What happens when a famous writer dies and a movie is made. Who gets the money?

[SusanJillParker]

I'm in the process of writing a story and thought about all the famous (deceased) writers who have given actors and directors inspiration to make adaptations of their work in plays and in movies.

Then, I wondered who gets the money, their living relatives, their estates, or no one?

I bet you don’t know who had the most movies adaptations made from their stories. I’ll give you a hint. It wasn’t JK Rowling, Charles Dickens, or Stephen King. Give up? The list is below.

The authors most adapted for the screen, those given more than 100 IMBd credits on the internet movie database were: William Shakespeare 831, Anton Chekhov 320, Charles Dickens 300, Alexandre Dumas 243, Edgar Allen Poe 240, Robert Louis Stevenson 225, Arthur Conan Doyle 220, Hans Christian Anderson 217, Edgar Wallace 214, The Brothers Grimm 212, Moliere 208, O. Henry 201, Oscar Wilde 181, Fyodor Dostoevsky 177, Leo Tolstoy 154, Victor Hugo 150, Jules Verne 143, Stehen King 127, Agatha Christie 126, L. Frank Baum 124, Mark Twain 121, Somerset Maugham 121 Noel Coward 101, and Miguel de Cervantes 101.


So? Even though they are long dead and buried, are these writers paid by Hollywood for the right to make a movie from there work?

 

[oggbashan]

It depends on the duration of the copyright.

If the copyright is still valid, the author's estate negotiates the movie rights. What happens to the money depends on the author's will. For example the rights to Peter Pan were donated to the Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital.

PS. The reason those names are so often made into movies is that almost all of the copyrights have expired and their works are in the public domain - so movie makers don't have to pay anyone to use the characters and books.

 

[SusanJillParker]

It depends on the duration of the copyright.

If the copyright is still valid, the author's estate negotiates the movie rights. What happens to the money depends on the author's will. For example the rights to Peter Pan were donated to the Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital.

PS. The reason those names are so often made into movies is that almost all of the copyrights have expired and their works are in the public domain - so movie makers don't have to pay anyone to use the characters and books.

Thank you. I figured as much.

 

[Bramblethorn]

As far as I know, copyrights work pretty much like any other asset. You can designate who inherits them in your will; if you don't do that, then it will probably end up going to your next of kin, but there's potential for legal squabbling. Better to make sure your will covers it.

Some authors will designate a "literary executor" who might manage copyrights on behalf of beneficiaries. One of the better known is Christopher Tolkien, who's still publishing new material from his father almost 44 years after his death.

For some of the authors you mention, copyrights have expired or never existed, and status may vary by country. The Sherlock Holmes stories were published over many years, and I think the last of them only came into US public domain a few months ago. But copyright law doesn't offer much protection for characters and general concepts, so plenty of people were making Sherlock Holmes films with their own original plots long before those last copyrights expired.

 

[SusanJillParker]

Thank you for the information. It's always been something that I was curious about when movies are made after the author is long dead.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It depends on the duration of the copyright.

If the copyright is still valid, the author's estate negotiates the movie rights. What happens to the money depends on the author's will. For example the rights to Peter Pan were donated to the Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital.

PS. The reason those names are so often made into movies is that almost all of the copyrights have expired and their works are in the public domain - so movie makers don't have to pay anyone to use the characters and books.

Peter Pan is an interesting case, since it's subject to a one-off law that gives GOSH royalty rights in perpetuity (though only for performances in the UK, and without the other benefits that copyright would entail): https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2015/10/21/peter-pan-and-the-copyright-that-never-grew-up/

 

[jehoram]

Your question got me wondering about the new move about Marston, the creator of Wonder Woman. I know that DC Comics owns the copyright (or more properly, the trademark) for the character, so I'd suppose that they'd get a cut. But does the Marston estate get one, too? And if the movie was based largely on a book like Jill Le Pore's book on Wonder Woman (a great read, BTW), I guess Le Pore would be entitled to something.

