"A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution (1 Viewer)

[Joe Caps]

YIIIIIIkes. JOhn MOr, please read my previous posts. This is NOT a collector, sitting on something just to say he has it.

As I have explained several times, no one claims this came out of a dumpster !!!!
But from a dealer, who was the only one who had any leads to a true uncut print (in fact three are in this collection).
This person tried to have it restored through the Academy with the help of Roddy MacDowall and it all came to a halt with Roddys death.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Of course they do! They own the copyright to the entire film. If this print was put up on eBay, Warner could immediately have it pulled on the grounds that they own the copyright to it and they never sold it (because films were only rented).

WB owns the copyright on the film, but if they threw the physical PRINT out in the trash, there's nothing they can do to get it back.
And contrary to popular opinion, prints WERE sold of WB films by AAP when they acquired the library.

 

[BethHarrison]

Originally Posted by Jack Theakston

WB owns the copyright on the film, but if they threw the physical PRINT out in the trash, there's nothing they can do to get it back.
And contrary to popular opinion, prints WERE sold of WB films by AAP when they acquired the library.

My understanding is that A.A.P. prints were used for TV syndication, again, that is a limited license in order for material to be broadcast on TV. It doesn't mean the studio has handed over copyright to the entire film so it can be exploited on any format forever.

If the full print of A Star is Born was dumped in the trash, then whoever picked it out of the trash wouldn't own the copyright, and would have absolutely no right to screen it publicly without paying Warner a royalty.

If they tried to sell the print that they found in the trash, Warner could sue them on the grounds that they can't make money selling something that they don't own the copyright to.

If Warner sold the print to them, again, that still doesn't give the person the copyright to the film and wouldn't enable them to screen it without paying Warner a royalty every time it was shown. (Just like buying a CD doesn't give you the copyright to the music on the disc and doesn't make it legal for you to play it publically.)

Another issue would be that the Garland estate, for example, could probably sue someone trying to sell such a print on the grounds that it contains Garland's image (literally and figuratively), that the person selling the print has no legal right to exploit in order to make money.

If someone ever tried to make money out of an uncut print of A Star is Born, Warner would have dozens of legal avenues to have the material returned to the studio.

 

[Jack Theakston]

You're obviously not versed with the fact that on the side, AAP would regularly sell prints of the pre-1948 films that they bought complete and outright from Warner Brothers (and that WB bought back years later). You wanted ROBIN HOOD in an IB print? If you forked out the money, they'd have Technicolor strike you a new one.

You're also reading something into my posts that I have not said. All I'm saying is that if there is someone out there with additional material, they're not obliged to give the studio that threw it out anything-- it is no longer their physical property, even though it's got their copyrighted data on it.

 

[BethHarrison]

Originally Posted by Jack Theakston

You're obviously not versed with the fact that on the side, AAP would regularly sell prints of the pre-1948 films that they bought complete and outright from Warner Brothers (and that WB bought back years later). You wanted ROBIN HOOD in an IB print? If you forked out the money, they'd have Technicolor strike you a new one.

That's fine, but the print would only be able to be used under extremely limited circumstances. It doesn't mean they have a license to use the print when and wherever they like. In exactly what circumstances it could be used would be passed on the original contract it was sold under.

 

[ahollis]

Back in the days of Film Transit (Film Inspection), a company that had license to deliver film prints to theatres and store the prints for future bookings, also their agreement included destroying prints that the studio deemed useless. It is well known fact that most of the Film Transit depots across the country just threw the prints into the dumpster.

They always laughed that after throwing many reels of film in to the dumpster one afternoon, the next day the reels were gone. Always in the hands of a collector from dumpster surfing over night.

But even though the prints were placed in the dumpster, Film Transit did not honor their agreement to destroy the prints, so the prints do not belong to the collector. They are still the property of the film studio.
This, by the way is one of the reasons the film companies started using Technicolor to deliver prints. They felt they had more control of the prints. Film Transit (Film Inspection) went out of business in the late 90's. When they did, creditors found thousands of prints in a Los Angles warehouse and tried to make claim that the prints were their property to sell and help pay debt, but a court ruled that the prints were still the property of the film studios even though the paperwork said those prints were destroyed.

 

[Jack Theakston]

That's fine, but the print would only be able to be used under extremely limited circumstances. It doesn't mean they have a license to use the print when and wherever they like. In exactly what circumstances it could be used would be passed on the original contract it was sold under.

