An E-mail Appeal to Mr. Wade Williams (1 Viewer)

[Stephen_J_H]

No one finds the post at the top of this page interesting - the one from Mr. Jansen. I do. And I wonder "who" removed the materials stored at UCLA illegally. Because, I have to tell you straight, there has NEVER been a home video release of Invaders from Mars that hasn't looked like crap. So what elements actually exist, I wonder?

I found it thoroughly fascinating, and an interesting subject to "read between the lines", if you will. Count me in for a legitimate release of IFM on BD.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thanks, Jack for the explanation on Cinecolor opticals. I figured you would know the answer!

Take a look at the magnificent job Ignite did with their nitrate Cinecolor Randolph Scott titles. Jan Willem did the right thing and restored them!

https://translate.google.com/transl...adian-pacific-randolph-scott.html&prev=search

Both are now available in stunning Blu-ray releases from our good friends at Kino!

 

[haineshisway]

Here's an easy bottom line question: Who owns the rights to Invaders from Mars? Mr. Jansen or Mr. Williams? Can't be two owners. Who has the materials? If Mr. Furmanek has seen what's available, HOW did he have access?

 

[Robert Harris]

Partial holdings...

http://cinema.library.ucla.edu/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=150&recCount=50&recPointer=2&bibId=55689

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I do have a question for Mr. Williams, if he doesn't mind. Have you had modern (post-2006) HD scans made of any of the titles in your library and, if so, are those versions available anywhere for purchase or streaming?

 

[Jan Willem Bosman Jansen]

Dear Film Fans;

I am glad I am getting some response here. I think there is only one thing I need to say, we submitted our papers to the Court, the Writs were served and that means you are invited to defend yourself. We have brought forward the relevant correspondance between Wade Williams and Richard Rosenfeld in which Mr. Williams asked for 16/35mm rental rights for the US.

Clearly the Court decided on our claims and I can only abide by it as Mr. Williams will have too as well. As stated before I have informed all relevant distributors.

As so many of you have already stated let's get this film released, and please be a gentIeman and return the elements that are needed.
Release the film, I certainly have done that with many of my movies even some that have fallen in the public domain, still since we have the best Original materials we can release the best BluRay so it Always makes sense and people buy the product and are happy.

 

[Jan Willem Bosman Jansen]

Partial holdings...

http://cinema.library.ucla.edu/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=150&recCount=50&recPointer=2&bibId=55689

Dear Bob; just for your information, I posted that a ways earlier we do own the OCN on this title but without the effects/titles. Film Technology checked it and it is in exellent condition and we put it up at Point 360 and were blown away with it. I can give you furher reference if needed.

 

[Interdimensional]

I'm sure it must have come as a tremendous blow to Mr Williams to have another party make what appears to be a well-founded claim on what must surely have been one of the crown jewels of his collection.

I trust that in time he will accept this and do the honourable thing in this situation.

It sounds like the title will be in safe hands.

 

[Mossman-Williams]

Mike/Rick and Dan-

i am sure a company like KINO will come along and license the three 3D pictures making new 4K masters. I am aware some distributors
restore PD films. I have done so in the past like DOA and DETOUR to name a few. Two Ed Wood films are PD- JAILBAIT which I released from the 35MM fine grain from Howco Pictures, and I recently acquired the chain of title rights and some prints on VIOLENT YEARS from
Greg Luce at Sinister Cinema along with rights to SINISTER URGE. Only these two Ed Wood films are PD. I released JAILBAIT thru Image
it did little business because the bottom-feeders made copies from the legitimate release and are selling it. I have released public domain
films and will probably release more down the road.

