It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Thanks for shedding such light on the corporate machinations surrounding the ownership of Bond, Sir James!
No doubt this is a problem, or soon will be, for the Sherlock Holmes novels.
It is, @Samuel.
The copyrights for all of the Sherlock Holmes stories have been in the public domain in the UK for about 10 years or so and the character himself for about 25 years. All are in the public domain in the US too apart from a few stories from The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes.
Arthur Conan Doyle's Estate have tried to claim that the character of Sherlock Holmes is therefore still under copyright in the US because the character wasn't "completed" until Conan Doyle finished his last story, ergo the character can't be in the public domain until all stories are in the public domain. A very well known Sherlockian has recently taken the ACD Estate to court to finally have their claims officially shot down.
This is why all the Sherlock Holmes stories are available in public depositories (e.g. Gutenberg) for anyone who wants to read them, which is great particularly for e-readers.
I listen to the Baker Street Babes podcast and they recently had an interview with the man who was taking the ACD Estate to court. Their argument against the estate is if the first appearance of Holmes and the majority of the characters (A Study in Scarlet and the early stories) are in public domain, then it means anyone should be able to write Holmes stories free of copyright infringement.
I am glad Broccoli was able to continue. Did Saltzman get out of it in good terms and reasonably good feelings with all? I don't recall if the split was the ruining of their friendship. Sorry if this was already discussed somewhere. I'm just curious and don't remember ...
Thanks @Germanlady although I can't take the credit for the last post. That was down to @Suivez_ce_parachute's investigative work.
The story with Saltzman is quite sad. He made a lot of money from the Bond films but, unlike Broccoli, he wanted to work on lots of different projects and invested his money badly. He had to sell his shares in Danjaq (and many of his personal possessions) just to keep the wolf from the door.
The relationship between Saltzman and Broccoli had been in a bad way for a long time as they were very different personalities. As early as 1965 (on the production of YOLT) they were publicly describing it as "very strained." By the 70s, they were pretty much taking turns at producing the films alone (Broccoli produced DAF and TMWTGG, Saltzman produced LALD.) Saltzman actually sued Broccoli in the Swiss courts to try to get him to honour their (alleged) agreement to dissolve Danjaq in 1972.
But Broccoli always spoke very respectfully of Saltzman and he invited him as a special guest to the FYEO premier in 1981 so it seems that they did manage to repair their relationship to some degree.
On the Getfilings URLs, one can find MGM reports mentioning Danjaq in 2003 and 2004
Between 2004 and now, well I googled a bit things like :
metro goldwyn mayer form 10-k "2007 annual report"
but alas with all the casinos it's a mess to find something relevant (even using the -resorts tag to remove "resorts" does not help much)
and trying to google
danjaq metro goldwyn mayer form 10-k
still gives nothing apart from 2003 and 2004
And I'm clueless with US law, but this could be the reason why nothing is to be found after 2004 :
[url="
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/778706/999999999705023057/9999999997-05-023057-index.htm"]
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/778706/999999999705023057/9999999997-05-023057-index.htm[/url]
[url="
http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/bond-is-back-daniel-craig-and-sam-mendes-set-for-nov-9-2012-release-date/"]
http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/bond-is-back-daniel-craig-and-sam-mendes-set-for-nov-9-2012-release-date/[/url]
"As you know, the James Bond filmmakers operate with great autonomy and watching the MGM situation unfold with a mixture of dismay and curiosity. Dismay because Bond’s longtime studio home was a mess. And curiosity because Broccoli and Wilson hoped to move Bond to a fully functioning studio. Like Sony, where Amy Pascal was dying to keep the famous franchise. Or Fox, which handled Bond’s DVD distribution. Broccoli and Wilson very deliberately made certain they didn’t do anything on Bond #23 which tied the movie further to MGM. (That’s why Mendes was hired as a consulting, not the director. Because once EON hires a director on their Bond films, it triggers a first payment from MGM.) Once the MGM auction apparently busted, EON Productions wanted to keep all its options open."
We, together with Danjaq LLC, are the sole owners of all of the James Bond motion pictures. In addition to the recently released James Bond picture, Die Another Day, 19 other James Bond motion pictures in our library were produced and are distributed pursuant to a series of agreements with Danjaq. The James Bond motion pictures are produced by Danjaq, and we have the right to approve all key elements of the pictures, such as the selection of the director and the leading actors. The copyright in each of the motion pictures is owned jointly by MGM and Danjaq. Historically, we have the right to distribute each of the pictures in all media worldwide in perpetuity or for a term of 15 years. Where our distribution rights are not perpetual, the rights revert to joint control by MGM and Danjaq after expiration of the distribution term. On January 21, 2004, we entered into an extension agreement with Danjaq. Under that agreement, our distribution term for each of the non-perpetual James Bond motion pictures was extended by 15 years from the previously scheduled expiration date, and the initial distribution term for new James Bond pictures, beginning with Die Another Day, was extended from 15 years to 20 years. Danjaq controls certain merchandising rights with respect to the pictures, and we are entitled to receive a portion of the revenues from Danjaq’s merchandising licenses. Additionally, we control all the marketing rights and the music from The Living Daylights (1987) and all subsequent pictures. All other rights relating to the pictures are controlled jointly by MGM and Danjaq. The agreements contain certain restrictions on the sale or licensing by MGM of any of our rights in the pictures.
If the Broccoli family owns 100% of Danjaq then according to the above Danjaq doesn't hold all of the rights to the Bond films. If the films are owned jointly then surely MGM owns half the rights and Danjaq the other half or am I missing something. If UA sold the rights they bought from Saltzman in the mid 70s on to Broccoli in the mid 80s, where did MGM acquire it's rights to the Bond films?.
Any clarification, much appreciated. Thanks
http://www.tjbd.co.uk/content/the-bond-23-delay-why-eon-is-tied-to-mgm.htm
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/04/sony-and-mgm-finalize-bond-co-financing-partnership.html
Broccoli bought MGM / UA's 50% stake in Danjaq in 1986. This is detailed further up the thread and documented in legal records in the case against Sony and Kevin McClory.
A lot of Bond websites and books still list MGM as co-owner of Danjaq and, as far as I know, this thread was the first resource to definitively confirm that Broccoli took complete control of the company in 1986. I updated the Wikipedia entry, including references, some months back so I would expect the correct information to be communicated in the future.
That's right. MGM has an exclusive distribution deal in place with Danjaq and also co-owns the copyright to all existing Bond films. MGM is also understood to have certain favourable rights relating to merchandise etc. This all came into play in 1986 when Broccoli purchased MGM's stake in Danjaq - a favourable rights-share was the trade-off.
But when the existing agreement expires, Danjaq will be free to find another studio or distributor to work with for future films. Danjaq are the sole holders of the film rights to James Bond (i.e. when the distribution deal expires, MGM has no right to make further James Bond films - Danjaq does.)
"Danjaq, LLC, the producer of the James Bond films, and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), the longtime distributor of the Bond films, along with the estate and family of the late Kevin McClory, announced today that Danjaq and MGM have acquired all of the estate’s and family’s rights and interests relating to James Bond, thus bringing to an amicable conclusion the legal and business disputes that have arisen periodically for over 50 years."
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/16/mgm-danjaq-settle-james-bond-rights-dispute-with-mcclory-estate
Great news, I guess we can end this thread now. :-p