I was reading else where that this film is now in the public domain. Is this actually true (at least in the United States)? There are web sites that allow you to view the film through streaming. No one ever bought the rights to this after RKO went under?
"By the pricking of my thumbs
Something wicked this way comes."
--MacBeth
It's not public domain. It's currently owned by WB.
shareThis film was never in public domain. There used to be a law that would put movies in public domain after 56 years (which wold make this public domain in 2007) however they changed it to 95 years becasue somone was too greedy to let go of their works and instead wants to nether sell them nor let other people share them.
and thants to that and the 2008 year addition allowing to reclaim works under copyright, we now are still stuck in 1935 on a cultural freedom level. i would suggest putting the quesiton up on your government representative, but then the chance that he doesnt sit in the pocket of the companie thatp fotis form tihs law is low anyway.
----------
"Common sense is not so common."
- Voltaire
That's *beep* You're either a moron or a socialist.
Let's put it in a different perspective. Let's say you take your hard earned savings and start a company of your own. It's your company, you bought and paid for it, you own it. It's how you feed your family, pay your bills, keep a roof over your head. How would you feel if in 56 years the government came and said "OK, you've had this place long enough. Now get lost, it now belongs to the public". That would suck wouldn't it.
Intellectual property is the same thing. Instead of toiling in a factory, people create things. whether it be art, music, movies or even just ideas. It's how they make their living. No different than running a privately owned hardware store, food store, home builder and so on. And it doesn't matter if it's owned by some little neighborhood guy or a billion dollar corporation. It's still private property.
"Life's tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne
if you fail to understand the importance of free acess to culture and history, be it books, newspapers, movies or whatever then you are the moron here. there is no way to compare the examples that you took. you create a movie and thats it. your work is done, from that point you just cash in (or n most cases dont) on the movie you created before. even if you dont care about it, they still cant use it, and movies simply dissapear. in the factory example you are working there, every day, for 56 years, creating items or whatever. the two are uncomparable. intelectual property is not the same as physical property. its about time quite a few people start to understand that.
----------
"Common sense is not so common."
- Voltaire
That's right. It's my movie. And as long as I renew the copyright protections on my creations, whatever they may be. If I want it to disappear, then it's gone. It's my possession, whether it's a physical factory or store, or an intellectual item like a movie or an idea for a better mousetrap.
"Life's tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne
Just as a hypothetical:
What if you as the owner of the movie make it "disappear"? That is, you decide that no one can ever show it again. And in response, someone makes a similar movie. Do you feel you have a right to prohibit by legal means the showing of that movie - to force it back into the can, so to speak?
Werewolves Ate My Platoon!share
>>>Just as a hypothetical:
What if you as the owner of the movie make it "disappear"? That is, you decide that no one can ever show it again. And in response, someone makes a similar movie. Do you feel you have a right to prohibit by legal means the showing of that movie - to force it back into the can, so to speak?<<<
I'm sure it would be fought out in court. But if enough of my idea has been lifted, and used somewhere else. Yes, I would have a case to have it prohibited, be paid damages or both. It doesn't matter whether I have buried it or not. It happens all the time in the music industry.
I will add that there numerous cases over the years where someone writes a song or tune that they think is original, only to get sued after it's published. Because they didn't realize that the had heard it before, and that it was just stuck in their subconscious mind. They still have to pay. There's a name for that I can't remember.
"Life's tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne
shut up you idiot.
shareFeel better now?
A couple of thoughts (with apologies for a long post):
First, as someone said above, The Thing is not in public domain; it's controlled by Warner Bros. now. (Oddly, though, in Britain all RKO films, including this one, are released on DVD by Universal. Don't know how this came about, or whether Universal owns the films in the UK.)
Second, the potential conflict between owning intellectual property (basically including art of any kind) through copyright and granting access to it is a tricky one. Does someone have the right to buy a film and then hide it away? Morally, in my view, no. Legally, probably. But there is a difference (again, morally, if not legally) between intellectual property and other materials, like inventions and so on, that can be copyrighted.
Anyway, let's look at this from a narrow perspective -- film.
In terms of film, experience shows that when a movie falls into p.d., its quality suffers tremendously. Look at the output from Alpha Video, which releases p.d. stuff exclusively. The quality of their prints is generally lousy, and the same goes for other p.d. leeches...though it's also true that, on the upside, these companies release a lot of movies you'd probably never otherwise see.
