Lon Chaney Heirs Sue Universal Over Merchandise And Royalties

[Count_Zirock]

Still don't know why they don't at least give us a Carridine Dracula if we can't have a Lugosi one. Marketing just don't get it.

Because then they'd have to negotiate a deal with Carradine's heirs. Also, Carradine's costume was different enough (as was Chaney Jr's) that Universal sees it as confusing the "brand" in the eyes of the public. No medallion, y'see.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[Monsters For Sale]

...Elsa Lancaster left her estate to the Actors Guild Home for the Aged. ...

Bless her heart.

[Haunted hearse]

If this was the case how is it the only Lugosi Dracula items we get are the Broadway Dracula and anything Universal is a generic vampire? Just wondering. Still don't know why they don't at least give us a Carridine Dracula if we can't have a Lugosi one. Marketing just don't get it.

There is nothing stopping someone from working with the Carradine family to create their own Dracula figure from "Billy the Kid Meets Dracula".

[Count_Zirock]

There is nothing stopping someone from working with the Carradine family to create their own Dracula figure from "Billy the Kid Meets Dracula".

Except, perhaps, whoever currently owns the copyright to that film. Or has it lapsed into public domain? I know there's a resin kit of Carradine's Dracula from HoD that's actually in 12" scale, and I believe the cape is cloth. I saw it on Monsters In Motion's site, I think.

Oh, and I recently read that Frank Langella refused to allow merchandising of his Dracula from the '79 remake in his original contract. So, no disco-Dracula figures, I'm afraid. (Hey, he was still better than all this "Twilight" garbage!)

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[Universal Steve]

Because then they'd have to negotiate a deal with Carradine's heirs. Also, Carradine's costume was different enough (as was Chaney Jr's) that Universal sees it as confusing the "brand" in the eyes of the public. No medallion, y'see.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

Universal thinks it would confuse people??? As it is now most younger people must think Dracula is some mean looking guy with fangs and stands with wolves. It don't get more confusing than that! The fans are always the ones who suffer. At least Universal fans would get the Carradine idea. They just don't get it.

[Count_Zirock]

Hey, I never claimed it made sense! It is what it is: corporate suits being morons.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[StyreneDude]

I'm probably going to have a very unpopular opinion here, but I think the studios should have the sole rights, not the actor's estates.
The actors were paid for their work when they played the role, but the studio owns the final product, the characters and the films.
Why should the heirs of these long dead actors be compensated today for work those actors were fully paid for decades ago?
If it weren't for said heirs, we'd have licensed merchandise that looked like the actors.

Bela Lugosi Jr. is a highly successful attorney...does he really need a cut of every Dracula toy and model that comes out? Of course not.

I'd just be thrilled to have people remember my dad and continue to honor the work he did with merchandise.

[Scatter]

Do you also believe that actors should not receive residuals from TV series for which they were fully compensated years ago?

[Count_Zirock]

Do you also believe that actors should not receive residuals from TV series for which they were fully compensated years ago?

That's contractual. Today, actors know that films & TV shows can live forever through syndication and home media. Back in the '30s & '40s, their contracts couldn't anticipate re-releases, let alone TV reruns and home media.

The California Celebrity Rights Act sought to remedy that oversight. Fred Astaire's estate objected to his likeness being used to hawk vacuum cleaners. Actors likenesses might otherwise be used for anything the movie studios and TV networks see fit. Lugosi's Dracula used to hawk home HIV-test kits? Gene Kelly's dance with Jerry the Mouse used to sell rat poison? Milton Berle selling condoms? Why not? The studios just cash the checks and rake in the royalties. Now, that can't happen. Today, celebrities can stipulate these things in their contracts. For example, we don't get to have a Frank Langella as Dracula '79 figure, because Langella had a very strict merchandising clause in his contract. Universal Pictures agreed to it, not thinking about 20, 30 years later, people might still actually be willing to buy merchandise from that film.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 4

[McDougals House of Horror]

I'm probably going to have a very unpopular opinion here, but I think the studios should have the sole rights, not the actor's estates.
The actors were paid for their work when they played the role, but the studio owns the final product, the characters and the films.
Why should the heirs of these long dead actors be compensated today for work those actors were fully paid for decades ago?
If it weren't for said heirs, we'd have licensed merchandise that looked like the actors.

Bela Lugosi Jr. is a highly successful attorney...does he really need a cut of every Dracula toy and model that comes out? Of course not.

I'd just be thrilled to have people remember my dad and continue to honor the work he did with merchandise.

