# who does own the rights?



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

Who does own the rights to Dracula and Frankenstien? or shood i say the monsters and not the Boris and Bella creatures?

cood you produce a figure of Dracula that doesnt look like Bella cheeper or of the monster that Boris made famious?

im not sure they wood sell as well tho.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Universal, I'd imagine.


----------



## kit-junkie (Apr 8, 2005)

Yes, Universal Studios own the rights to the "Universal Monsters" -- Frankenstein, Dracula, Werewolf and Mummy (maybe more?). I think I remember reading Universal had come to an agreement with the families of the actors, as well, so their likenesses can be used. I'm not positive on that, though.


----------



## Ravenauthor (Jan 24, 2004)

Universal has the rights to the movie versions only as far as I know. I would imagine that since the Dracula novel is in public domain, one could still do a model based on that. Same with Shelley's Frankenstein. You wouldn't even have to call the model Dracula, but some other Vampire sounding name. Frankenstein isn't even the monster's name either. You could do a kit and call it Flesh Golem. The werewolf is an old legend and someone could probably do a kit if they stayed away from any likenesses from any movie. The Mummy might be a little trickier, as I can't think of any mummy monster legends before Universal's version.


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Ravenauthor said:


> The Mummy might be a little trickier, as I can't think of any mummy monster legends before Universal's version.


Drop the definite article and just call it "Mummy." Universal couldn't touch it, unless it clearly resembled Imhotep/Kharis.


----------



## miniature sun (May 1, 2005)

The problem comes when you try to market a 'generic' vampire or werewolf figure. I imagine more folks will spend their money on a Karloff or Lugosi than they will on something that wouldn't be out of place in Scooby Doo.
There are some great non-Universal monsters out there but unless the overall sculpt is something amazing then a lot won't buy it.


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

miniature sun said:


> The problem comes when you try to market a 'generic' vampire or werewolf figure. I imagine more folks will spend their money on a Karloff or Lugosi than they will on something that wouldn't be out of place in Scooby Doo.
> There are some great non-Universal monsters out there but unless the overall sculpt is something amazing then a lot won't buy it.


In the "Aurora Model Kits" book written by Tom Graham there is a quote attributed to Bill Silverstein: "We won't make any fly by night monsters. We stick with the classics."


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

I thought Dracula WAS a fly-by-night monster.

Sorry for that one. . .


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

ive prototyped licensed universal monster products. ok heres the deal: the characters of dracula and frankenstein's monster are in public domain, as the come from novels written in the 1800s.

universal owns the makeup and costume designs of the monsters from the 30's films. they have a trademark on them, which is a much stronger protection than a copyright. licensees can contract for either the "generic" version (the makeup applied to a imaginary face) or the (more expensive) "actor" version which is a dual license with both universal and the estates of lugosi, karloff, chaney, etc..

universal also has a trademark on the titles "dracula" and "frankenstein" (which is the reason the hammer films were called "curse of..." and "horror of" and the 90's films had to add the author's names as part of the title.) they also own the titles "the wolf man", "the mummy", and "the creature", even though the latter two are generic terms. its an odd situation, you cant copyright a title, but if its important enough to your corporation, you can trademark it. 

miniature sun is completely right. the universal versions of these characters are the ONLY versions of these characters, as far as the public consciousness is concerned. when someone says "frankenstein" to you, what image pops into your head? universals of course, and not any of the many others that have come after. same situation with dracula. 

look at the garage kit hobby. at least 3/4 of them are unlicensed sculptures of movie characters. even the most obscure movie characters outsell original pieces by a wide margin. that margin is so great as to make original versions of these characters really not worth doing. its a sad situation and i hate it. i hate the attitude that hollywood is the last bastion of any creativity thats worth anything, but thats the way it is, and you cant fight it.


----------



## Scheisseler (Jul 11, 2007)

razorwyre1 said:


> look at the garage kit hobby. at least 3/4 of them are unlicensed sculptures of movie characters. even the most obscure movie characters outsell original pieces by a wide margin. that margin is so great as to make original versions of these characters really not worth doing. its a sad situation and i hate it. i hate the attitude that hollywood is the last bastion of any creativity thats worth anything, but thats the way it is, and you cant fight it.