However, you can best see this problem of quality in major studio films whose studios somehow failed to renew their copyrights. (In the late 70s and early 80s MGM failed to renew their rights to a number of their films made between 1946 and 1954, including several major musicals as well as films starring Spencer Tracy, Elizabeth Taylor, Van Johnson and other big stars; the same happened to a few Fox films from the same period.) These films were snapped up by p.d. outfits, but the prints they use are degraded, cut and generally terrible. But people forget that even though a studio may have lost its exclusive right to a film, it still has the same right as anyone else to release it on DVD, which means using the original print, which they still own. WB (which owns the MGM library) has released DVDs of some of these p.d. MGM films with excellent prints.
So is a firm specializing in p.d. films morally obligated to use the best prints they can? Or are they just in it to make a quick buck, so any shoddy print will do? Some companies do put out high-quality prints of public domain films, but many don't. What is their obligation to art -- to "intellectual property"?
Finally, does holding the right to a film give the owner the right to do anything he wants to it? Bad enough if they withdraw it. Much worse is when they change it: colorize it, replace the music score, digitally edit or change the images, add or delete scenes or dialogue, change the credits, whatever -- all of which is now technically feasible and has in fact been done to some films. Does Wade Williams have the right to cut scenes from Rocketship X-M, film new stuff and insert it in its place, and refuse to make the original available, just because he now owns the rights? Legally, perhaps. Morally, artistically, ethically, no, he does not.
Access to art, and even more importantly, maintaining the integrity of art, is critical to any society. This is why the Library of Congress adds motion pictures to the National Film Registry every year, to protect them from the commercial vandalism of the greedy and stupid. But it's an age-old fight. Ownership of art is different than owning the patent to a product or process, and there are no clean answers. But the public should be able to rely on something more tangible than an individual's good faith to keep art, or (in this case) films, unchanged and widely available to the public.
Again, sorry for the length, but I think this is an important issue not given to soundbites.
So you agree with me on the legalities. And I agree with you and the other poster. It is silly to let something sit in a vault to be forgotten or decayed. But at the end of the day, it still belongs to someone. And as long as they renew the copyrights, it's theirs to do what they please. Whether the public likes it or not.
Yes, we agree on the legalities, but in my opinion there are issues that go beyond viewing this in just that narrow context. For instance, my point about the National Film Registry is that, while it acknowledges ownership rights, it also mandates that nothing can be done to alter the films thereby registered. That's why I said that the case of film, or art in general, there are no easy, clean answers, because this issue goes beyond strict legalities. For the record, I'm all in favor of private ownership, but I like to see it accompanied by personal responsibility and respect for the integrity of what one owns.
shareI'm not 100% sure, ordinarily I would look up something before posting. But I would guess that the National Filn Registry would be a voluntary thing on the part of the active copyright holders. And I'm not sure what the NFR is permitted to do with active copyrighted materials they might have. Library of Congress keeps film also, but only in public domain.
As far as "private ownership with rules on personal responsibility with respect for integrity of posessions". Not in America. It goes against core beliefs. If you own it, you can do what you want with it. As long as you give the mafia(Govt.) their cut(taxes/fees). And you don't negatively impact the public or environment.
As far as "private ownership with rules on personal responsibility with respect for integrity of posessions". Not in America. It goes against core beliefs.You have misquoted the poster above. He/she did not say anything about "rules." What he/she actually said is:
For the record, I'm all in favor of private ownership, but I like to see it accompanied by personal responsibility and respect for the integrity of what one owns.And the misquote appears to be intentional. Rather than copy and paste, you re-typed what was written, added words and changed the meaning of what was said so that you could repeat an idea that fits with your idealogy.
Somedays it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.share
You are correct. I misunderstood what the poster stated.
shareYes, efs2 is correct. I said nothing about "rules", and I think was very clear. What I said was basically in the way of expressing the hope that people who owned something were respectful toward it and did nothing to alter, destroy or make unavailable the art they own solely because they had the money to acquire it.
With respect, this "This is America" stuff is somewhat demagogic and is not an answer to the difficult matter I raised. I believe anyone who owns any work of art has a moral or ethical responsibility to protect it and make it available to the public, and to pass it on to future generations unchanged and intact. Perhaps this cannot be legally enforced but I believe it is an obligation on the part of the owner...and more profitable for him to do so, if it comes to that.
I'm not sure the NFR requires the cooperation of copyright holders to place films on the registry. Also, I don't believe the Library of Congress holds or protects only films that are in the public domain, though many are. Last week TCM ran 24 hours of films newly restored and protected by the LOC, and I know for a fact that many, at least, are owned by various companies.
