When it comes to a Breakfast at Tiffany’s remake, the question to ask is not “should they?”

The more pertinent questions are “who will remake it?” and “as a movie or a series?”

Paramount Pictures maintains that it has the rights, and the estate of Truman Capote, who wrote the story that the classic Audrey Hepburn movie was based on, argues that they hold those same rights.

Paramount has a feature film screenplay it wants to produce, while Alan Schwartz, Trustee of the Truman Capote Literary Trust, has been shopping a television series, and has gotten big dollar offers from more than one interested buyer. 

The two used to be on the same side. Early last year, both sides were headed toward a settlement with the idea that Paramount would be involved in the TV production, but in May, negotiations ended when Paramount chief Jim Gianopulos decided he wanted to make a feature instead.

Now Paramount and Schwartz are bickering over deals made decades ago and trying to figure out who has power to commission a new version. This failure to see the eye to eye is the basis for a lawsuit filed last November.

“In 1991, Plaintiff and the Capote Estate entered into an agreement with Paramount, whereby Paramount optioned certain sequel and prequel rights, among others, with respect to the film,” states the complaint. “The agreement provided that, if a motion picture was not produced within a certain amount of time, the rights would revert back to Plaintiff.”

Since no movie was made, Schwartz claims ownership. According to the complaint, Paramount contests. Paramount says it did indeed exercise its option.

The studio “claims that no reversion occurred, that it had the right, but not the obligation, to produce the film, and that it purchased this right for $300,000.00,” continues the complaint. “What is most inconceivable, however, is that Paramount claims that whether or not it had an actual obligation to exploit Plaintiff’s valuable film rights depended exclusively on the timing of its acquisition payment.”

The history of the deal dates back to the 1980s – or even to the 1900s, depending on which part of the law you’re examining. Capote published his novella, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, in 1958, before it became a classic film for Paramount starring Audrey Hepburn three years later. Capote died in 1984.

The timing of Capote’s death was significant because under the Copyright Act of 1909, an author’s death during the initial 28-year term meant the renewal term belonged to the author’s estate. That was the case until the estate began negotiations with Paramount.

Now there’s another wrinkle in the fight between the two entities. According to Paramount’s latest court papers, the 1909 Copyright Act and the Stewart decision didn’t touch foreign rights. The studio held onto those rights even given the reversion of domestic rights. 

In other words, although Schwartz may claim to have had “superior bargaining position” back in the early 1990s, now Paramount has its own chip to bargain — those foreign rights, which they maintain allow them to retain ownership of the property.

Later in this case, the studio will undoubtedly argue that the explicit language of the contract didn’t mean it had any time limit to make a movie. For now, the studio merely wants a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over this matter.

There’s no word on when the courts will rule, giving the rights to one or the other plaintiffs. Until such time, we will all be spared the “should they remake it” arguments.