With record Oscar nominations, ‘Sinners’ spotlights unique film ownership model

Released early last year, Sinners also made headlines in Hollywood trade publications for a deal Coogler negotiated with Warner Bros., which will see the film’s ownership rights return to him after 25 years, potentially translating into money flow in perpetuity. The trend that could catch on, even if such deals are unusually rare in the film business.

A change of stance

Warner Bros.’ decision to grant Coogler ownership rights represents a dramatic reversal from their 2017 stance concerning director Quentin Tarantino. When Tarantino sought similar terms for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, the production company drew a line, fearing it would set a precedent, ultimately losing the film to Sony. In 2017, Sony agreed to give Tarantino full ownership of the underlying copyright after a timeframe between 10 and 30 years, shifting ownership from the studio to the filmmaker.

Though Coogler said he made the copyright demand because Sinners was inspired by his family’s history, factors like the rise of movie streaming and its skewed economics are largely seen as a major reason for directors asking for copyright ownership from studios.

A second life for films

Streaming has fundamentally transformed films from finite theatrical products into evergreen revenue-generating assets, with extended lifespans far beyond their initial theatrical runs. Films released years ago now bring in serious revenue, with old titles still generating meaningful viewership.

The concept itself is not novel. In the DVD era, cult classics like Napoleon Dynamite (2004), The Big Lebowski (1998), or Fight Club (1999) earned as much from physical media as they did in theatres, but streaming has amplified this phenomenon exponentially. It can give films a second life after cinemas, with films now increasingly following hybrid distribution paths, including simultaneous releases in theatres and on streaming platforms.

At the same time, it is widely understood that theatrical films tend to have higher viewership in their streaming window than films that go straight-to-streaming, proving that the theatrical experience actually enhances a film’s long-term streaming value.

The result is a complete reimagining of a film’s lifecycle: what was once a brief theatrical window followed by declining home video sales has become an indefinite revenue stream where films can find new audiences, generate cultural relevance decades after release, and continue earning money through multiple licensing deals across territories and platforms simultaneously.

In the case of Coogler’s deal, while Warner Bros. will continue to earn by licensing the film to streaming platforms for a quarter of a century, the ownership shift to him later allows Coogler to also enjoy the long-term benefits of a piece of art that he spent countless hours on.

Though such deals remain a rarity, the advent of streaming has also raised newer kinds of conflicts between those involved in a film creatively, as well as the producers and studios backing the films financially.

Complex payment structures

The most prominent streaming compensation dispute involved actress Scarlett Johansson suing Disney in July 2021. Johansson claimed that Disney breached her contract by releasing Black Widow (2021) simultaneously in theatres and on the platform Disney+ Premier Access, when she had been guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release. Her compensation was heavily tied to box office performance through backend bonuses.

Notably, this happened during the Covid-19 pandemic, when, like most public spaces, movie theatres were suddenly shut down. While theatre owners worried about their businesses, film studios turned to streaming companies to reach paying audiences, rapidly accelerating the rise and adoption of OTT platforms.

While falling theatre footfalls were reported even pre-2020, streaming only helped the downward trend. Over time, studios came to believe that the narrowing theatre-to-OTT window is depressing theatre footfall, which is still a key marker of a film’s success.

Following Johansson’s lawsuit, reports emerged that two-time Oscar-winning actress Emma Stone was “weighing her options” regarding similar issues with Cruella (2021), which also received a simultaneous Disney+ Premier Access release. However, Stone negotiated privately with Disney rather than filing a public lawsuit, ultimately securing better terms for the upcoming Cruella 2 and maintaining her relationship with the studio.

An even broader industry controversy erupted in December 2020, when Warner Bros./WarnerMedia announced that its entire 2021 film slate—17 films including Dune, The Matrix 4, Godzilla vs. Kong, and The Suicide Squad — would release simultaneously in theatres and on HBO Max for one month before returning to theatrical exclusivity. This decision was made without consulting filmmakers, actors, or production partners.

Director Christopher Nolan, who had worked exclusively with Warner Bros. since 2002 (on popular films like The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception, Interstellar, and Tenet), delivered brutal public criticism: “Some of our industry’s biggest filmmakers and most important movie stars went to bed the night before thinking they were working for the greatest movie studio and woke up to find out they were working for the worst streaming service.”