Board Thread:Young Justice News/@comment-47881-20130128165351/@comment-1895174-20130130035808

Banan14kab wrote:

LoveWaffle wrote:

Banan14kab wrote: Well Paramount owns half of CW since it had UPN before. Actually, CBS owns the other 50% of The CW. But the 50% of the channel owned by Time Warner is enough that they don't have to license it.

A company only has to license its properties when they can't produce something they want to make and another company can. This is what Marvel Comics did from the mid-90s through late last decade to give us things like Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. There's no reason for Warner Bros. (the subsidiary of Time Warner that Cartoon Network, The CW, and DC Comics are all a part of) to license a bunch of characters to itself. O that makes sense. So in Marvel's case they had to license thier propoerty of "Spider-Man" so no other comanies could produce a live action film (plus it avoids copyright hassle). Also I had a feeling I was wrong about the Paramount bit and CW but I didn't wanna check wikipedia again. I have read before that the C in CW is for CBS and the W for Warner Bros. Also how do you know so much about legalities in media conglomerates? I saw your other comments. And I know I'm going slightly off topic, but please just answer that question.

For one, I'm studying law. Media conglomerates aren't in my particular field, but I have the resources lying around.

You have it somewhat backwards with Marvel and the films. Prior to Disney buying the company, Marvel was an independent company. They had exclusive rights to all of their characters to do what they will with them, even making a film. Licensing off Spider-Man, for example, wasn't a way to make sure any studio could make a Spider-Man film, but for them to choose which studio would make that film for them. The price for that, however, is that they would have to forfeit most of the profits off that film over to the studio that made it. That was completely their choice to make as they were an independent corporation. Since Disney bought them, however, that's no longer an option. Marvel can't license off their characters anymore since they don't really own them - Disney does. In fact the reverse is the trend now - most of the characters Marvel licensed off over the past decade have returned back to the parent company. As far as I know, the only Marvel franchises Disney currently cannot make movies out of are Spider-Man (which is still licensed to Sony), and the X-Men and Fantastic Four (which are both licensed to FOX). However, in order to get some leniency on those licenses, they had to return all of the TV licenses, which is why Spectacular Spider-Man was cancelled and replaced with the godawful Ultimate Spider-Man.

DC Comics, on the other hand, hasn't been an independent company since at least the mid-1960s. There aren't going to be any licenses to DC Characters lying around, they're all solidly under Time Warner's banner. This is why all theatrical releases based on DC Comics have been released by Warner Bros. Pictures, all of the DCUOAM have been released by Warner Bros. Animation, and all of their TV series, live action or animated, have aired on either The WB, The CW, or Cartoon Network.

Long story short: If we want a show based on DC Comics characters, it has to come through one of the Warner Bros. channels, which more than likely means Cartoon Network.