INVADERS FROM MARS was last released on DVD from IMAGE. I supplied them with the CINECOLOR 35MM comp print master
the 16MM TV prints were made from. The original negative from the 1953 release was cut up in 1954 for the UK versions and the dream
sequence deleted. when Richard Rosenfeld bought the rights to the Alperson film package. I have the 1954 recut negative in 35MM which
was recut , parts deleted and footage added. However the complete material exists here on the 5 reel Cinecolor dupe print master that

 

[Mossman-Williams]

The assertion that Bozman owns all rights in INVADERS FROM MARS is not correct. He alleges to have bought the US

 

[haineshisway]

If it was decided in court, then he DOES own the rights he says he owns. Rental rights in the US (if that's what you got) are entirely different than owning the film rights or the home video rights - very different things, as you know. So, given that there was a court decision, it should be honored and you should return the materials in your possession so we can finally get this thing released. If you won't, that kind of says it all. I'd hope that Mr. Jansen could use the negative and take from a print the opticals and titles? But it's shameful that the separations are being held.

 

[rdimucci]

As is often the case, possession is 9/10ths of the law. It appears as if Williams possesses a few crucial elements to a proper release of INVADERS FROM MARS. So, unless the piper is paid, the world can go hang.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

A second question for Mr. Williams - none of the potential distributors have offered to front the cost of making new scans and cleanup of your prime titles? I would find that hard to believe considering the titles - PD and otherwise - that we have seen come out in restored editions. In fact - you have the offer just above from the 3-D Archive to do Hannah Lee at no upfront cost to you. I can't imagine that the other distribs haven't offered similar deals for profile titles like DETOUR and the better titles that you have possession of.

Also:

and I recently acquired the chain of title rights and some prints on VIOLENT YEARS from Greg Luce at Sinister Cinema along with rights to SINISTER URGE. Only these two Ed Wood films are PD.

You say VIOLENT YEARS is PD but claim to own "chain of title". Those two statements don't appear to agree with each other unless I'm misunderstanding what this means.

 

[Robert Harris]

A second question for Mr. Williams - none of the potential distributors have offered to front the cost of making new scans and cleanup of your prime titles? I would find that hard to believe considering the titles - PD and otherwise - that we have seen come out in restored editions. In fact - you have the offer just above from the 3-D Archive to do Hannah Lee at no upfront cost to you. I can't imagine that the other distribs haven't offered similar deals for profile titles like DETOUR and the better titles that you have possession of.

Also:


You say VIOLENT YEARS is PD but claim to own "chain of title". Those two statements don't appear to agree with each other unless I'm misunderstanding what this means.

My company owns world-wide rights to three serials and ten B westerns, along with chain of title.

All are in the PD. 35mm elements on the serials in serious condition.

None can financially support preservation, and certainly not restoration.

Rights and protectability via copyright can be mutually exclusive.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Thank you for that explanation, RAH. Very helpful - happy to learn something new.

 

[phillyrobt]

Ok though I would like a 3d blu-ray for preservation's sake just have Hannah Lee restored and then show it as Hondo has been shown at MOMA, the TCM Festival etc etc to avoid the copyright issue.

 

[Mossman-Williams]

Yiikes !!!!!!!

Attacked for owning INVADERS FROM MARS ! I want to make it clear. J

 

[Interdimensional]

Wade, if you're being attacked, it's for the perception that you are obstructing efforts to restore these films from the best surviving elements. If you allow access to your material, we will all be grateful.

What possible issue could you have with Bob Furmanek's suggestion for Hannah Lee? Everyone knows these restorations are expensive, but they are offering to assume all financial risk associated and extending to you the opportunity to profit from a film that you accept is in the public domain.

Why would you deny people the chance to see this movie in its original 3-D? Why would you deny yourself the chance to profit from it?

 

[Mossman-Williams]

To answer all these jabs will take a while, so I will answer some of these criticisms this evening and go into the amazing claim by
Jensen by posting documents salient to my ownership of INVADERS FROM MARS.later.

In the meantime it will be helpful to the readers
on this site to see scans of Jensen' s documents supporting his claims.

Most of my docs are Public Record at the Library of Congress. but I have others also not recorded. I have been distributing the film 40 years .theatrically and non-theatrically and Rosenfeld never attempted to stop me. In fact he licensed the disc rights for five years
from me to satisfy a license he had made. I also have perpetuity rights to access the negatives as I own the 35MM rights also.

