Why no love for Doctor Frankenstein?

[Gorn Captain]

You know, they've released more Frankenstein's monsters than you can wave a flaming torch at, but not one Doctor!
Sideshow made everybody and his uncle...but no Doctor!

What's a man gotta do to get the master of the lab made?
EMCE, please?

[Earth 2 Chris]

I seem to recall there was talk about this when Sideshow was releasing all of their Universal Monsters product. Apparently Colin Clive didn't have any heirs, and therefore there is no known estate to negotiate his likeness with. Apparently Universal is afraid of some heir coming forward after they release something, so they've just decided NOT to offer his image in any of their licenses, beyond the movies themselves.

At least that's what I recall. Makes sense. Even Dwight Frye (Fritz, Renfield) has a son for them to work with.

Chris

[Gorn Captain]

I seem to recall there was talk about this when Sideshow was releasing all of their Universal Monsters product. Apparently Colin Clive didn't have any heirs, and therefore there is no known estate to negotiate his likeness with. Apparently Universal is afraid of some heir coming forward after they release something, so they've just decided NOT to offer his image in any of their licenses, beyond the movies themselves.

At least that's what I recall. Makes sense. Even Dwight Frye (Fritz, Renfield) has a son for them to work with.

Chris

Anybody know Colin Clive's family?
Anyone?

[jwyblejr]

In the mean time,just sub Gene Wilder from Young Frankenstien. That should work in a pinch.

[cjefferys]

I seem to recall there was talk about this when Sideshow was releasing all of their Universal Monsters product. Apparently Colin Clive didn't have any heirs, and therefore there is no known estate to negotiate his likeness with. Apparently Universal is afraid of some heir coming forward after they release something, so they've just decided NOT to offer his image in any of their licenses, beyond the movies themselves.

At least that's what I recall. Makes sense. Even Dwight Frye (Fritz, Renfield) has a son for them to work with.

Chris

I always wondered why Sideshow didn't make one, but this explanation makes sense. The only toy I have of Dr Frankenstein is a little Japanese Kubrick figure of him (as part of their Universal Monsters Kubrick series). Being a cutsie Kubrick figure, it's not even close to a Clive likeness, so I guess Universal had no problems licensing him to Medicom along with the rest of the characters. I really wish there was a 12" Sideshow Doc though.

[Dark Shadow]

Is it known whether or not Clive had any children?

I've done a little research, and from what I can find, there is no mention of him having any children at all. I would think that if he never had any children, there would be no legal heirs...would there?

He may have had parents or siblings who survived him, but they would all be long gone and their heirs wouldn't have any legal claim unless he had specified such in will. I find it hard to imagine that Colin Clive was the type to have had everthing in legal order. I would assume that all of his tangible property transfered directly to his wife upon his death, and that would be the end of it...wouldn't it?

Back in those days, I doubt that there would be any "likeness" property rights that would have transferred from husband to wife without legal documentation, especially if he and the wife were estranged before his death and she quickly remarried.

If his widowed wife had children with her second husband, they (or their heirs) would have no legal claim on Clive's legacy...would they? I can find no documentation as to whether of not they had any children either.

This, of course, is all just speculation on my part, I am by no means a legal authority. I'm likely way off, since the law never ceases to amaze me.

All I know is I would like to see a Doctor Frankenstein figure based on Colin Clive's likeness...heirs be damned! And what better way to draw them little bloodsuckers out of the woodwork?

[MIB41]

From everything I have read, Colin Clive was a major alcoholic which contributed to his early death at the age of 37. He was apparently so isolated and alone that no one even claimed his ashes after his cremation in 1937. It wasn't until 1978, when they were scattered at sea. Very sad actually. I think any party would be hard pressed to make a claim to his estate when no one laid claim to his remains for over 40 years. I think the real reason may be that there were simply too many other characters of interest ahead of Colin Clive. And if interest had warranted, they would have made a figure of him before the license expired.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I would think Sideshow would have made Dr. Frankenstein before making figures of Fritz and Larry Talbot, if Universal didn't somehow fear reprisal for using Clive's likeness.

