1933 King Kong in November (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

Well, the last confirmed LDI restoration for WB was THX 1138 (4K).

It's possible that there is a big delay time... especially since LDI apparently creates the IMAX DMR 4K masters and is also working on 4K restorations for the first 9 James Bond films (HD remasters for the others, minus Die Another Day).

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

From what I have read, Lucasfilm paid for the Lowry restoration of THX and produced the extras themselves. Warner was the distributor, of course. The whole package, the very-high-bitrate transfer and extras have a different style from the Warner standard, which is excellent, of course.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

Didn't I read somewhere on this forum that an interview with Miss Wray was in the specs for this release? Thought I did, but I'm having trouble finding it at the moment. Correct me if I'm mistaken. And, yeah, it WOULD be awesome if someone had located the lost spider sequence in David O. Selznick's fruit cellar and kept it under wraps until the DVD street date...

 

[Steve...O]

Warners confirmed this during the last chat.

Steve

 

[Eric Emma]

Very nice Also does anyone know how Universal has the rights to make a new movie but WB has the rights to the 1933 version? I'm taking a guess that it has to do with the whole turner buyout of MGM and then keeping the library for Turner and selling the name, because I'd have to assume that RKO was bought out by MGM at some point which would make sense but it still doesn't clear up how Universal came into possession of the rights to King Kong.

 

[Damin J Toell]

There have been multiple lawsuits over the years to hash this out, so there's no easy explanation. As a result of a bout of lawsuits arising out of the 1976 Dino DeLaurentiis remake, it was declared that the copyright on the King Kong story had fallen into the public domain. Universal brought their lawsuit to declare "Kong" to be in the public domain in preparation for their own remake of the film at that time, which never came into being. While the suits were proceeding, Universal purchased trademark rights to "King Kong" from Richard Cooper, son and heir of Merian C. Cooper.

So while the 1933 film remains under copyright and Warner owns it through the RKO library, Warner holds no special remake rights to the film (nor does any other studio). Universal, however, owns a trademark on "King Kong". Universal is using this trademark right, along with the public domain status of the story, as the basis for their ability to do the remake.

DJ

 

[Eric Emma]

So technically a studio could make a movie about King Kong as long as it doesn't use the name King Kong? Just curious? I mean that leaves open some interesting doors...

 

[EricSchulz]

That's basically what happened with Nosferatu back in the '20's. Bram Stoker's estate sued for copyright infringement since it was basically "Dracula". Murnau used different character names. Not sure exactly how it got settled...anyone care to take it from here?

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

I believe the Nosferatu camp lost and the court ordered for all prints of the film to be destroyed. If I understand correctly, it's a minor miracle we even have the film today.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Murnau's use of different character names was no help, as Stoker's widow prevailed in her copyright infringement action.

As for other entities being able to produce a "King Kong" film and actually use that title, it's an interesting question. In their original lawsuit in which they tried to get the story of "Kong" declared to be in the public domain, Universal also took the position that the public domain status of the story's copyright was enough to make it so that their intended film remake didn't infringe any rights at all (including trademark rights) of RKO, Richard Cooper, or DeLaurentiis's production company.

There is a concept known as "fair use" in the world of trademark law (which is a completely different animal than "fair use" in the copyright context). In the trademark context, "fair use" allows "the use of [a] name, term, or device...which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods." 15 USC § 1115(b)(4). Judge Kozinski eloquently put it thusly: "Indeed, we may generalize a class of cases where the use of the trademark does not attempt to capitalize on consumer confusion or to appropriate the cachet of one product for a different one. Such nominative use of a mark - where the only word reasonably available to describe a particular thing is pressed into service - lies outside the strictures of trademark law: Because it does not implicate the source-identification function that is the purpose of trademark, it does not constitute unfair competition; such use is fair because it does not imply sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder." New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302, 307-8 (9th Cir. 1992).

The story "King Kong" is in the public domain. With regard to copyright law, anyone can make a film (or another book, or a stage play, or a musical, etc.) out of it. Calling such a work "King Kong" is only merely descriptive of its source; having to call it something else would be silly game-playing (in the New Kids case, Kozinski gives "the professional basketball team from Chicago" as such an example). Other legalistic avenues may be available, as well, but it seems to me that making a film adaptation of "King Kong" and call it as such would be a fair use of Universal's trademark. The main strength of Universal's trademark therefore probably lies in ancillary merchandising: maybe anyone can make a film, but they're probably the only ones who could also make t-shirts, action figures, theme park attractions, etc.

DJ

 

[Garysb]

I don't know if it has anything to do with King Kong but RKO retained the remake rights to its films . While the films themselves are owned by Warner Bros, if anyone wants to make a remake of one of their films, they have to deal with RKO . This company, RKO Films, still exists and I believe currently owned by Dina Merrill and her husband. If the film is in public domain then this would not apply.

 

[Roger Rollins]

Incorrect.

RKO sold the remake rights years ago...way before the Ted Hartley/Dina Merrill purchase of RKO's remaining assets without its library.

I don't know the exact situation, but it seemed that in the '60s or '70s RKO (then owned by General Tire) sold the remake rights to both Universal and DeLaurentiis, and a huge lawsuit ensued that went on for years.

That's why Universal has the rights to the Jackson remake.

At least that's how I understand the circumstances having followed the story years ago.

 

[John Hodson]

From DVD Talk:

...there is a rumor going around that may be a real revelation for King Kong fanatics. I call this a *rumor* because I haven't even read it personally, but it is supposed to come from genre authority Tom Weaver, and I checked with another genre authority yesterday and he seemed to think it was real as well. Remember the legendary 'spider pit' sequence in the original Kong, reportedly cut after a preview? If my source is correct with this *rumor*, Weaver says that at least a part of it has been located, in a French print that was used as a new restoration source for the other more standard excised Kong scenes - the gnashing of natives in Kong's mouth, the dropping of the brunette over 5th Avenue, Kong's amorous monkeying with Ann Darrow's perfumed dress. In the cut Spider Pit scene, the barely-alive sailors tossed from the log by Kong are attacked by giant spider monsters. The horrible detail has been seen only in a single surviving still image that first saw the light in Famous Monsters magazine, back when we were gum-chewing kids.

Again, this is still in the category of *rumor*, but some rumors are too hot to keep quiet about, as long as one stresses their proper status.

 

[Kevin M]

Well that is an exiting rumor.....but I'll believe it when I see it or WB says it is true.

 

[EricSchulz]

Not only is it "exiting", but it's exciting too!

Sorry, bad day/week at work and the bad side of me could not resist...

 

[Kevin M]

Yeah that other thing too....(shrugs shoulders) I guess you aren't the only person who had a long day at work.

 

[Jeff_HR]

Likewise I'll only believe it when I see it with my 2 aging eyes.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

Looks like someone beat me to the punch! Here's a bit on this juicy rumour from another genre authority, Mr. Bill Warren, author of sci-fi film tome "Keep Watching The Skies!", which he posted at the Mobius Sci-Fi/Horror board:


So there's another interesting wrinkle--Peter Jackson's alleged involvement. Crazy, huh?

 

[John Hodson]

Doesn't Universal own the home video rights to King Kong in the UK (to name but one region). Might explain the co-operation.

 

[oscar_merkx]

very curious indeed