YES, we've established that. Please read my posts completely before replying to them. Nowhere in my posts am I talking about using these prints for public screenings.

I will make it clear-- when a studio throws something out in the garbage and it is salvaged, or when a print is legally sold to a collector, the studio has absolutely NO control in retrieving said prints because it is now the physical property of whomever's possession it's in.

 

[JoeDoakes]

Originally Posted by Joe Caps



YIIIIIIkes. JOhn MOr, please read my previous posts. This is NOT a collector, sitting on something just to say he has it.

As I have explained several times, no one claims this came out of a dumpster !!!!
But from a dealer, who was the only one who had any leads to a true uncut print (in fact three are in this collection).
This person tried to have it restored through the Academy with the help of Roddy MacDowall and it all came to a halt with Roddys death.

I understand why your friend does not want to give away what he worked to get for nothing in return. I also understand why Warner does not want to part with cash (especially in this economy) to obtain something they may feel they already paid for once. How about a compromise to please everyone (especially me). Assuming your friend does not need the money, perhaps he could agree to turn over the print if Warner agrees to put it on home video and give Fox a release for whatever rights Warner has to put out the 1960s Batman show on DVD. That way your friend gets something unlikely to occur otherwise and Warner gets the print without parting with cash. If you don't like my offer, substitute something of your own that will benefit the public.

 

[Joe Caps]

What the frig are you talking about Fox and Batman in releatinshop to the Star is Born prints?
I think its time to retier from this chat board.

 

[Robin9]

Originally Posted by Joe Caps

What the frig are you talking about Fox and Batman in releatinshop to the Star is Born prints?
I think its time to retier from this chat board.

Please do not retire from this chat board. Your input is valued.

 

[JoeDoakes]

Sorry if you don't like Batman. My only point was that if your friend requested something that did not require outlays of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from WHV, WHV might respond more favorably. Of course, that assumes that your friend really doesn't need the money.

 

Originally Posted by Jack Theakston



YES, we've established that. Please read my posts completely before replying to them. Nowhere in my posts am I talking about using these prints for public screenings.

I will make it clear-- when a studio throws something out in the garbage and it is salvaged, or when a print is legally sold to a collector, the studio has absolutely NO control in retrieving said prints because it is now the physical property of whomever's possession it's in.

I am most likely wrong here but I thought even discared footage is still protected under the copyrightlaws. If Geroge Lucas threw out a 35mm print of STAR WARS and I pulled it out of the garbage does that mena I can show that 35mm print and make money from it??

 

[Doug Bull]

I've still got all of my? original 35mm frames, recovered from a dumpster in the 50s, but sadly they have now all turned pink.

Will Warners demand their return?

(Sorry folks, unfortunately there are no rare lost scenes in my bunch )

 

[Robin9]

Originally Posted by Stan Heck
I thought even discarded footage is still protected under the copyright laws. If George Lucas threw out a 35mm print of STAR WARS and I pulled it out of the garbage, does that mean I can show that 35mm print and make money from it??

No, of course it doesn't. We've been over this point several times in this thread.. Read my post No 27.

 

I would love to be proved wrong. I hope someone can please show me something..

 

Originally Posted by Robin9

No, of course it doesn't. We've been over this point several times in this thread.. Read my post No 27.

Sorry I did not see that. In any case if anyone does have this footage I beg you to please contact Robert Harris

 

IF these prints are out there then great. Someone could become a hero...

 

If someone does have the footage and gets it to Warner Brothers then they are a hero. If they have it and keep it to themselves then they are a villian.

 

[marknyc]

Here's an online petition asking Arick to share the print:


http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/shareasib/

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Oh boy... If someone has the uncut A STAR IS BORN (1954) in their possession, what makes you think an online petition is going to somehow change their mind about sharing it? They certainly know how many people would like to see/own it.


Now, here is something you guys can flame me over: is it just me, or does it seem like the film would be better without the missing dialog scenes anyway? Now, make no mistake, I enjoy the added musical numbers, which we thankfully have (LOSE THAT LONG FACE, etc.), but I'm not so sure the missing dialog scenes that are represented by stills in the current restoration are all that interesting anyway. Granted, I'm looking at stills with dialog over them, not a fair representation of what the scenes are like in the original cut, but even so...