I agree it's a weird thing to worry about, but I did read that somewhere. Maybe from a Sideshow rep on a website years ago? Not sure.

Chris

[Dark Shadow]

I'm sorry Chris! I'm not doubting your recollection and I have no trouble at all believing that Universal and/or Sideshow had their reservations and offered up that particular line of reasoning.

My doubts are inspired by their logic. If there were no heirs and therefore no estate to negotiate with, then legally there should be no issue. If someone were to come forth after the fact, it seems to me that Universal would have due dilligence on their side of the law (not to mention more powerful attorneys). But like I said, I'm no legal expert and the law is rarely completely logical.

I'm wondering what the legal difference is between using Clive's name & likeness on the box art to promote the Frankenstein, Bride Of Frankenstein & Frtiz action figures versus having the same likeness on an action figure sculpted portrait?

And since the name and image likeness on a box is not an issue, couldn't they have simply altered his action figure portrait ever so slightly just to cover their bases? (Black vs. Brown hair; Brown vs. Green eyes; Slightly Altered Nose, Cheeks, Ears or Chin).

Crazy Am I?

[MIB41]

I'm sorry Chris! I'm not doubting your recollection and I have no trouble at all believing that Universal and/or Sideshow had their reservations and offered up that particular line of reasoning.

My doubts are inspired by their logic. If there were no heirs and therefore no estate to negotiate with, then legally there should be no issue. If someone were to come forth after the fact, it seems to me that Universal would have due dilligence on their side of the law (not to mention more powerful attorneys). But like I said, I'm no legal expert and the law is rarely completely logical.

I'm wondering what the legal difference is between using Clive's name & likeness on the box art to promote the Frankenstein, Bride Of Frankenstein & Frtiz action figures versus having the same likeness on an action figure sculpted portrait?

And since the name and image likeness on a box is not an issue, couldn't they have simply altered his action figure portrait ever so slightly just to cover their bases? (Black vs. Brown hair; Brown vs. Green eyes; Slightly Altered Nose, Cheeks, Ears or Chin).

Crazy Am I?

I agree 100%. Being a distant relative doesn't give you rights unless you already have legal documentation stating your the heir and retain all rights to the estate. Besides, if Clive's likeness was a concern, they could always do a generic version, like EMCE did with Dracula, to eliminate legal challenges. I think people may be looking in the wrong direction for the answer here. If I were an attorney looking at this, I would think the Shelley estate may be a relevant entity with rights to the name. Universal may have purchased rights for the monster, but maybe not for the doctor. That is a separate character. That may explain why there has never been any figure depicting Dr. Frankenstein by Universal. That would be my first, best guess.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Yeah, it's nuts, but someone claimed that was the problem years ago. As the years go on, it's less and less likely anyone would step in and be able to make a legal claim to Clive's likeness and estate. BUT, maybe Universal figures it's not worth bothering for a limited base of fans who want Clive's likeness used. If someone did come forward, even without a case, they'd still have legal matters to pay for.

Chris

[Dark Shadow]

^Legal matters, schmegal matters! Doesn't Universal understand what's really important here...We WANT it!!!

I understand what you're saying, their profit would be de minimis compared to what they could potentially have to pay out in legal fees. I would have been happy with a less than screen accurate face for the crazy Doc as long as he had a resemblance and wild eyes & mad hair.


...Thanks MIB41. The EMCE Dracula is a perfect example of "close enough" and "same but different". On the plus side, Universal did release the Doc in a two pak with the monster this year in Mini-Mates style, so maybe down the line we'll get a 12". (I'm still hoping that Hot Toys will pick up the license.)

[PNGwynne]

Thanks for a very interesting & informative thread, all. It hits home because I'm trying to figure out a Mad-Monster-style Baron Frankenstein.)

(I'm considering using an altered Mr. F head...)

[ScottA]

You'd think he would have been a perfect choice for an Aurora treatment.

[Gorn Captain]

If they would release him with part of a lab, the appeal would be enough to get him to sell. I don't think "a guy in a white coat" would be sufficient...