Nigel

This is my first post to Brit Movie and I just want people who where fasanated by the recent BBC series "The lost world of Mitchell & Kenyon" to know the truth about how the films and how I saved them from destruction. The BBC and media however have chose to totally miss out this part and written there own version of events. If you wish to read my story titled "The truth behind Mitchell & Kenyon" you can find it by visiting my website www.gregoryav.co.uk

Thanks

Nigel

:cry:

David Challinor

So what involvement did the optician/optometrist have?

Rennie

Nigel: Are you simply miffed that your name was not publicised as being the person who 'discovered' the fim, or does your anger extend further?

I would be interested to know what the exact legal position was as to who rightfully owned the film in the first place when it was discovered on the premises of Mercers in Blackburn. Did the shop owners have rights to the film? Did the workmen have claim? (I think not, unless part of their contract was that they had first refusal on anything found )

From your commentary it seems that you simply pointed the films in the right direction, (although that appears doubtful in your opinion), and I am sincerely sorry that you appear to have received no credit for this. In retrospect, it did seem rather a silly thing for you to have involved yet another party in on your discovery, especially as you did seem to have some idea as to the significance of what had been found. At £50, you would have at least secured the films, and have had some control as to on what should happen to them. This is of course is presuming that it was perfectly legal in the first place for the workmen to have removed the films from their place of discovery without notifying the owners of the property.

DB7

It must sting a bit that the film stock is referred to as but in answer to Rennie's point over ownership - surely these films are still under copyright?

Rennie

......... surely these films are still under copyright?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/quote]

DB7:

The Copyright Designs and Patents Act of 1988 states that a PHOTOGRAPH has a copyright of 70 years after it was taken. This copyright will be owned by the photographer, and not the owner of the photograph, even if it had been commissioned. Is a moving film classed the same as a photograph?

From this I would have thought that copyright on the M&K films had long expired. However I would be very interested to hear from anyone who really knows the subject of photos/moving film copyright.

A thought: What happens when, in a more than likely situation, the photographer is still alive 70 years after taking the pic?

DB7

No, copyright for film expires 70 years after the filmmakers death.

Steve Crook

So they're still under copyright until 2027
(James Kenyon died in 1925 but Sagar Mitchell didn't die until 1952)

Steve

penfold

Of course, now they have been restored (at huge expense, actually) by the bfi, I believe THEY now have the copyright, at least on the restored versions. And it is still a matter of debate as to whether ALL the films found at Mitchell and Kenyon's old basement were actually filmed by them, or simply DEVELOPED by them...regarding the role of Nigel in the story, in the (first of two) M&K book is an edited down account BY PETER WORDEN that does describe the events as Nigel described them, although Nigel isn't named, his role as a link in the chain is mentioned. The book, incidentally, was printed by October 2004, as that's when I got my copy, well before Nigel says he made his complaint known...
One question for Nigel; if, as you seem to think, you were being deliberately sidelined, who recommended you for an invitation to the, I believe, invitation-only launch in Blackburn??

Bit of a Bay Window, what??