Licensing Christmas Classics

[Greg McGuire]

Hello,

A local group asked me about showing Charlie Brown's Christmas or Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer in conjunction with an event they're doing. Has anyone done this before, or know who's the rights holder for them might be?

Thanks.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Best bet:

- Charlie Brown's Christmas: CBS / Paramount
- Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer: NBCUniversal

Good luck getting licenses for individual TV shows from either one of them though...

[Mark Ogden]

A Charlie Brown Christmas and all Peanuts trademarks and copyrights are currently owned by Apple, which does not have a theatrical distribution arm.

[Marcel Birgelen]

The trademarks for the Peanuts characters are currently marketed by Wild Brain Entertainment. Charlie Brown Christmas was originally owned by CBS. They probably still have the distribution rights, but if they have licensed them exclusively to Apple, you're pretty much out of luck. But even if CBS has granted them a non-exlcusive license, licensing any TV content from CBS for a one-time screening is nearly impossible. You'd say those companies could earn a lot of money if they would allow more flexible licensing of their vast content library if they'd open some kind of on-line portal that allows you to license their content for individual use cases... just enter your credit card and done...

[Mark Ogden]

CBS never owned A Charlie Brown Christmas, they were simply a licensor and the first to put it on the air (it subsequently ran on ABC for many years). The original copyright was held by United Features Syndicate, who at the time administered the rights to the Peanuts characters on behalf of Charles Schulz, and the actual show itself was owned by its producer, Lee Mendelson. CBS no longer has a stake in the show and has no distribution rights. All the original Peanuts shows are currently controlled by Apple under license from the Peanuts ownership consortium, of which WildBrain is part owner. They just announced a new feature the other day.

Either way, it doesn't look like there is a theatrical path here.

[Greg McGuire]

Thanks for the advice. I told them it was a long shot, especially on such short notice, but I figured if anyone would know it'd be someone here!

[Jim Cassedy]

Welcome to the wonderful world of convoluted copyright conundrums, where sometimes trying
to find out exactly who owns what is like going 'down the rabbit hole' - while simultaneously
"peeling the onion" at the same time. About a decade ago what I thought was going to be a
simple matter to find out who owned the rights to a certain old theatrical short turned into a
never ending online adventure. Although it was originally a Paramount short, in the ensuing
decades the rights had been handled by at least a half-a-dozen entities, a couple of which
had gone bankrupt, and so the rights reverted to one of their creditors, and then we found
out that the company who we thought currently held the rights, only had the TV rights- - not
the theatrical or home video rights- - and then occasionally, you run into someone who has
the rights- - but there is some outstanding music copyright that prevents then from distributing
it. I ran into this once when trying to find a 35mm copy of a certain title, which I knew was
available on DCP. But apparently the end theme music was licensed only for the original
theatrical run-- and so when it was released on video & as a DCP, they had to use different
end credit music- - and although they did have a 35mm print, they wouldn't let anyone use
it because of the music rights issue on it. (Getting a "one time" use license for our screening
was, technically possible but to do so was going to require alotta legal paper filing by a
copyright attorney - -and we could have BOUGHT a 35mm print for less than his fee.)

- - we finally took a chance and screened a print from a private collector. Yes, I know it's
legally illegal- - but so is rolling through a stop sign, but who hasn't occasionally done so
when nobody was looking. I suppose we might have been able to possibly avoid music
rights trouble if we simply cut the audio during the end credits- - but I didn't think of it at the time.

[Randy Stankey]

Consider this to be humor:

Why don't you just play the darned movie and let whoever has the rights send you a cease and deist letter then make an offer a payment to settle.

Sometimes, it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission. Right?

[Marcel Birgelen]

Consider this to be humor:

Why don't you just play the darned movie and let whoever has the rights send you a cease and deist letter then make an offer a payment to settle.

Sometimes, it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission. Right?

I remember licensing a transmitter site in Belgium that way. I called the municipality what I needed to do to get a transmission tower licensed and they simply told me to put it up, as long as it was under a certain height, call them, pay the fine and get it licensed that way... When I kindly asked to go the "official" route, the one without the fine, they told me that it would take about two years to process and cost all parties involved a multiple of the fine in processing and handling costs...

