NMS, I don't think the author of a classic novel written, say, pre-seventeenth century would have sold the movie rights. These are the kind of novels and plays I was thinking of. So I think any number of movies made from Hamlet, for example, could be made without purchasing rights.
Was the western in question based on a novel whose copyright was still in effect? If the novel was in the public domain at the time, can't anyone make a movie based on that novel?
Yes, but Shakespeare never sold the rights. The underlying rights are not current. The underlying rights in respect to a novel made into a movie are a different matter.
I will give you an example.
The recent remake of the Last of the Mohicans. The original novel, of course, is in the public domain. Had you, or anyone else -- say the makers of the recent remake, wished to go straight back to that original and remake it -- no problem.
But if you look at the credits, you'll see that it isn't simply based on the James Fenimore Cooper novel, but also gives credit to John L. Balderston, Paul Perez, Daniel Moore, and Philip Dunne -- as the source of the adaptation.
That's because the remake wasn't simply based on the novel. It was a remake of the 1936 United Artists film which contained numerous elements that didn't exist in the novel.
Even if the book, back in 1936, had been in the public domain -- the movie was not. And the elements *original to that adaptation* were independently copyrightable, separate from the novel.
That is why the remake of King Kong, which was *not* based on the RKO movie, but was instead based on a novel which had *separated rights* didn't contain certain classic scenes -- such as the attack on the elevated train.
That's because, while it was featured in the movie, it didn't appear in the book, and thus couldn't be used.
The original poster is talking about writing a sequel to an obscure *movie* -- not writing a sequel to a book.
I have no idea:
A) when the book was originally published. That the movie was made in 1962 doesn't tell us this. It could have been a recent novel or it could have been written eighty years before.
B) whether the book is currently under copyright. The overwhelming majority of books published in the vicinity of 1962 are and will remain so for quite some time.
C) how far the content of the movie is from the original book. Even presuming that the book is in the public domain, that would only entitle a new adaptor to material that is in the book, not to material that is unique to the movie adapation. New characters, new relationships, new situations or plot twists, all would be the intellectual property of the movie's copyright holder.
D) whether the original movie is still under copyright. However -- barring some very unusual circumstance, it almost certainly is, and any such rights would encompass remake and sequel rights.
To presume that an existing movie from the sixties is in the public domain -- or to presume that the novel upon which it is based is in the public domain without actively confirming that this is true before proceeding with an unauthorized sequel -- is completely unjustifiable.
Unless you're simply doing as a learning experience.
And if you want to do an adaptation or a sequel as a learning experience, it would seem to me that it would make much more sense to do one based on something that you know for a fact is saleable, because if it turns out well, and you can't sell it, you've learned something, but otherwise you've wasted your time. It's just something for the back of the drawer.
If, on the other hand, you've learned something and you've written something that's worth sending out and you can actually send it out -- then you can send it out.
NMS
