Moor Larkin

I have had that said on other Fora... but the guy who runs the 78rpm site has rendered some old Danziger films onto DVD, in co-operation witht he Danziger family. He was able to sell them for £15 or so so the costs couldn't have been that huge. I can appreciate that commercial companies may not have the will to release old archived material that they think is of very little interest, but I'm not sure Cost is necessarily the issue.

It seems surprising as well that these Company's don't keep an eye on sites like e-bay, to gauge the Market. There is constant trading on Patrick McGoohan stuff that is unavailable otherwise. Why on earth don't they just release them and undercut the whole pirate market? McGoohan's 1983 TV production of Jamaica Inn has been released in America and is easily available for a couple of dollars (plus Shipping). However PAL versions pop up regularly on e-bay and are selling for £20-plus. They must be pirated, but there is an evident demand to push the price that high.

To add to this conundrum I noticed recently that Youtube has an entire Danger Man episode downloaded in three bits. I have flagged an objection and noted my disapproval but don't suppose anyone will do a darn thing about it.

DB7

I think they predict it'll be 2040 when it becomes noticeable that popular films are coming out of copyright but well before then I'd expect the film industry to lobby for an extension.

Some of the early Beatles recordings copyright will expire in the near future and I understand the BPI are lobbying for an extension. (think 40 years was added in the US)

Steve Crook

Cliff Richard was having a whinge in the press about this recently - which is odd, because as he didn't write them he wasn't a copyright holder anyway. He may get some residual payment every time one of his early songs is performed. But that's under a different agreement.

Steve

DB7

"Mistletoe and my 10%" for Christmas #1!

I seem to recall the British Library were in favour because copyright release would allow them to back-up many old recordings before they detiorate out of existance.

Is it the same with the BFI? Can they only restore old films without copyright clearance? (I thought archives would be an exception to the rule)

penfold

They are...they can copy and restore old films for archiving purposes without clearance...but they can only show the results to people 1) for research purposes and 2) on the premises or in bona-fide educational establishments...hence the restrictions on the film clip viewings on Screenonline...they can't just then release it on DVD or show it at a cinema - not even the NFT, which you might have thought would be a special case. So, no way to exploit the restoration, recouping the vast amounts of money spent .
A couple of years ago I asked for a quote from a top independent film restorer; to digitally restore a 35mm silent nitrate print, recreating beginning and end titles, producing a digital tape and two 35mm copies, one for archive, one for viewing left little change from £4000.....for a ten minute monochrome line-drawn cartoon. I'll let your imagination work on the cost of doing that for a feature film with harder-to-work-on photographic images.

Bit of a Bay Window, what??

JamesM

UK copyright for British films applies to the US as well (since 1998) but this did not stop BBC Worldwide / Warner Home Video attempting to release Scrooge last year, knowing full well they did not have the rights to it. They apparently pleaded ignorance claiming they thought it was in the 'public domain'.

There are several companies who have out out bootlegs of Hitchcock's films that I have seen in HMV, which GRANADA do not seem to care about.

Steve Crook

Which is why I'm on the mailing list for places like the Gulbenkian Theatre at the University of Kent at Canterbury.

Steve

Tony Pendrey

It looks like the film companies are really trying hard now to cover their arses over future copyright issues. You will quite often see a reference stating that the copyright applies "anywhere in the Universe" . True.

Doesn't say anything about parallel universes though, so there could still be trouble.

Ah Yes, the Soviet Union. All them wheatfields and ballet in the evenings

Moor Larkin

Further to my earlier Post.

The complete episode of Danger Man that had been down-loaded onto Youtube has now gone.

Whether it was my Flag of Inappropriateness, my message to the Downloader, or just pure coincidence, I know not..... But it has gone.

Ascoyne D'Ascoyne

If you go in to your local Poundstore (they're also sold by Play.com)you'll probably find a selection of dvds with three "classic" films on each disc. As well as rubbish like "Creature from the Haunted Seas" you can find much more respectable films with stars like Cagney, Wayne and Crawford (I have in front of me an issue containing Basil Rathbone's "the Woman in Green" and two Hitchcock films, "Young and Innocent" and "The Man Who Knew Too Much" (1934) ) which I've seen on sale in other, more expensive (probably better-produced) editions, usually as single-film issues.
I had always assumed, until reading this thread, that these films must be in the public domain. How can different companies sell these through legitimate sources if they don't own the copyright?

MrT

This is the point that has not yet been tested in UK law - it all depends on whether the 1996 Harmonisation of Copyright ammendment to the 1988 Act was applied retrospectively or not. If it was NOt retrospective, films made in 1934/37 would have lapsed out of copyright, and the publisher of these dvds is acting within the framework of UK law. If it was retrospective then the films are in copyright, so why are the current copyright holders not aware of this and pursuing this rather blatant infringement?

MIke (MrT)

Ascoyne D'Ascoyne

Quite a few of the films are post-1937. To take one instance "The Bat" (1959) starring Vincent Price is not only available in the three-film issues from Classic Entertainment, but also shows up on Amazon in editions from both WHE Europe and Anchor Bay.

DB7

Was this an EU directive? If so you'll find exceptions for member states in the small print.

ChristineCB

My problem with art-production copyrights is that a single owner benefits solely from the work of the collective. I'd have more sympathy for copyright stances if all of the workers were continually rewarded for their efforts, not just a single owner who made some initial investment or bought it up later. I understand their legal ownership rights. They should understand the concept of moral sympathies and how that influences public behavior.

So, I end up with some moral gray areas that make me less sympathetic, and therefore not as fastidious in consumption or expenditures. If one person or entity is going to benefit, should I benefit the fascist withholders of copyrights, or those that provide me with the entertainment I enjoy?

And in particular, toward the Conde Nasty (hehe) types and BBC. Maybe I would be more sympathetic toward BBC if I was certain their future solely depended on revenue generated by 30-, 50- or 75-year old copyrighted material.

But then again, I might argue that they should be producing modern works of comparable quality or appeal.

And in both cases, when those entities refuse to make available artistic endeavors for public consumption, I have ZERO sympathy for their hue and cry when they say "Someone's leaking old copyrighted material so the public can enjoy it."

I don't know why they elect to withhold older art from public consumption. Do they think old Shadow radio programs will triple in value like old Rembrandts might? (Psst - Conde Nasty - they are NOT the same thing! Think of it more like farmers consider seeds and harvesting - if you don't plant seeds to keep interest alive, the public will find interest in other consumables. And as the older citizenry dies off, older artforms lose their long-held fan base.)

Moor Larkin

I think I agree wholeheartedly with that. I have recently taken issue with an entire downloaded episode of Danger Man on Googlytube. I couldn't see any good reason to justify that, as you can easily buy the relevant episode on dvd.

On the other hand there are a few pirate suppliers of McGoohan's older movies, such as 'High Tide at Noon', which have never been released anywhere and are never on TV (apart from Australia, I've noticed... ).
I find it difficult to find it in my heart to morally condemn them.

I still cannot fathom how, (notwithstanding senior member comments on this Forum) if a piratical individual can make a copy available for a few pounds or dollars in his living-room, why any Company could not do the same thing.

It might be poor quality, as some mentioned earlier in this Thread are, but I wouldn't mind, I would just like to be able to view what I'm enthusiastic about, whatever its condition.