Who owns the rights to SGA? What about Stargate?

[McSwift]

Out of curiosity.

Who owns the right to SGA, and the new stargate franchise? What about the stargate series?

Thanks

[s09119]

Pretty sure it's MGM

[prion]

Out of curiosity.

Who owns the right to SGA, and the new stargate franchise? What about the stargate series?

Thanks

MGM owns the Stargate franchise, but Skiffy has a higher stake in SGA than they did in SG1 (as in making money off it)

[SaberBlade]

As it's been said, MGM own the rights to the Stargate franchise. That includes the movies and the shows.

However Scifi have it as part of their contract with MGM that they have sole rights when it comes to airing new episodes within the US, and that the show can't be given to a new network without Scifi's approval (which they won't do which means no season 11 and no new Atlantis in the future should Scifi cancel it).

[J_B]

Out of curiosity.

Who owns the right to SGA, and the new stargate franchise? What about the stargate series?

Thanks

MGM owns all rights to everything Stargate!

Simply Sci-Fi/NBC have a contract with them that allows them sole first runs of Atlantis, Sg-1 on US tv. Meaning it can't air on another US based network. The new show if made will also belong to them, however if it's on the Sci-Fi channel, they'll probably barter in the same airing clause that SG-1 & Atlantis had.

[hkgonra]

I have never heard of a contract like that before in my life.
I am in the entertainment industry and the only way I have ever seen that type of thing in a contract was more of a "first rite of refusal". In other words sci-fi has the right to say " we want if here you can't take it anywhere else" , not "we don't want it so it can't be done".

[J_B]

I have never heard of a contract like that before in my life.
I am in the entertainment industry and the only way I have ever seen that type of thing in a contract was more of a "first rite of refusal". In other words sci-fi has the right to say " we want if here you can't take it anywhere else" , not "we don't want it so it can't be done".

Guess you don't know as much as you thought then!

Straight from Mark Stern's (One of the head honcho's of the Sci-Fi channel) mouth:

Mark Stern Interview

“There is not going to be [an 11th season] on U.S. television,” Stern said flatly. “Our contract with MGM prohibits it.”

Rory Cochrane starred for 2 years on CSI:Miami. He signed a 6 year contrac originallyt, however wanted out to do movies less than 2 years into it. CBS agreed to his request but they still held him to his original contract & therefore he could not do any tv work in the US for the next 4 years.

Rory Cochrane Interview

CSI Files: When did you decide that you wanted to leave CSI: Miami?
Cochrane: Probably in the first season. Everybody could tell I was sort of unhappy [but] I didn't want to bring anyone down. To be honest with you, I'm surprised they let me out [of my contract], but I'm glad they did and I thought that was very gracious of them.

CSI Files: Did you tell the producers that you wanted to leave in the first season?
Cochrane: No, I wanted to put in two years. I always thought I'd put in two years, but when the ratings became so high, I thought, wow, they might not let me out of this thing. But I was classy about it, I didn't demand more money. I just said, "I want out."

CSI Files: Would you ever consider doing television again in any capacity?
Cochrane: Well, actually, I'm not allowed to do TV for like four years, because they let me leave, but I'm still obligated to them for four years so as part of the deal, I can't do TV for four years.

So not as an unusual deal as you may think!

[hkgonra]

Didn't say it didn't exist , just that I have never heard of anything that is that ridiculous.

For the Cochran contract to be the same as the SG contract CBS would have had to let him go and then say , we don't want you on this show anymore but you can't do any other shows for 4 more years. Which would be bullcrap.

[techjunkie]

MGM owns all rights to everything Stargate!

Simply Sci-Fi/NBC have a contract with them that allows them sole first runs of Atlantis, Sg-1 on US tv. Meaning it can't air on another US based network. The new show if made will also belong to them, however if it's on the Sci-Fi channel, they'll probably barter in the same airing clause that SG-1 & Atlantis had.

Sci-Fi's relationship to MGM is complex, however in the case of SG-1 exclusively, they have broadcast rights for any and all future series episodes. That's why the series did not move to another broadcaster and was ended. The right move for MGM was to slip into the production of movies for DVD. It will likely keep the 'series' alive for some time to come.

I have never heard of a contract like that before in my life.
I am in the entertainment industry and the only way I have ever seen that type of thing in a contract was more of a "first rite of refusal". In other words sci-fi has the right to say " we want if here you can't take it anywhere else" , not "we don't want it so it can't be done".

I have heard of such contracts, and have been involved with 2 exclusive-type projects. First refusal is far more common, but for properties with joint ownerships, these types of clauses while not common, do happen.

Think of it this way - MGM and SciFi for entirely different reasons have helped IMO extend the franchise longer. We just have to wait longer for fewer but better episodes.

Tech Junkie

[J_B]

Problem is it's not bullcrap, it's true, whether we all like it or not!

Here are the similarities:

RC signed a contract with CBS (makers of CSI:Miami) for 6 years.
While MGM signed a contract with Sci-Fi (Owned by NBC) - length unknown.

Sci-Fi decided they didn't want it to continue. So they invoked a clause in the original contract that barrs SG-1 from being shown on another US network. Not sure how long this applies to, but it'd have to be a figure that makes SG-1's absence from the air unsustainable. If it were only a single year, then they could do 2 movies, then get it back on with another network the following year. So I'd guess it being something like 3/4 years myself!

