Since Paul Levitz has dropped by this blog to comment, I thought I'd take an opportunity to ask him a question. I apologize for doing so in such a public fashion, but 1) I can't seem to find his e-mail address anywhere, and 2) the question is likely of general interest to readers of this blog.
The background to the question is this: In addition to being a comic book fan, I'm also a DVD fan, and participate in some message boards related to DVDs. One topic that comes up every few months or so is the question of whether the 1966 Batman TV series (the one with Adam West) is slated for DVD release. This always prompts explanations of the fact that the rights situation is complictaed, with various people owning various aspects of the rights that would be necessary for a DVD release. Inevitably, one person always chimes in that the real reason for the delay is that the President of DC Comics hates the Adam West version of Batman due to its campiness and has therefore personally blocked the release of the show on DVD. This claim is old enough that it might be referring to Jenette Kahn, but I heard it repeated as recently as a few weeks ago.
The question for Mr. Levitz is this: do you care to comment publicly on this persistent rumor?
Posted by Jason Fliegel at September 21, 2006 3:01 PM
| TrackBack
I've never heard that rumor, and it seems wildly unlikely, to be honest. It's a truckload of free money, and could be mined for publicity for related Batman stuff. I dunno how much influence DC even has over Warner (I would guess: little), but 50,000 boxed sets is heavy stuff.
It would be pretty trivial for these rights to be so badly entailed that enough rights-owners have to be bribed to make the sets marginal. Music rights owners, in particular, are humongous dicks. (See also: $20 CD soundtrack for a movie that's $15 on DVD.) There may also be issues with the cameos. And if anybody involved wasn't covered by a guild contract, DVD rights will have to be secured from that individual's heirs.
Chary will know more about such things.
Wikipedia's got some info, but it's internally contradictory and hence unreliable.
And this thread suggests that it's the president of Warner Bros. who's holding up the works.
Studio heads are stereotypically more arbitrary, irrational, and stubborn than publishers.
Greg, I do agree with you that the rumor seems highly unlikely, to say the least. I make that point every time the rumor comes up in discussion, but I thought it would be nice to have a statement from the President of DC Comics himself saying that the rumor is bunk. If Mr. Levitz can't or won't comment publicly, though, it's understandable.
In terms of the rights, there are two obvious rights holders: Fox, who produced the show, and Warners, who own Batman. In addition, from what I understand, the rights to the music are separately owned, and the rights to the Batmobile are owned by a fourth rights-holder. Throw in the rights to the cameos (I'm not sure what is the status of those), and you could have literally dozens of different rights holders to negotiate with. Finding a way to divide up the profits that's acceptable to everyone is definitely a Herculean task.
By the way, the thread Greg linked to in his 9:19 post is the one I was referring to in my initial post -- I'm registered on that site as JasonF (and now you all know my internet secret identity!)
It's probable (but only probable) that things like cameos and guest stars are covered under the standard guild contracts; I'm pretty sure that such contracts include schedules for payments for DVDs and other reproductions not contemplated by the original production.
From what I understand, William Dozier's company Greenway Productions produced the series for Fox, presumably under license from National Periodical Publications. Now Dozier's daughter has sued Fox for $4.4 million it allegedly owes Greenway, According to this chat transcript, Warners says Fox owns the series, and the problems are between Fox and DC; so I suppose Fox has to address Greenway's interests somehow, along with working out a deal with DC. Not sure where, or if, ABC fits into the rights picture.
DC's position on the show is hard to figure. Adam West-ish art was redrawn somewhat for the Planetary/Batman special, but Mike Allred's Solo story seemed pretty close to the show's style (even if the West cover was changed to Wonder Girl).
Finally, it seems like George Barris has some rights to the Batmobile he designed, but they only apply to toys, model kits, etc.
It's the Planetary/Solo thing that makes me scratch my head. I can see how sorting out DVD rights to the show itself could be a fantastically annoying pain in the ass - just ask David Lynch about DVD releases of Twin Peaks. But it seems as though in both Mike Allred's Solo and Planetary/Batman, art was changed by DC Comics to obscure allusions to the Adam West show, and I don't know where the motivation for that would come from unless someone up top just really didn't like the '60s series.
art was changed by DC Comics to obscure allusions to the Adam West show, and I don't know where the motivation for that would come from
I used to wonder that too. Now I'm thinking (or guessing) it's due to legal concerns. Even though the Batman TV show was based on DC's Batman, DC (or Warners) doesn't own the show and so DC can't legally do art/comix derived from the show.
Don't actors also have "likeness rights" or something like that? DC might have had to pay Adam West a royalty if they used his likeness in (or on the cover of) a comic book.
Don't actors also have "likeness rights" or something like that?
I thought those only extended to the use of an actor's likeness in film or television (mainly established to protect an actor's role from being filled by another actor, as in the Crispin Glover/Back To The Future thing). As far as I know, nothing legally prevents a cartoonist from drawing any public figure.
Well, I know there were issues with this in the 70s--Marlon Brando couldn't be drawn in any Superman material or used in merchandise and Richard Dreyfuss refused to allow his face to be used in the "Close Encounters" comic adaptation. So I'm pretty sure it extends beyond sinply using an actor's likeness. I suspect one could draw someone in if it were a cameo kind of thing, but possibly not if the actor had some kind of specific likeness clause connected to a specific character.
But, as I said, I'm just going off what I've seen/heard. No idea if this is the case in this instance.