Yes. I misinterpreted what you said. I also agree with you that things should be preseved somehow(and protected from hacks). George Lucas' reimaging of Star Wars is a perfect example. Also the Warner Bros. cartoons from the golden age that were deemed racist or offensive were not restored with the rest of the catalogue when released to DVD. A lot of those cartoons were important political commentary to WWII or a still segregated south.
" "This is America" stuff is somewhat demagogic " Once again I agree with you, but unfortunately for some, it is what it is.
I was also incorrect on LoC. Quit the opposite. It's actually a copyright repository. I don't know why, but I thought it was the last resort for old, obsolete or out of print materials.
I quite agree with you about this editing, or burying, of even things like the great old WB cartoons. This is a travesty. It's not always even racial. I remember one cartoon, about Elmer Fudd struggling to give his dog a bath while a flea digs into the dog's skin, which ends with the flea taking both Elmer and the dog off for his repast. His cat watches this take place, then turns to the camera and says, "Well, now I've seen everything!" whereupon he pulls out a gun and shoots himself in the head. Admittedly this is pretty brutal stuff, but as a 5-year-old I thought nothing of it, and I'm sure audiences in 1942 found it unremarkable and amusing. (Tastes change.) But when I happened to see this cartoon several years ago on TBS, the "suicide" ending was now cut; the cartoon ends with the cat's statement. I guess they're protecting our kids from taking the "easy" way out!
Years ago The Disney Channel edited out the scene in Mister Roberts where he and Doc makle fake scotch for Pulver to ply the nurse with. (I wrote a thread about this on that site.) Apparently Disney didn't want hordes of kiddies making phony scotch out of iodine and hair tonic.
I also agree about what Lucas (and Spielberg) keep doing to their films. You'd think they know better, especially Spielberg, who's very big on film preservation. This continual, obsessive screwing-around with their films, changing things, adding things, deleting things, is annoying and unnecessary. They seem to be of a mind that simply because they have the technical means of altering their films they should do so.
Even artistically this is silly. Lucas seems to think that by digitally adding hundreds of extra star fighters to Star Wars he was making the scenes more exciting. Like other filmmakers of his era (John Landis comes to mind), he is under the delusional belief that excess is better: if one spaceship is a threat, a hundred are a hundred times scarier. Spielberg digitally removed the guns from the officers in ET and changed them to walkie-talkies. When preparing the Blu-ray, he polled viewers as to whether to add that version to the Blu-ray release. The response was overwhelmingly negative, and he's since apologized for changing it in the first place.
(Look at how Landis drowned The Blues Brothers's final chase scenes in excess: how many crashing cars are truly funny? Though at least that's the way he filmed it to begin with: he didn't digitally add a hundred more to a later print...not that I want to give him any ideas.)
"I guess they're protecting our kids from taking the "easy" way out!"
I don't know if you agree with that mindset, I think it's rediculous. I grew up with all those violent, racist cartoons in the 1970's. The racism went right past me, and the violence? Well, I never for a second believed it was OK to shoot my friend in the face with a shotgun. It's just more mindless, sheltered political correctness.
And you totally missed the point on the Blues Brothers. The chase and car wrecks were't really the gag, EXCESS WAS THE GAG. That movie came out in the wake of all those rediculous car movies and tv shows, like Smokey and the Bandit, Cannonball Run and Dukes of Hazzard. I believe that was Landis' little parody or commentary on that. Kind of like today's Scary Movie or Naked Gun movies parody stupid horror movies and detective shows.
I got it, and thought it was great.
I agree that the excess in TBB in itself was meant as a gag -- but not as a parody, at least not primarily. In any case, it wasn't funny. It was just a great, big mess. Even a parody has to be done with some restraint. Not to mention it got boring very fast. But then, The Blues Brothers was overlong and overrated.
Also, I think it was clear from what I said that I don't agree with the mindset that censors those cartoons. That's why I was mocking what they did, as the sentence you quoted makes obvious. I agree with you that such things are ridiculous.
"I guess they're protecting our kids from taking the "easy" way out!"Obviously the racism didn't get past you at all. Anyone who sees anti-racism campaigns as forms of political correctness is insensitive towards those affected by racism. share
I don't know if you agree with that mindset, I think it's rediculous. I grew up with all those violent, racist cartoons in the 1970's. The racism went right past me... It's just more mindless, sheltered political correctness.