CBS never owned A Charlie Brown Christmas, they were simply a licensor and the first to put it on the air (it subsequently ran on ABC for many years). The original copyright was held by United Features Syndicate, who at the time administered the rights to the Peanuts characters on behalf of Charles Schulz, and the actual show itself was owned by its producer, Lee Mendelson. CBS no longer has a stake in the show and has no distribution rights. All the original Peanuts shows are currently controlled by Apple under license from the Peanuts ownership consortium, of which WildBrain is part owner. They just announced a new feature the other day.

I'm not doubting what you're saying, but it only adds to how convoluted the rights situation seems to be. I remember that back in 2003, when I was involved in acquiring the rights for a streaming services pilot for a telco that had a shiny new FttH network to fill with data, we licensed the Peanuts through CBS as part of a package with "family entertainment". The Peanuts never were really popular around here (although they still are pretty popular in Germany), but since we couldn't get anything from Disney or Warner Brothers, we desperately needed some "A-list" content in the "family and kids" genres... Granted, this was an international license for "streaming", which was something nobody had a clearly cut license for back in the day. Then again, having a license for TV and/or streaming doesn't automatically grant a license for theatrical distribution...

[Mike Blakesley]

Some years ago I converted Charlie Brown Christmas to DCP and we played it for ourselves and some friends who had for some odd reason never seen it. They were less than impressed. For some reason it seems to play better on tv. Maybe it needs the commercial breaks!

[Randy Stankey]

Animation for TV is often done "On Two," meaning that it is shot at 15 fps. and every frame is displayed twice.

If your DCP was authored for 24 fps. a frame rate mismatch might have been created, depending on the settings used. If that was true then the audience might perceive the video as lackluster because their (subconscious) visual experience doesn't match expectations.

[Mark Ogden]

Animation for TV is often done "On Two," meaning that it is shot at 15 fps. and every frame is displayed twice.

To be clear, "on two" means that every individual animation cel was photographed twice, for a total of 12 images per second. The film was still shot and ran at 24fps, and ran at the telecine pull-down rate of 3-2.

Part of the lore of A Charlie Brown Christmas was the fact that CBS didn't like it either. They had agreed to run the show sight unseen because a huge advertiser, Coca-Cola, had agreed to sponsor it. They only got a look at the finished show a few days before it was scheduled to air, and after they saw it they it they told the producer, Lee Mendelson, they they were badly disappointed; they didn't like the jazz score, the bible references, the choppy on-two animation and the fact that the characters were voiced by children. It was only after the show had run to high ratings and great reviews that the president of the network called Mendelson to smooth things over and offer to buy another show. "Although," he supposedly said, "my aunt in New Jersey thought it stank too."

[Mike Blakesley]

If your DCP was authored for 24 fps. a frame rate mismatch might have been created, depending on the settings used. If that was true then the audience might perceive the video as lackluster because their (subconscious) visual experience doesn't match expectations.

It looked and sounded fine, well as good as it was going to look based on its origins. I think it was more the style of it compared to today's productions that turned them off. I've seen that show about a thousand times, and I remember even as a kid thinking the animation in it was kind of cheesy. And some of the dialog sounds like it was pieced together from multiple recordings, since they used little kids voices and probably had a difficult time getting a good "take" of a long line in one go.

But I still love watching it though.

[Randy Stankey]

I think you're right. The style of limited animation they used has a distinct look. It might look okay or it might look bad, depending on the viewer's judgement. Given the advances in multimedia over the years, it probably looks dated, compared to what people are used to seeing, today.

Mark mentioned that people didn't like the jazz score. (by Vince Guaraldi) I thought that was a funny comment because, IMO, the song, "Linus and Lucy" has become a Christmas Classic.

"A Charlie Brown Christmas" might seem cheesy but I think that's kinda' what makes it a classic. Cheesy on purpose, if you know what I mean.

[Frank Cox]

Some years back someone was making and selling "Charlie Brown's Christmas Tree" here in town. I can't remember exactly where but I do remember seeing them for sale.