StyreneDude, if you were Bela or Ron or Sara or an heir of a famous actor or singer, I guarantee that your opinion would be completely opposite of what it is now. You say that because Bela Jr. "is a successful attorney...does he really need a cut of every Dracula toy and model that comes out? Of course not." Why should he be penalized for being successful? And how does that relate in any way to his legal rights? Sounds like certain groups out there, wanting to punish, take and redistribute from the evil successful.

And by saying "If it weren't for said heirs, we'd have licensed merchandise that looked like the actors", you're ignoring that fact that sometimes the studios are just plain greedy and don't want to pay 10% or anything for that matter. Licensing fees are not excessive -- when they're negotiated, it behooves the heirs to be reasonable or they risk souring the entire deal and winding up with nothing. So when the studio says "We ain't paying any license fee, we want 100% or no deal" -- whose fault is that? There are plenty of items out there that are licensed.

[aura of foreboding]

Do you also believe that actors should not receive residuals from TV series for which they were fully compensated years ago?

I actually don't.  What makes them so special that they can continue to receive payments for something they did forty years ago, while the rest of the people in other jobs (whose work certainly lives on in one way or another -- teachers, firefighters, policemen) don't get paid for their old work?  That being said, the studios should also lose ownership of old properties.  Mankind really created all kinds of problems for itself when it invented "ownership" over non-physical entities. 

That being said, the system that has been created makes it so that studios can still own old content, and as such, they need to share the profits with the people originally involved.  Those original cast members deserve more than the current studio heads.  That's for sure.

However, so long as there are protections for "parody," any legislation protecting the likenesses of celebrities and creative content is fairly pointless, imo.  Get rid of parody protection, and I'll give extensive ownership over creative content another look.  I cannot tell you how much the parody loophole  infuriates me.  In most cases, it's far less tasteful than Fred Astaire selling vacuums. 

[McDougals House of Horror]

I actually don't.  What makes them so special that they can continue to receive payments for something they did forty years ago, while the rest of the people in other jobs (whose work certainly lives on in one way or another -- teachers, firefighters, policemen) don't get paid for their old work?

Are you serious? Public workers live for their pensions, which is just another form of residual. I have a friend who worked for a public agency for 30 years here in Karloffornia, fully retired at 55 with 90% of his salary, and now gets a $90,000 per year pension payout for life, mostly compliments of the taxpayers. If he lives until 85, that's $2.7 million for NOT working. And you'd begrudge an actor (a non-public employee) a piddly residual that is probably a fraction of what it should be thanks to "creative accounting"?? Yikes!

[StyreneDude]

I knew my opinion wasn't going to be well received...sorry. Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.

I see it like this. When I do work for my company, I am paid for it. Anything I produce is owned by the company, and they can continue to profit off it for as long as they wish.  I have no claim to it afterward, and my children and grandchildren certainly wouldn't. They don't owe me a thing. Why are actors any different?

I never said Bela Jr. should be penalized for being successful. I just don't get the sense of entitlement. Why should he be owed anything for work his father did 70 years ago? And if you want to get technical, then where do you draw the line? Should Jack Pierce's heirs get money too?
After all, without his famous makeup, would Frankenstein be the icon he is today?
What about the costume designers? Should Millicent Patrick's heirs get a cut of all Creature merchandise? After all, she designed it.

Bottom line, everyone involved in the creation of a character could stake some claim that they're owed compensation. At some point, whether it's the makeup man, the actor, or whoever, it's all work for hire. They were paid under contract to produce a product.

[aura of foreboding]

Are you serious? Public workers live for their pensions, which is just another form of residual. I have a friend who worked for a public agency for 30 years here in Karloffornia, fully retired at 55 with 90% of his salary, and now gets a $90,000 per year pension payout for life, mostly compliments of the taxpayers. If he lives until 85, that's $2.7 million for NOT working. And you'd begrudge an actor (a non-public employee) a piddly residual that is probably a fraction of what it should be thanks to "creative accounting"?? Yikes!

Yeah, in weird places like California, not the rest of the world.  Normal retirement, which is what public servants get where I'm from, is earned and taken out while you're working.  It's not a residual.  It's taken right out of your paycheck every month and put away for later.  What you get is what you put in, unless you invest it for more.   

Residuals are not retirement.  There is a huge difference.  Again, we're talking real-world people here, not Californians. 

[Monster Bob]

Hmmmm...does George Washington's heirs get a hit every time a dollar bill is spent? Or does honest Abe's get a check from Ford every time they sell a Lincoln?