Laurentiis owns King Kong Lives

- Toho owns the rights to King Kong vs Godzilla and King Kong Escapes outside the US, as well as the Mechanikong character MAYBE, though supposedly in the 1990s Toho was going to make a Godzilla vs Mechanikong movie and Universal objected, not a financial drama Toho wanted to deal with.

The basic Kong character, story, and novel are public domain, though Universal has shown a willingness to challenge aspects of this, likely why only so many Kong/Kong-like projects have gone ahead without their support.

And those are really just the highest profile projects. Various TV series and lost films also were made and I won't get into that. But this is a high-level version of my understanding of the legal web I've read about over the years. I am not a lawyer.

[Galactus123]

Originally Posted by vertigop1ayer

- Universal owns the naming rights "King Kong" (the MonsterVerse specifically does not refer to him as "King Kong" but rather "Kong"), US rights to King Kong vs Godzilla, King Kong Escapes, and the 2005 remake of King Kong

I don't think there is any issue with the name. Universal has a deal with Legendary Pictures/WB so Kong can be in Monsterverse.

[vertigop1ayer]

Originally Posted by Galactus123

I don't think there is any issue with the name. Universal has a deal with Legendary Pictures/WB so Kong can be in Monsterverse.

I definitely remember the project that became KSI was originally a Universal production before moving to WB, and I could be wrong but it certainly is odd Legendary would have full latitude to use the iconic "King Kong" name and has declined to do so in titles, dialogue, etc. Don't you think?

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by vertigop1ayer

There've been enough legal disputes over the decades that this probably isn't sufficiently settled, but for the time being it's generally seen as:

- Universal owns the naming rights "King Kong" (the MonsterVerse specifically does not refer to him as "King Kong" but rather "Kong"), US rights to King Kong vs Godzilla, King Kong Escapes, and the 2005 remake of King Kong

- Warner Brothers owns the rights to King Kong (1933), Son of Kong, Kong: Skull Island, and Godzilla vs Kong

- Paramount owns the rights to King Kong (1976)

- De Laurentiis owns King Kong Lives

- Toho owns the rights to King Kong vs Godzilla and King Kong Escapes outside the US, as well as the Mechanikong character MAYBE, though supposedly in the 1990s Toho was going to make a Godzilla vs Mechanikong movie and Universal objected, not a financial drama Toho wanted to deal with.

The basic Kong character, story, and novel are public domain, though Universal has shown a willingness to challenge aspects of this, likely why only so many Kong/Kong-like projects have gone ahead without their support.

And those are really just the highest profile projects. Various TV series and lost films also were made and I won't get into that. But this is a high-level version of my understanding of the legal web I've read about over the years. I am not a lawyer.

I think RKO owns those rights.

[Galactus123]

Originally Posted by mwynn

I think RKO owns those rights.

Turner bought RKO's movie rights at some point and Warner now owns them.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by Galactus123

Universal owns the movie rights.

How? They had nothing to do with the creation of the original.

Originally Posted by mwynn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_K...n%20the%201933

Yes, I know. I tried reading it years ago. That's why I said it's convoluted.

Originally Posted by mwynn

I think RKO owns those rights.

RKO doesn't exist anymore. In fact, Turner bought a lot of properties from them. So WB should have the rights to the original film.

[Galactus123]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

How? They had nothing to do with the creation of the original.

That video I posted says that Universal bought the rights from Merian C. Cooper's son after court ruled that Cooper's Estate owned the name and character.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by Galactus123

That video I posted says that Universal bought the rights from Merian C. Cooper's son after court ruled that Cooper's Estate owned the name and character.

That's what I'm saying. It's convoluted. Okay, so where is Universal's name anywhere in these recent Monsterverse movies?