 

[sr71plt]

Your question got me wondering about the new move about Marston, the creator of Wonder Woman. I know that DC Comics owns the copyright (or more properly, the trademark) for the character, so I'd suppose that they'd get a cut. But does the Marston estate get one, too? And if the movie was based largely on a book like Jill Le Pore's book on Wonder Woman (a great read, BTW), I guess Le Pore would be entitled to something.

That would have been specified in the original contract. Depends on what the original contract stated--and whether a suit against that would will stand if anyone challenges it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Your question got me wondering about the new move about Marston, the creator of Wonder Woman. I know that DC Comics owns the copyright (or more properly, the trademark) for the character, so I'd suppose that they'd get a cut. But does the Marston estate get one, too? And if the movie was based largely on a book like Jill Le Pore's book on Wonder Woman (a great read, BTW), I guess Le Pore would be entitled to something.

It'd depend very much on what source material they use. Nobody has to give Adolf Hitler's estate any money to make a film about him, because the facts of a person's life aren't copyrightable. But if you draw heavily on a particular book and use copyrightable elements of that book, then you might need to pay for it, and if you want the family to cooperate with the production then that may need to be negotiated.

Also, I had no idea there was a Marston movie, this is relevant to my interests! I hope they do Elizabeth justice, she was an amazing woman.

 

[SimonDoom]

Your question got me wondering about the new move about Marston, the creator of Wonder Woman. I know that DC Comics owns the copyright (or more properly, the trademark) for the character, so I'd suppose that they'd get a cut. But does the Marston estate get one, too? And if the movie was based largely on a book like Jill Le Pore's book on Wonder Woman (a great read, BTW), I guess Le Pore would be entitled to something.

It all depends on whether DC Comics has an agreement with Marston. If not, then we probably can assume that Marston assigned and gave up any rights to DC Comics. DC Comics owns the trademark and the copyright to Wonder Woman.

 

[oggbashan]

A slight diversion. One of my relations wants the latest Wonder Woman DVD (not Blu-Ray) for Christmas but the packaging looks wrong. There's a lot about a high definition download but no indication that there is an actual DVD inside the pack.

He wants to use it on a portable DVD player. If I buy the package is there a DVD in it? Or would I just be buying a licence to download?

 

[SimonDoom]

A slight diversion. One of my relations wants the latest Wonder Woman DVD (not Blu-Ray) for Christmas but the packaging looks wrong. There's a lot about a high definition download but no indication that there is an actual DVD inside the pack.

He wants to use it on a portable DVD player. If I buy the package is there a DVD in it? Or would I just be buying a licence to download?

Surely the package says what's in it? I assume if it says it's a DVD then it's a DVD and not just a download license. If it does not say DVD then it probably is not a DVD. You can check out DVDs for sale on Amazon to see what they look like.

 

[oggbashan]

Surely the package says what's in it? I assume if it says it's a DVD then it's a DVD and not just a download license. If it does not say DVD then it probably is not a DVD. You can check out DVDs for sale on Amazon to see what they look like.

I have physically and online. They all mention the download prominently but say nothing about the DVD, not even the usual stuff about run time and region code.

 

[sr71plt]

I have physically and online. They all mention the download prominently but say nothing about the DVD, not even the usual stuff about run time and region code.

Then I wouldn't assume there a physical DVD in there. I got involved in U.S. counter moves to pirating of U.S. films, and Hong Kong and Singapore DVD pirates aren't even this slick in misleading buyers on what's in the package. They will flat out say there's a DVD in there on their packaging and it will only contain a download URL.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It all depends on whether DC Comics has an agreement with Marston. If not, then we probably can assume that Marston assigned and gave up any rights to DC Comics. DC Comics owns the trademark and the copyright to Wonder Woman.

I believe DC owns WW outright these days, but for a long time the Marston estate had an interesting arrangement: DC had publishing rights, but had to produce at least four WW comics a year or the rights reverted back to the Marstons.

Side note: my partner and I won three tickets to the Marston movie! Now we have to figure out how to invite a third person without making it sound like a proposition ;-)