To Jansen-

I did not take anything from UCLA illegally. I have total access and Rosenfeld signed an Agreement transferring the
negatives to me.He had moved them from the NYC lab PRECISION to UCLA. He had NO US rights at the time as he had
sold them to me and Ben Barry.

In order to establish absolute ownership of the US Television rights several documents must be supplied by you. . I am sure
TCM would require this before any license.for TV broadcast.

. Firstly, the license from Rosenfeld to Ben Barry setting forth the television rights sold to Barry.
Secondly, the Sales Contract from Ben Barry to AMC Television, and the recent License from AMC spelling out the rights licensed to you.. Should this all be correct then maybe you have US Television broadcast rights for a period of years.I never claimed US television rights.
And of course the. copyright renewal with your name name on it.
Also the 1996 Sales Agreement Rosenfield signed selling you the library including INVADERS FROM MARS..
And the copy of the court decision in Amsterdam.

Post the documents and we can go from there.

Bob-

You said CANADIAN PACIFIC and CARIBOO TRAIL are in the Public Domain.
THIS WOULD NOT BE GOOD NEWS FOR KINO OR JANSEN.

,According to my records-

CANADIAN PACIFIC was copyrighted in 1949 ( PA LP 2395) and RENEWED on Feb 26, 1976 (RE 627-289 )
CARIBOO TRAIL was copyrighted in 1950 and renewed in 1977 ( RE 669-435 )

GOOD NEWS for the Public Domainers is that MOHAWK , a 1955 Alperson/ Rosenfeld film was not renewed and is in the Public Domain.


PETER--

CHAIN-OF TITLE- means you have bought the film from the owners of the rights which hopefully gives you the negatives and good
materials. That is separate from the PUBLIC DOMAIN which does not mean someone does not own a Public Domain film. It means
that anyone WORLDWIDE can use and exploit your work freely without paying a royalty or being sued.
Basically a LICENSE TO STEAL someones intellectual property because they failed to renew the copyright.
Poor Frank Capra and many others screwed out of their exclusive rights to exploit and make money from their investment and life's work. Luckily the underlying magazine rights to IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE gave this PD film some protection. And the Packard Foundation financed the restoration of MEET JOHN DOE even thou it is Public Domain.and everyone sells it. Probably too late for Mr. Capra to get anything from these films.


I have had offers from CRITERION for DETOUR and INVADERS FROM MARS, from KINO and several more but Jensen has scared
them off with his claims. He is responsible for the delay in the release and restoration of INVADERS FROM MARS.

I have had offers for the entire library from KINO which was exciting but some of the provision in the Agreement were not clear to me.
I did not understand the language.so KINO withdrew the offer.

Bruce-

The Amsterdamn decision in court on INVADERS FROM MARS was arrived at because no one showed up to contest Jensen's claims..I was not a party to the action nor was Corinth films or the holding company that owns MARS. The parties he quietly sued have no rights in the film. It only caused IMAGE to pull the title before the end of the license period .and now is preventing a new release and restoration of the picture.

I was offered the camera negative on INVADERS FROM MARS in Hollywood for $ 5000.00 before Jensen bought it. It was not complete,, had no sound track, no fades wipes or effects. it was the CAMERA NEGATIVE raw, worthless and barely an hour long .

Bob-

I bought the Jack Broder Library on September 13, 1991. The boxes of negatives, prints and other materials were not at MOVIELAB
but in a storage facility in LA. I rented a truck and drove all the materials and prints on his 22 pictures back to Kansas City. That was 25 years ago. Maybe MOVIE LAB has closed shop and Jack moved them to another place.. I have gone thru all of the materials, prints,
septs and negatives on all the film before storing them in the proper storage conditions. It was Pathe Color and somewhat faded.
KINO dropped the HANNAH LEE restoration during the negotiations and only wanted ROBOT MONSTER and CAT WOMEN. I assume for the same reasons. The cost you wanted for the restoration and the the fact the film would be immediately ripped off.once made public.
Probably a wise decision on their part.

