public domain (1 Viewer)

[jimmyjet]

But this seems to imply that if you take a PD title, clean it up, HD it and sell it then it's still PD. Which means I can buy a copy of your cleaned up HD'd disk and start duplicating it and selling it and you have no recourse. What, if anything, am I missing?

this is precisely what they are saying. and precisely what i would like to change.

 

[Rick Thompson]

Well the movie "it's a wonderful life" was brought out of pd and back to copyright protection.

Actually, the film never went out of public domain. What someone realized was the Philip Van Doren Stern story on which the movie is based WAS still under copyright, and so no one could make copies of the movie without getting permission from the holder of that copyright (Republic Pictures). Ditto the Dimitri Tiomkin musical score, to which Republic had the exclusive rights. That brought a screeching halt to all those awful transfers.

 

[Brian Himes]

But this seems to imply that if you take a PD title, clean it up, HD it and sell it then it's still PD. Which means I can buy a copy of your cleaned up HD'd disk and start duplicating it and selling it and you have no recourse. What, if anything, am I missing?

This is 100% correct. There is not one thing that I can do to stop you from copying and selling my HD transfer of any public domain film or TV show. I didn't change anything about the original elements. I only cleaned them up and restored them to their original condition (or close to it). This is why studios that own the original material (either video tape, 16mm or 35mm) are unwilling to put forth any effort or money towards restoring and releasing anything that has fallen into the public domain.

 

[Brian Himes]

Jimmy, in an ideal world, the newly restored HD transfer should be copyright protected, but at this time it is not. As long as the original film or TV show is in the public domain, anyone can make copies of it and sell them. Any cost in time, effort, or money spent cleaning up and restoring the film or TV show in public domain is pretty much wasted. Sad but true.

 

[jimmyjet]

at least with mrfd, this is only a minor problem.

but certainly with shows where all or most of the seasons have gone pd, it is a crucial problem.

 

[jimmyjet]

Jimmy, in an ideal world, the newly restored HD transfer should be copyright protected, but at this time it is not. As long as the original film or TV show is in the public domain, anyone can make copies of it and sell them. Any cost in time, effort, or money spent cleaning up and restoring the film or TV show in public domain is pretty much wasted. Sad but true.

it would not surprise me in the least, to find out that copyright protection is eventually given to this level of restoration.

i asked this question somewhere else, but i have not heard a reply ?

do you know if it is an easy straight-forward process to simply copy a 35mm film to a digital medium ? not restoring it. just simply copying the info, so that at least we dont have to worry about film degradation.

 

[Brian Himes]

do you know if it is an easy straight-forward process to simply copy a 35mm film to a digital medium ? not restoring it. just simply copying the info, so that at least we dont have to worry about film degradation.

Sorry but I do not.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

do you know if it is an easy straight-forward process to simply copy a 35mm film to a digital medium ? not restoring it. just simply copying the info, so that at least we dont have to worry about film degradation.

It should be relatively easy if the elements are in good enough shape that they can be run through a scanner. Some older and/or improperly stored film elements can degrade, shrink, warp, or start to go bad in various other ways that can make scanning the film a less straightforward process. I know a tiny bit about the process and I don't want to give the wrong impression that it's the simplest thing in the world, but just doing the scan in and of itself should be a pretty straight-forward process that many labs are equipped to handle.

The more wear and tear the film has, the more damage on the film itself, that's when it starts getting a litle more complicated. There are some more expensive processes (like wet-gate scanning) that can be done to minimize how much of that damage on the film appears in the scan, and it can be both easier in the long run and less expensive overall to spend a little more on a better quality scan than it would be to do a simpler scan and try to fix the material digitally.

I think it's really fascinating stuff.

 

[jimmyjet]

thanks josh,

well hopefully the owners are at least saving their stuff digitally.

and the sooner the better. cuz it seems the longer they wait, the more problems they will encounter.

i have every confidence that the copyright situation will improve for hd or dvd transfers, for that matter.

blu-ray is great. but i dont think it is tremendously better than dvd.

however, watching this stuff today on dvd versus the old television clarity is night and day.

i actually like colorization. lots of people complain about it looking fake, etc. but it does not appear that way to me.

but i think hd restoration to a film is many times more important to the average public than colorization is. for me, too.

we are talking about a process that creates a lot of added value to the public. to have copyright laws that basically keep this added value from the public is A TREMENDOUS OVERSIGHT, to say the least.

 

[jimmyjet]

http://www.pictureshowman.com/articles_restprev_negsprints.cfm

Digital Transfer:
If a movie is going to be "restored", the negative of the movie, or the best print available, is reconstructed and each frame is scanned and converted into a high–definition digital image that can be viewed on a computer. Using mathematical algorithms and other software, while comparing each frame with the frames on either side of it, tears, splotches, scratches, dust motes, and other unwanted visual defects are digitally removed from each frame. After this is done, the brightness, contrast, and color (if necessary) of each frame is digitally adjusted. Once each frame of the movie has been corrected and restored, the entire film is then transferred from the computer to either a master DVD, a high–definition videotape, or rephotographed back onto a reel of film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_colorization