I'm not so sure about this. I think part of the issue may be that hardly anyone _wants_ to fight it. I know there are a number of sculptors whose original takes on these classic characters would certainly interest me, but the impression I get is that a lot of these guys sculpt what they sculpt because _they_ are fans of the material, not so much because that's all that will sell.

If you look at the original Aurora monster line -- even besides the kits like Phantom, Hunchback, Jekyll and the Wolf Man, which bore no strong resemblance to any movie version -- you had completely original kits like the Witch and the Forgotten Prisoner, which I think still maintain a decently popular status. In fact I personally prefer both of those over the Mummy or the Wolf Man kits. So I think there is still plenty of room for originality, and I'm glad to see that Monarch is taking the road less traveled (not that there's a blessed thing wrong with the licenses that Moebius is pursuing).


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

thats in part true, but remember in the witch and forgotten prisoner are totally original characters, as opposed to original versions of well known characters. theres a huge difference. i am sure of you looked at auroras sales figures at the time those kits were originally produced, the licensed characters did better at the stores. if they didnt, why bother with a license at all! while i have no doubt that garage kit sculptors and producers are indeed sincere fans of the movie characters they sculpt and are genuinely inspired, theres also no doubt that the market in those characters is far larger than in originals. 

heres a very telling true story: 20 years ago, my late brother and i owned a brick and mortar halloween store. the kids would come in to admire the wall o' masks, and point out to each other "oh theres the monster from this movie, and theres the guy from that movie" and do forth and eventually they'd point to a mask and ask me which movie it came from. if it was an original design and i told them so, i would see the light of interest die in their eyes, and either theyd move to something else, or, more often, would lose their enthusiasm for the entire selection. (believe me, during that first year i learned that if a mask vaguely resembled a movie monster, it "became" that monster. before long, if it didnt look like anything in a movie, i'd make up a movie title!) to those kids, if it wasnt from a movie, it wasnt worth anything. 

we live in a "branded" society. its a fact of life.


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

That's pretty interesting. 
I think another point about the Witch and Forgotten Prisoner is that they came at the heels of a line of licensed characters - in other words, their pedigree was established. The same quality packaging and kit design sealed the deal. But - like razorwyre said, they probably didn't do anywhere near the sales of the earlier licensed characters.
It's safe to say that by default and design Moebius and Monarch also benefit from that pedigree.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I think there is plenty of room for original sculpts based on the original, public domain characters. The sculpts have to be exciting, dynamic, and artistic, however. The relation to the original novels and such should be enough to bring "brand name" recognition along with them and the packaging, quality, appeal of the sculpt, and pricing would do the rest.

Releasing a line of "The Original Dracula," "The Original Van Helsing," or "The Original Frankenstein's Monster," or "The Original Mummy" (based on the story by Bram Stoker, BTW) could have a lot of appeal. In the case of others, "The Legendary Werewolf" or "The Legendary Abominable Snowman" could be fun kits for builders.

The lack of licensing fee could make them more affordable to produce and would be owned solely by the company (if the sculpt is done on commission with no further stipulations in the contract) and could be re-released with no legal hassles at all.

There are way too many characters of literature, legend, mythology, and history to be starved of ideas when licensing opportunities are not available or not affordable. Young kids looking for movie related masks definitely indicate the appeal of licensed movie related products but the older crowd may appreciate novel inspired model kits.

The release of Revell's (IIRC) Nautilus is a case where an effort was made to use a public domain subject matter. I have no idea how sales went but I've seen a lot of them built up on websites and such. I don't think they did a very good job at all in terms of authenticity and design but the basic idea is a good one.

I wonder how many folks buy models made from games and Japanese movies and series and such that they've never seen. The attraction to the subject matter may not require a licensing tie-in at all if the kits are interesting in and of themselves. Add a literary or legendary tie-in and you may have something.


----------



## Bwain no more (May 18, 2005)

Actually, Revell's Nautilus WAS licensed. It came from a "Hallmark Hall of Fame" TV movie, and conveniently enough, Hallmark owned Revell at that time so I'm guessing it was a FAIRLY cheap license, LOL.


