Posted by Steve on 07/17/06 21:52

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:43:59 -0400, Kimba W. Lion
<KimbaWLion@noemail.com> wrote:

>Steve <jazzhunter@atcollectorAGAIN.org> wrote:
>
>>It took two
>>million dollars to restore "Sunset Boulevard" because no decent
>>elements had survived due to several changes in the library ownership.
>>Having a studio own the rights to a film means that film remains
>>protected.
>
>Don't you see that you just contradicted yourself? Rights and studios are
>bought and sold continually and things do get lost in the shuffle.

No, I'm aware of "Sunset Boulevard" being a famous exception to the
rule. The loss of "Sunset Boulevard" shows just how important it is
to protect ones film properties. The point was that bad source
elements can't be made miraculously perfect again without more work
than could be done by any PD releasing firm, thus it's best to keep
control of the property if possible. Turner/MGM/Warner have nearly
all their prints in good condition because they kept active copyrights
on their films and expected to make money down the road on reissues,
even before the home video age. RKO's films are in much worse
condition because the many changes in studio ownership did mean that
there was no consistent plan for preservation of their libraries. The
best example of the opposite is Disney, they're the toughest of all
studios on prosecuting violations of their copyrights and also have
the best condition library.
>
>Who owns the US rights to a film close to my heart, "Christian the Lion"?
>No one seems to know, so the only way anyone can possibly see it is via one
>of the PD releases that have been made over the years. The US videos were
>made from a worn, edited print, but it's a choice between the film being
>seen in some form, or lost.
>
>For other films, the key is an educated consumer. If the same film were to
>be available on a Warners DVD and a Madacy DVD, which would be the better
>choice? Know your labels.
>
>At least two TV series that I know of had their master negatives destroyed
>but have been restored using materials in private hands since both TV series
>have fallen into the public domain.
>
>There is at least one company dealing with PD films and doing an amazing job
>of restoring them: Legend Films.
>
>Public domain is a good thing and that's why it was written into the
>copyright laws. Recent changes to those laws, that diminish PD, are insane.

You're confusing PD with release availablilty. Of COURSE if no studio
claims ownership of a film it's up to a PD label to release it. But
if the studio DOES own a film then they would do the best job of
releasing it, per your own Warner versus Madacy example.

... Steve ..

[Back to original message]