1) My interpretation of co-ownership is that all revenue for such a property would be split by the owners. Securing license for release of THE LAST STARFIGHTER required negotiation/payment to both Universal and current owner of Lorimar. Any release of TOWERING INFERNO requires dealing with WB and Fox. In both cases those companies are co-owners of the properties in questions. All revenues for those titles are divided consistently according to the studios' deal with each other. (If not 50/50, then whatever split exists contractually.)
My point about this thread's hypothetical combo CD of HARPER and LAST DETAIL is that licensors traditionally aren't interested in dividing revenue for their fully-owned properties. Income for TOWERING INFERNO, and ALL THAT JAZZ, and TITANIC are split because of split ownership. Pairing DETAIL and HARPER on a CD would mean two companies sharing in a way they commonly don't.
2) You have a point with the PETE 'N' TILLIE/STANLEY AND IRIS pairing: the such only exception I know. (Do you know another? One exception does not make a new rule.) Those two pictures have a common director who produced his own films on occasion, so I don't know whether his involvement (or perhaps his own production company) could have been a significant factor in the deal behind that particular CD. It IS an exception; but would the commercial prospect of a Johnny Mandel two-fer be as enticing as Varese felt about the prospect for their John Williams PETE/STANLEY combo? Do you argue that LAST DETAIL/HARPER would be "financially worth the muck?"
3) Your unnecessary descent into vulgar expletive -- on what happens to be a bad day for me -- has cost you my respect. I've been called worse in my life, at times by people I know personally who meant something to me. But as of now, you're the opposite of them. I'll not waste more time in future discussion with you, T. Newman Fan.
|