|
|
Post by marktheshark on Nov 15, 2018 22:31:11 GMT -5
Just a question. You know how due to stipulations in Roach's buyback deal with M-G-M, reissues of the Rascals shorts couldn't use the name "Our Gang" or any M-G-M trademarks, leading to renaming the series "The Little Rascals" (and sometimes other names) and all the various refilmed reissue titles?
Just curious: How come it's all right to show them with original titles now? I guess that started with the Cabin Fever tapes, but now even on TV.
I'm glad, but how did that work out, and what happened to make that legally possible?
|
|
|
|
Post by myhomeo on Nov 20, 2018 14:09:47 GMT -5
I suspect MGM's claim over the title has expired. Of course, there's also the possibility MGM bought the rights to the old shorts as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by marktheshark on Nov 20, 2018 19:48:47 GMT -5
I suspect MGM's claim over the title has expired. Of course, there's also the possibility MGM bought the rights to the old shorts as well. Well, M-G-M itself was bought by Turner and then sold again, so that could have something to do with it. But as far as I know, M-G-M has no claim on the Hal Roach Little Rascals shorts. But it's become pretty common to leave trademarks belonging to another studio on films that have changed hands -- like Tom & Jerry for instance. I do remember some time in the 1980s or 1990s, King World and Turner made some kind of a deal to jointly license merchandise like T-shirts and stuff rather than competing with one another. Maybe that had something to do with it? |
|
rascalstooge
Full Member
10 years this coming November.
Posts: 242
|
Post by rascalstooge on Nov 11, 2019 14:35:48 GMT -5
I suspect MGM's claim over the title has expired. Of course, there's also the possibility MGM bought the rights to the old shorts as well. Well, M-G-M itself was bought by Turner and then sold again, so that could have something to do with it. But as far as I know, M-G-M has no claim on the Hal Roach Little Rascals shorts. But it's become pretty common to leave trademarks belonging to another studio on films that have changed hands -- like Tom & Jerry for instance. I do remember some time in the 1980s or 1990s, King World and Turner made some kind of a deal to jointly license merchandise like T-shirts and stuff rather than competing with one another. Maybe that had something to do with it? Another example of someone else owning another studio's properties with original logos would be Universal owning Paramount's pre-1948-49 feature library. |
|
