Wait, what? A Warner Bros property is being made at Disney?

So is it set in the MonsterVerse? Or is it a standalone King Kong series that also happens to feature Skull Island? If it's the latter, they could've worded that better considering the names Kong (without the King in there, possibly referring to MonsterVerse Kong, or no? It's unclear) and Skull Island were thrown around in said announcement article.

I look forward to it all the same, though being the kaiju fanatic I am. I own all the MV movies, including Godzilla vs. Kong in 4K, the 1954 original Godzilla (it includes both the Americanized/dubbed Godzilla: King of the Monsters and the far-better Japanese OG cut, Gojira) and the 2005 remake of King Kong on blu-ray as well as Shin Godzilla, the 90s Gamera trilogy and Pacific Rim (we don't talk about Uprising).

This was actually a big part of Nintendo's rise to success.

When Nintendo made Donkey Kong, they were sued by Universal, who argued that it was a violation of their IP. They kind of expected Nintendo to just fold like most smaller companies would. Instead, Nintendo aggressively defended against the lawsuit, and won, as Universal themselves argued in a previous case that King Kong was in the public domain (which doesn't necessarily win the case on its own, but is a huge help). Nintendo's lawyer was John Kirby. THere is an I believe unconfirmed rumor that Kirby was named Kirby to honor him. Nintendo's history would look very different if Donkey Kong couldn't be released.

All that said, this is an unusual move. Even if a character is public domain, you have to be careful to stay away from anything unique to one company's particular iteration. For example, Peter Pan is in the public domain, so if you wanted to make an adaptation and you stick to the book, you're fine. But the play is not yet in the public domain, so if you took any elements from that which were not in the play, you would be potentially in violation of the copyright that is held by the Great Ormond Street Hospital. And, if you made Tinkerbell look too much like she did in the movie version by disney, that could also be a potential lawsuit.

So, this is kind of a weird move. Companies usually are a bit reluctant to invest in IPs they won't fully own, and it's legally a bit dicey. Unless there is an arrangement with Disney and Warner Bros, and potentially Universal who I believe are still tied into this somehow, then this kind of feels like shots fired. With a lot of Disney stuff entering public domain relatively soon, that's an interesting move.