To perform digital colorization, a digitized copy of the best monochrome film print available is needed. Technicians, with the aid of computer software, associate a range of gray levels to each object, and indicate to the computer any movement of the objects within a shot. The software also is capable of sensing variations in the light level from frame to frame and correcting it if necessary. The technician selects a color for each object based on (1) common "memory" colors such as blue sky, white clouds, flesh tones and green grass, and (2) based on any known information about the movie. For example, if there are color publicity photos or props from the movie available to examine, authentic colors may be applied. (3) In the absence of any better information, the technician chooses a color that fits the gray level and that the technician feels is consistent with what a director might have chosen for the scene. The computer software then associates a variation of the basic color with each gray level in the object, while keeping intensity levels the same as in the monochrome original. The software then follows each object from frame to frame, applying the same color until the object leaves the frame. As new objects come into the frame, the technician must associate colors to each new object in the same way as described above.[5] This technique was patented in 1991.[6]
A major difficulty with this process is its labor-intensity. For example, in order to colorize a still image an artist typically begins by dividing the image into regions, and then assigning a color to each region. This approach, also known as the segmentation method, is time consuming, as the process of dividing the picture into correct segments is painstaking. This problem occurs mainly because there have been no fully automatic algorithms to identify fuzzy or complex region boundaries, such as between a subject’s hair and face. Colorization of moving images also requires tracking regions as movement occurs from one frame to the next (motion compensation). There are several companies which claim to have produced automatic region-tracking algorithms.

 

[jimmyjet]

the above are both time consuming TECHNICAL PROCESSES.

it is RIDICULOUS to assign "creativeness" to one, and not the other.

if i was the owner of various films that i wanted to restore, i am pretty sure that i could successfully fight this.

 

[Professor Echo]

Actually, the film never went out of public domain. What someone realized was the Philip Van Doren Stern story on which the movie is based WAS still under copyright, and so no one could make copies of the movie without getting permission from the holder of that copyright (Republic Pictures). Ditto the Dimitri Tiomkin musical score, to which Republic had the exclusive rights. That brought a screeching halt to all those awful transfers.

It was all those awful transfers and numerous PD airings on cheap local TV stations that brought the film back to life. Prior to that time in the late 70's-early 80's the only people who cared about or even remembered the movie were ardent film buffs. It rarely played on television before that. Once the floodgates opened and it packed TV stations every Christmas season, people embraced it. Were it not for the awful transfers, the film would be largely forgotten today.

 

[jimmyjet]

interesting

miracle on 34th st, wonderful life and holiday inn are my 3 favorite xmas movies

i have seen them so often, that i dont have any recall when i first started watching them

i do recall stewart talking about it (probably saw a you-tube video) - saying no one was thinking it was gonna be a huge hit

 

[Vic Pardo]

thanks josh,

well hopefully the owners are at least saving their stuff digitally.

and the sooner the better. cuz it seems the longer they wait, the more problems they will encounter.

i have every confidence that the copyright situation will improve for hd or dvd transfers, for that matter.

blu-ray is great. but i dont think it is tremendously better than dvd.

however, watching this stuff today on dvd versus the old television clarity is night and day.

i actually like colorization. lots of people complain about it looking fake, etc. but it does not appear that way to me.

but i think hd restoration to a film is many times more important to the average public than colorization is. for me, too.

we are talking about a process that creates a lot of added value to the public. to have copyright laws that basically keep this added value from the public is A TREMENDOUS OVERSIGHT, to say the least.

Forgive me, but I think missed a stop on the logic train here. How exactly does a copyright law discourage high-def film restoration?

 

[jimmyjet]

this discussion is assuming that hd restoration has no copyright protection.

so anyone could then steal another's work.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Forgive me, but I think missed a stop on the logic train here. How exactly does a copyright law discourage high-def film restoration?

It doesn't for films under copyright.

I believe the original poster was talking about films in the public domain. The studio who originally produced the film and owned the physical negative wouldn't be protected from others taking their restoration work and slapping it onto their own disc and selling it for less. For instance, Sony might not want to spend a fortune on doing a "His Girl Friday" 4K restoration, because the film itself is in the public domain and as copyright law is written, the restoration would not be protected under copyright law -- any unscrupulous third party label could buy a copy of the disc, extract the movie from the disc, and make their own disc using that restoration which might have cost the studio hundreds of thousands to do, and there would be no legal recourse for Sony. If someone else could steal Sony's work and sell it as their own, legally, Sony loses the financial incentive to do the work. I think that's what the OP was talking about.

 

[Professor Echo]

i do recall stewart talking about it (probably saw a you-tube video) - saying no one was thinking it was gonna be a huge hit

The movie was not a hit at all when it was released. It was considered a flop. It wasn't until it fell into the public domain and began airing over and over again every Christmas that it became such a beloved classic. Although not public domain, the same can be said for the perennial A CHRISTMAS STORY, which disappeared from theaters after a week, but found a passionate, devoted following after cable TV started showing it in 24 hour marathons every Christmas.

 

[jimmyjet]

i should have been more clear

stewart was not saying that it was a big hit, when released

he just said they shot it very matter-of-factly

no special treatment was given

it was simply a movie that the studio was filming

probably no extra advertising, etc.

 

[jimmyjet]

does anyone have a list of shows that are in pd ?

it doesnt have to be complete

i was just interested in a ballpark - 1 ? 10 ? 100 ?

and how many of them are or were at all well-known ?

i am not interested in every show that might have had a few airings ?

 

[Silverking]

There is a list on Wikipedia .