RC decided he didn't want to continue, so he wanted out of the original contract. CBS agreed but held him to the terms of the original contract. Meaning he was barred from doing any other tv work in the US for the next 4 years after his departure date.

The only difference was one asked the network to get out of the contract, while the other (MGM &SG-1) was cancelled by the network. Both the clauses were invoked. Meaning he couldn't do any other US tv work for a set amount of years, while SG-1 couldn't be taken to any other US broadcaster for a set amount of years.

The only reasons MGM probably allowed them to do it was because no other network would most likely have taken it, Sci-Fi were the only ones who came in after it was axed by ShowTime. While the second one was Sci-Fi put in a lot of money that was used to make the show. They paid the large majority of the cost to make the show. So if it was simply a licensing deal, where they paid to broadcast it only, then there most likely would not have been such a clause. Such as Sky One paid to license it in the UK, however if they decided not to renew it. Then I doubt they'd have the ability to stop another UK network from picking it up.

Perhaps MGM should have paid the bulk of making the show themselves. Meaning less of a licensing fee for Skiffy, but more haggling room over how SG-1 could have been taken to another US network, if ever they decided not to renew it any longer.

[Ripple in Space]

Problem is it's not bullcrap, it's true, whether we all like it or not!

Here are the similarities:

RC signed a contract with CBS (makers of CSI:Miami) for 6 years.
While MGM signed a contract with Sci-Fi (Owned by NBC) - length unknown.

Sci-Fi decided they didn't want it to continue. So they invoked a clause in the original contract that barrs SG-1 from being shown on another US network. Not sure how long this applies to, but it'd have to be a figure that makes SG-1's absence from the air unsustainable. If it were only a single year, then they could do 2 movies, then get it back on with another network the following year. So I'd guess it being something like 3/4 years myself!

RC decided he didn't want to continue, so he wanted out of the original contract. CBS agreed but held him to the terms of the original contract. Meaning he was barred from doing any other tv work in the US for the next 4 years after his departure date.

The only difference was one asked the network to get out of the contract, while the other (MGM &SG-1) was cancelled by the network. Both the clauses were invoked. Meaning he couldn't do any other US tv work for a set amount of years, while SG-1 couldn't be taken to any other US broadcaster for a set amount of years.

The only reasons MGM probably allowed them to do it was because no other network would most likely have taken it, Sci-Fi were the only ones who came in after it was axed by ShowTime. While the second one was Sci-Fi put in a lot of money that was used to make the show. They paid the large majority of the cost to make the show. So if it was simply a licensing deal, where they paid to broadcast it only, then there most likely would not have been such a clause. Such as Sky One paid to license it in the UK, however if they decided not to renew it. Then I doubt they'd have the ability to stop another UK network from picking it up.

Perhaps MGM should have paid the bulk of making the show themselves. Meaning less of a licensing fee for Skiffy, but more haggling room over how SG-1 could have been taken to another US network, if ever they decided not to renew it any longer.

I agree. Things like this do happen. It's like a non-competition contract in the business world. When a company merges or sells-out to another, the higher-ups are usually barred from reentering the industry as a competitor.

As for 2 films, and then S11, even if it was possible, I'd be against it. From what I understand Michael Shanks refused to do a S11, and is willing to do movies. That's case-closed for me, since I don't even consider it SG-1 anymore if and are missing for more than a 3 eps at a time. The show is based on having these 2 characters around...

[sid18]

I don't know anything about these kind of things but since I live in the UK I must ask:

Can't MGM make a season 11 and show it in other countries?

Channels in other countrieis (like SkyOne over here) I'm sure would gladly show any other series.

I know this is probably a stupid question but I just needed to ask for some clarification.

Thanks

[SaberBlade]

I don't know anything about these kind of things but since I live in the UK I must ask:

Can't MGM make a season 11 and show it in other countries?

Channels in other countrieis (like SkyOne over here) I'm sure would gladly show any other series.

I know this is probably a stupid question but I just needed to ask for some clarification.

Thanks

Yes MGM could make Season 11, and yes it could aired in other countries. However the US is the primary audience and unless a profitable way to sell the show in the US could be done, then there would be no need to do a season 11. Money isn't made from just DVD sales and the sales on Itunes, but also made from the TV broadcasts which would lost if they did a non broadcast season 11.

They'd need to really take into consideration how much more popular the DVDs or the Itunes sales would be if they didn't release it on TV. The other real alternative to hoping for higher Itunes or DVD sales would be getting international backing, from companies such as Sky.

[prion]

Didn't say it didn't exist , just that I have never heard of anything that is that ridiculous.

For the Cochran contract to be the same as the SG contract CBS would have had to let him go and then say , we don't want you on this show anymore but you can't do any other shows for 4 more years. Which would be bullcrap.

Well, Rory wanted out, to do movies, so they gave him that option, barred him for TV work, but it doens't bother him. Ditto with Vanessa Ferlito who left CSI: NY (she's gone to movies too). One note is that both actors' characters were also killed, albeit CSI: NY waited several episodes before doing the dirty deed.

MGM owns Stargate, but Skiffy also provided financial backing too. MGM really can't do an 11th season unless they shot out of country and the cost would be prohibitive, so it all boils down to $$$, or lack thereof.

[Pitry]

Th ekey in this discussion is that we know it for sure only for SG-1. In all honesty, there's nothing to suggest the same kind of contract exists for SGA - and TBH while I can see the reasonings behind doing this with SG-1, SGA seems less likely.