Film Collector Amnesty

On Oct 23, 12:01 am, StormChaser <ringpr... DeleteThis @surfglobal.net> wrote:

> Has there ever been a program created by the studios
> to waive prosecution and still allow some ownership
> of property by the collector?

Of course not...specifically authorizing the possession of copyrighted
film prints would have undermined the studios' claims of
infringement.

> Who knows how many prints of silent films were destroyed
> because a film collector feared an imagined Sing-Sing sentence.

Almost certainly none. During the bad old days of FBI busts, the
MPPA wasn't interested in prints of silent movies; the effort was
directed to breaking up widespread piracy of films that still had
commercial value. Vintage films were confiscated when they were
part of larger collections containing recent films as well.

It took the feds some time to figure out that some 16mm prints were
owned legitimately: prints originating from companies like Blackhawk,
rental-library prints sold off after the expiration of their life-of-
print
leases, public-domain dupes, etc. But eventually they did.

Vintage-film dupers were targeted, but in these cases the feds were
prosecuting on the basis of unauthorized duplication rather than
simple possession.

Some collectors remember that whole campaign as something akin
to the Spanish Inquisition, but there was very real justification for
the
feds to take action. Pirates were duping brand-new, mainsream
Hollywood releases and selling the prints to countries that the
studios
boycotted, like South Africa. I know a guy who spent 18 months in
the pen for doing precisely that. When the MPAA and their mouthpiece,
Jack Valenti, raised enough of a stink about it, the feds were forced
to
go on the warpath. But, as is so often the case when the government
gets involved, the DoJ overreacted hysterically and minor collectors
got lumped in with big-time pirates, just because they had foolishly
purchased a dupe of, say, FANTASIA, or something more recent, like
JAWS or BLAZING SADDLES.

> Bottom line concerns should, for once, be re-prioritized
> for the grander cause.

You don't get it: to Hollywood, concern for the bottom line IS the
grander cause.
 >> Stay informed about: Film Collector Amnesty 

On Oct 23, 12:01 am, StormChaser <ringpr....DeleteThis@surfglobal.net> wrote:
> Has a studio ever granted amnesty to film collectors?
> Has there ever been a program created by the studios
> to waive prosecution and still allow some ownership
> of property by the collector?
>
> Who knows how many prints of silent films were destroyed
> because a film collector feared an imagined Sing-Sing sentence.
>
> If there is any films left from the silent era out there
> how effective would a joint studio effort be to find them?
>
> IMHO, this should be an effort to preserve film history.
> Bottom line concerns should, for once, be re-prioritized
> for the grander cause.

Even Roddy McDowall got caught up as movie studios in the 70s tried to
prevent their movie prints being owned by outsiders. As films the
studios had on acetate "safety" fim slowly turned to vinegar, the
studios had other concerns, stopping people from making videos from
their movies. 60 Minutes had a story back then that mentioned that
video copies of Superman (with Christopher Reeves) were selling for
$1,000.

The funny in an odd way thing about the McDowell case was that he
thought (or at least he said) that he could preserve the movies by
transferring them to videotape. I wonder what happened to his
videotapes, if any of them lasted for 40 years and how they would look
now.

>From Wikipedia:

In 1974, the FBI raided the home of McDowall and seized the actor's
collection of films and television series in the course of an
investigation of movie piracy and copyright infringement. His
collection consisted of 160 16 mm prints and over 1,000
videocassettes, at a time before the era of videotapes when there was
no legal aftermarket for films. (Copying or selling prints obtained
from studios without owning the copyright was illegal).
 >> Stay informed about: Film Collector Amnesty 

>
> In 1974, the FBI raided the home of McDowall and seized the actor's
> collection of films and television series in the course of an
> investigation of movie piracy and copyright infringement. His
> collection consisted of 160 16 mm prints and over 1,000
> videocassettes, at a time before the era of videotapes when there was
> no legal aftermarket for films. (Copying or selling prints obtained
> from studios without owning the copyright was illegal).


Exactly the jack-booted thug behavoir that make collectors not
wish to reveal their inventory or even mention one. Roddie
McDowall was high profile and look at the treatment he
received.

Now is the time for any nitrate is still in hiding to
be found, catalogued and preserved.

Raiding the homes of collectors is not the way to find it.

IMHO, even at this late date, there is still some nitrate out there
yet to be discovered.
 >> Stay informed about: Film Collector Amnesty 

On Oct 23, 10:05 pm, StormChaser <ringpr... RemoveThis @surfglobal.net> wrote:
> > In 1974, the FBI raided the home of McDowall and seized the actor's
> > collection of films and television series in the course of an
> > investigation of movie piracy and copyright infringement. His
> > collection consisted of 160 16 mm prints and over 1,000
> > videocassettes, at a time before the era of videotapes when there was
> > no legal aftermarket for films. (Copying or selling prints obtained
> > from studios without owning the copyright was illegal).
>
> Exactly the jack-booted thug behavoir that make collectors not
> wish to reveal their inventory or even mention one. Roddie
> McDowall was high profile and look at the treatment he
> received.
>
> Now is the time for any nitrate is still in hiding to
> be found, catalogued and preserved.
>
> Raiding the homes of collectors is not the way to find it.
>
> IMHO, even at this late date, there is still some nitrate out there
> yet to be discovered.
Oh absolutely....and sometimes in mint condition too. Remember, some
nitrate holds up better than safety prints in amateur storage
settings.
 >> Stay informed about: Film Collector Amnesty 

"Ed Hulse" <bnteditor.RemoveThis@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1193147702.439398.322150@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> It took the feds some time to figure out that some 16mm prints were
> owned legitimately: prints originating from companies like Blackhawk,
> rental-library prints sold off after the expiration of their life-of-
> print leases, public-domain dupes, etc. But eventually they did.

1975 was the year of the court decision in American-International Pictures,
Columbia Pictures Industries, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Twentieth Century-Fox,
Walt Disney Productions and United Artists vs. Evan H. Foreman [dba 16mm
Filmland], et al. In that particular case, the court recognized that prints
that had been ex-rentals and ex-television prints were legal if the language
in the contracts made the transfer of the prints amount to a sale. The
court decision quotes some specific instances of wording in the contracts
that made this so. You can read a summary at
http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c12B.html#s757

Further up on the same web page you can read a summary of a lawsuit against
John Hampton, the founder of the Silent Movie Theater. He had legally
obtained prints, but was sued for showing them to an audience without
authorization of Paramount. (Paramount actually was nicer than they could
have been: Paramount sued for only the most recent unauthorized showings
even though they knew of other instances that were still within the statute
of limitations. [There were even other showings before then that had gone
beyond the statute of limitations.])

--
David Hayes

Remove director name from address when responding privately.
 >> Stay informed about: Film Collector Amnesty