Tweet
I know there is the Hammer Christopher lee figure but what I am drooling for is a Monster from Hell or a Curse of Frankenstein figure. I am sure I am not alone so whats the hold up!?
-
-
I posted this in another thread, but it bears repeating here:
"I think the main problem is that the rights to the various Hammer characters aren't all held by the same studio. I'm sure it's a tangled mess of legal red tape, or we'd already have action figures of most of Hammer's top monsters."
George
-
It could also be a like-ness issue. Not only do you have to get the rights to the movie, you'd have to get permission from Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing etc. That could easily double the licensing fees and making it much less cost effective. Particular for a niche item like a high end action figure geared towards adult horror collectors.Comment
-
Apparently Cushing's estate does grant licenses, hence the Tarkin Star Wars figures. But I agree, the Hammer licenses are not only divided by actors and their estates, but different studios who currently own the movies. It's a shame.
It seems if the actor is deceased, most toy companies like to have the license from the estate, rather than take a chance on just making one without it. I seem to remember Sideshow shying away from making a Colin Clive Dr. Frankenstein since he had no heirs to negotiate with.
ChrisComment
-
I would think that Hammer owns the films themselves (in addition to some films that were co-produced by Hammer and another company), but various film companies own distribution rights to the films in other territories outside of England (i.e. Warner owns distribution rights to some of the films in the US). Film distribution rights usually wouldn't include merchandising, Hammer would likely retain such rights themselves. I guess it would depend on the contracts that were signed, but I wouldn't be surprised if such things were separate. On the other hand, I'm not a copyright lawyer, and I'm not about to delve into researching the current rights of all the Hammer films, but I suppose it's possible that some films' ownership have actually changed hands over the years, I can't rule that out.
Using a different example, Toho produced all the Godzilla films, they own the character. Different companies have distribution rights for the various films outside of Japan though. And even though, for example, Sony owns the US distribution rights to "Godzilla vs Space Godzilla", if a US toy manufacturer wanted to make a Space Godzilla toy, they would have to deal with Toho, Sony would have no say in the matter.Last edited by cjefferys; Jan 19, '10, 9:36 PM.Comment
-
Cjefferys is right on ownership. The distribution rights are spread across WB, MGM and Paramount mainly but the likeness would still reside with Hammer, which is now owned by some Belgium TV producer. IMO, they most likely don't have a licensing arm like Universal does for the Monsters, so the toy manufacturer would have to get two agreements -one from Hammer, the other from the Estate/Lee. That knocks the price somewhat since you're paying upfront twice, but you could do it for some lesser characters such as Reed in Curse of the Werewolf.Comment
-
Does Hammer own licensing for likenesses in relation to merchandising? Remember that before Star Wars, merchandising was considered unimportant unless it was Micky Mouse or Superman. Merchandising rights are sewn up now for every major film, but would they have been back then? I don't think they would have counted on licensing Action Figures to adult collectors half a century later, would they?
Was Peter Cushing the only principal Star Wars actor that didn't sign away his likeness for merchandising initially? Is that why we didn't have a Tarkin in the original Star Wars line? Even Sir Alec had to submit to action figures, and we know how he feels about Star Wars!Comment
-
Apparently Chris Lee, will not sign any type of dracula photo, hates being remembered for that.Comment
Comment