Court Finds For Fox In ‘Watchmen’ Case, Rules Against WB

Posted by Rob Hunter (rob@filmschoolrejects.com) on December 26, 2008

Watchmen Comedian Movie Poster

Santa left an early present in Warner Bros. stocking on Wednesday… a lump of coal in the form of an early ruling in 20th Century Fox’s Watchmen copyright lawsuit against them.  Nikki Finke is reporting that while Los Angeles-based District Court Judge Gary Feess had set a mid-January start date for a trial, he instead issued an order on Wednesday stating that “Fox should prevail.”

“Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the ‘Watchmen’ motion picture,” the ruling states.  What does this mean?  A few things actually…

For one thing, the trial start date is now seemingly moot.  The judge himself suggests that both WB and FOX start talking immediately.  “The parties may wish to turn their efforts from preparing for trial to negotiating a resolution of this dispute or positioning the case for review.”  Secondly, it’s all but guaranteed that whatever happens, Watchmen will no longer be a purely WB release.  Expect to see Fox’s logo on the screen alongside (or instead of) the WB’s.  “Negotiating a resolution” translates into ransom money that WB will be paying Fox.

Most importantly, all of this means the March 2009 release date is still in potential jeapardy.  The best bet for that release date will be for WB to fork over either a flat fee if Fox expects Watchmen to be a dud, or a percentage of the profits if Fox expects a blockbuster hit.  If WB refuses to bend over on this, then they may choose to appeal the judge’s ruling… which could push Watchmen’s release into 2010 and beyond.

Merry Fucking Christmas Watchmen fans!


Read more articles by Rob Hunter

« Previous Article | Next Article »

Related Topics:

Hollywood is Dumb, Industry Politics, Movie News, , ,

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • curtis
    fucccccccccccccccccck
  • that is the exact same thing i said when i finished reading
  • I'm a little fuzzy on the details about this whole thing, so if anyone has any answers please reply:
    I read online today that FOX has owned the rights to The Watchmen for a long time, and they never did anything with it.
    But, how can Warner Brothers make a Watchman movie if they never owned the rights to it? Did FOX give WB permission to make the movie or not? I would think a major movie studio would make sure they had the rights to make a movie before they started filming!
  • My guess is that Fox will gladly take a piece of the gross. Having not invested any money up front, they're sitting pretty, and they can cash in on a mistake that WB made. Basically, they'll take a portion of the door, even though WB footed the bill. That's WB's fault, but a co-distribution deal of a blockbuster is better than a no-distrubtion deal for a film that clearly will make money.

    Basically, this ruling means that WB is going to FOX with its tail between its legs, saying, "Yeah, you guys can cash in on this."

    My prediction is the release date will not change at all and this whole WB/FOX distribution deal will be all signed, sealed and delivered by mid-January.
  • i'm not entirely sure jmoney, but i think the copyright law that states ownership for the lifetime plus 50 years after death or the original version. so basically this means any musical artist or any other artist for that matter owns his or her creation until 50 years after death (the estate would inherit after death). since Fox bought the rights to the book, and aren't the originators of the book (that being DC and the authors themselves), there may have been some clauses and other legal jargon that may weigh in WB's favor (though that's very unlikely).

    i also may be totally wrong, in which case i appologize or my dumbness.
  • If you purchase the copyright, you own the copyright. if a corporation purchases the copyright, the corporation (a legal "person") owns the right for its lifetime (which is infinite, unless the corporation is "killed", aka legally dissolved). That's why Disney owns Mickey Mouse for now until forever as the corporation will never die a natural death.

    However, Fox does not own the full copyright. Copyright is like a bundle of sticks. There's a lot involved... right to adapt, right to distribute, right to make sequels, character spin-offs, etc. It sounds like the judge is saying they at least have a right to distribute, if not more.
  • what happened to the earlier comments?
  • Excellent question. Neil's looking into it ...
  • I bet FOX was worried about WB having another huge successful superhero movie that will make a bunch of money. And with the exception of the X-Men franchise, they really haven't had any other blockbusters (Daredevil, Fantastic Four).
  • Fox is a business, obviously they are goin to make sure they get their share of a blockbuster. If it was a dud then obviously they would have let WB have it. Why is everyone upset about this? I'd be questioning whoever is running Fox if they didn't try to get their share.
blog comments powered by Disqus