Michael Moore or Disney?..
Moore says he is going to show it even if Disney says no. But can he?
Sure he can. Universal had told Terry Gilliam that they weren’t going to release his version of Brazil in the US and that he couldn’t show it to anybody. Gilliam did go around showing the movie and as a result, IIRC, the film critics in both LA and NY called it the best film of the year (1985). In the end, and it is a much longer story (see the documentary Battle for Brazil on the Criterion Collection version) the studio caved and released the version that Gilliam wanted.
To answer the first part of your question- the movie belongs to Moore. However, Disney via Miramax owns the distribution right to the movie, in the US at least. They would have payed some money to get those rights and perhaps Moore can find another distributor to pick up the movie and pay off Miramax.
By the way, do not confuse who owns a copyright and who controls it.
Why? Did Moore use his own money to make the film? Did he acquire financing independent of Disney’s pocketbooks? I think the answer is No. Sure, he’s the writer/director/etc., and he may be given an opportunity to shop the film around to other interested parties, but I don’t think the answer is so cut-&-dry.
Actually, only the LA critics called it the Best Film that year. The NY critics named Prizzi’s Honor.
I doubt that Moore used his own money to make the film, but he got the money from Miramax to make it. He got the money with the idea that Miramax would distribute the film and make their money back that way. In essence the money from Miramax is a loan to the director and the film itself is the collateral. If Moore said that he wasn’t going to allow Miramax to touch the film than we might have a different story, but I don’t think that Disney is going to stand in Moores way if he finds another distributor.
From this story:
Knowing Moore, I doubt he’d even had made the movie if he wasn’t allowed to have final edit and full control over it.
Foremost, the author always has the copyright. Since Miramax financed the production, they signed a contract with Moore which gives them certain rights as producers. As I understand it now, there was never a distribution agreement (so Disney didn’t rescind anything previously promised). Since the film-makers (which now include Disney) still want to make their money, they will find someone less politically vulnerable to distribute it. By kicking in the added bonus of publicity from their “stunt” they stand to increase their take without actually taking blame. Brilliant.
This is absolutely wrong. You can sell or negotiate your copyright. Ever hear of work-for-hire?
The creation of a work gives the author the copyright. (Foremost, adj. - First in time or place.) The author can negotiate to transfer some or all of those rights. This is in the contract between Moore and Miramax, as I said. Depending on how that contract is worded, some of the original rights may not have been transferred, such as the right to distribute.