----------



## deadmanincfan (Mar 11, 2008)

We all love the old familiar faces, there's no denying that...but if an original take on a familiar character caught my eye, I'd definitely buy it.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

well the problem is that to make a go of it, a manufacturer has to sell to more than just us. our tastes are a bit more educated and refined, and its pretty much a given that we will buy the kits. (when i say we i mean the experienced hobbyist/ kit collector.) they really have to reach out to the more casual fans to make it work, and that means looking towards hollywood for the subject matter.


----------



## otto (Jan 1, 1970)

Very true, and a good Karloff Frankenstein will outsell a good moleman any day of the week. Frank is an American Icon, the Moleman or Metalana Mutant are little known characters. I do think a good generic werewolf or zombie would outsell most b movie characters.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

it depends on the b-movie in question, but, generally speaking, any movie character is going to outdo any generic character. no matter how well the generic character is rendered. 

case in point: a few years back, steve wang designed and released a series of halloween masks. wangs sculpture work was, as usual, magnificent, and the production copies were painted and finished far better than anything i have seen mass produced. whats more, they were low priced! other than a few guyver monsters that slipped into the line under new names, they were all generic characters (including his own version of frankenstein's monster.) they are no longer in production because, honestly, they didnt move very well. on the other hand, the masks of the poster zombies from "zombie" and "gates of hell" (themselves very nice pieces, but not up to wangs works) sell quite briskly. 

similarly, while not a "b" movie, the official frankenstein mask, which, while the rendering is ok is not up to wangs work, and the quality of the production masks is nowhere near the stuff wang was putting out... at the same price... marched right out the door, while wang's sat there. 

i realize halloween products are not model kits, but the paralell is there in as much there are both mask collectors, much as there are avid hobbyists, but you cant make your bread and butter appealing to them. its the general public you need, the folks that individually rarely purchase the product, and are really buying the character more than the model (or mask) in order to make the product work

please understand, i hate this situation, but this is a phenomenon i have observed firsthand for a number of years, first selling retail over the counter and then over the internet. i really really hate it that lousy versions of movie characters sell briskly while really beautiful original items just sit there. (in fact, it made me begin to really resent hollywood, which is an attitude i carried for quite some time, until i realized it was the public that was causing it, not the studios.) again, we here, the avid collectors, are a different story and out priorities and tastes are different, and those rules dont apply nearly as much with us as they do with the general public, but they do still apply.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Bwain no more said:


> Actually, Revell's Nautilus WAS licensed. It came from a "Hallmark Hall of Fame" TV movie, and conveniently enough, Hallmark owned Revell at that time so I'm guessing it was a FAIRLY cheap license, LOL.


Wow! News to me!

That was a B-movie to be sure!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

razorwyre1 said:


> it depends on the b-movie in question, but, generally speaking, any movie character is going to outdo any generic character. no matter how well the generic character is rendered.


I definitely don't argue against that. You're absolutely right in 99% of the cases. (The Drej Alien might be a good counter-example.) 

I'm just saying there is room for other models besides those and, as we've seen with Aurora and others, some original sculpts and characters sell very well.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I definitely don't argue against that. You're absolutely right in 99% of the cases. The Drej Alien might be a good counter-example.
> 
> I'm just saying there is room for other models besides those and, as we've seen with Aurora and others, some original sculpts and characters sell very well.


very true about the drej... there are some things that shouldnt be done at all.
we are in a different market now, and different rules apply than they did in the early 70s and before. i cant think of any totally original styrene figure kits produced in recent years to use to test the theory (even the ghost of castlemare is a special case because it rides on the glory of the prisoner.)


----------



## kit-junkie (Apr 8, 2005)

The Ghost rides the glory of _cool_. It's a great design. I could care less about owning the Forgotten Prisoner, personally. I _want_ the Ghost. :thumbsup:


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

The Forgotten Prisoner would make the ultimate diorama prop for a dungeon (along with the knights), but I honestly can't say I've ever seen someone actually use it for that purpose...


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

kit-junkie said:


> The Ghost rides the glory of _cool_. It's a great design. I could care less about owning the Forgotten Prisoner, personally. I _want_ the Ghost. :thumbsup:


Wash your mouth out with soap heathen!!!

Chris.


----------



## deadmanincfan (Mar 11, 2008)

...t'would be nice to have them side-by-side...*sigh*


----------



## mcdougall (Oct 28, 2007)

and verily... so shall it be...Side by side....the Gods have spoken...
Mcdee


----------

