In a film rights option/purchase agreement, the rightsholder is paid a relatively small sum in exchange for the studio's option to purchase motion picture and other rights to the property at a later time. If the option is not exercised, the rightsholder will retain ownership to the property. However, in instances where the studio exercises its option and pays the purchase price, the rightsholder might never reclaim the rights to the material, unless he or she negotiates for a reversion clause, allowing the rightsholder to re-purchase the material if the studio has not produced a film within a certain number of years after exercising the option (i.e., by paying the full purchase price).

Are reversion clauses reasonable? Who do they benefit? Why would a studio include, or refuse to include a reversion clause?