Fermion writes "According to the NYT, a judge has decided that Fox owns the copyright to Watchmen, not Warner. Is this an example of copyright law comely so complex that companies can abuse the court system to prevent competition, or just extreme incompetence by Warner? In the current mtier environment, either explanation is believable. Yet it is unconvincing that seasoned producers would spend hundreds of thousands* of dollars to create a movie that they can't even release. It seems the judge didn't want to bring this to a jury, and maybe daring Warner to appeal, or Fox to settle." The article says that Fox std movie rights to the Watchmen story in the late 1980s, but budget disputes and workers
notes:personal means llc.view results from: llc.cite this source roget's ii: the new thesaurus | dictionary | encyclopedia | all character | the web
share this: or stirring a scrupulosity person; or service are the people employed by or active in an aegis changes have muddied the waters; Wikipedia has a bit more on the "development hell" which has plagued the film project.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
More: - Brought to my attention by