I am sure someone will pick up the three 3D titles and make new masters on 4K. ROBOT MONSTER and CAT WOMEN OF THE MOON
are excellent titles and will make a money in 2D or 3D. I am a film fan and a business man. It requires a lot of money to house and keep a
library of this size. I am not a non-for-profit and have no one handing me money to buy and restore these films. They were and are investments.

The CINECOLOR prints of INVADERS FROM MARS in 1953 were not much better than the IMAGE releases because they were
made from Cinecolor print by Image.. . The Eastman color prints I made from the negative in the 80's looked sharper and better so when I restore the picture I will probably go back to the negative I bought from Luigi Cozzi.in Italy.

Jack

I am not sure Fox ever had the negative on MARS in their possession. They did not have the copyrights and only had a distribution agreement for the US I believe .It was owned by Alperson's company NATIONAL PICTURES. The company that held the camera negative was an effects and title house. They bought it from Alperson to take the saucer and effects footage.I believe.

Johnnie-

These films all have value to me or I would not have invested thousands of dollars in buying them

Mark

I appreciate your comments and I agree with you. I am about your age and would like to see these films restored to the max.
Bear in mind I have not had control of these pictures for a decade or more. They were licensed to IMAGE and it was their responsibility
to make good copies from the best materials available.
Image just completed their "sell-off" period last month and some of the writers here are angry the films are not immediately relicensed.
I am working on it


wade williams










.

 

[JeffT.]

INVADERS FROM MARS (1953) has many problems. When Richard Rosenfeld sold me the film, he was not honest. He had already licensed rights which he had sold me. He sold Italy- the BBC in the UK- South America and Television broadcast to Ben Barry for the US. He also sold the REMAKE RIGHTS which he did not own. My agent David Gersh was dealing with a remake with Tobe Hooper when Rosenfeld announced in the trade papers he had sold the rights to the remake. Problem- he never had the remake right. I had the chain-of-title back to (20th Century) Fox (Studios) and the sell-back agreement to the producer- Edward L Alperson of the remake rights when he sold the library.

The revelation pertaining to Richard Rosenfeld is a very key component in some of the issues (frustratingly) thwarting a quality restoration and blu-ray release of INVADERS FROM MARS (1953).

I'll bet you that the same is applicable to Samuel Z. Arkoff's unethical finagling of select titles in the 1950s American-International Pictures library (ie. I WAS A TEENAGE WEREWOLF) now in the greedy clutches of our favourite sweetheart Susan Hart-Hofheinz aka Susan Hart-Nicholson aka Susan Hart.

Don't fool yourselves for a moment. What a battle royal (and headache) we're going to have with this female vampire on this.

Another pressing problem with (our beloved) INVADERS FROM MARS (1953) is all the ravaging butchering and revision this poor film has undergone over the long years in repackaging it for continued theatrical release.

It would seem that the two main players are here at our conference and on the basis of what has been reported certain questions (naturally) arise:

Is a court ruling in Amsterdam binding and applicable to the film copyright statutes in the U.S.? Or does this just apply to the European distribution rights? Someone comes and says that they own the (absolute) rights but the unfortunate "catch" is that the judgement was made in a European-based court. Would the same also apply, be recognized and binding in the U.S.?

It's already been asked in this discussion thread but just who took the film elements formerly in the keep of UCLA? How much is actually known about this?

I vividly remember reading about Wade Williams' acquisitions of independently produced 1950s SF films like INVADERS and ROCKETSHIP XM (1950) in STARLOG magazine back in the early 1970s. Particularly the gentleman's efforts to save these films from hazardous ruination due to shameful neglect and the ravages of time.

I (personally) don't believe in altering a film from its original format.

As far as the additional revised 1954 observatory footage shot for the European market this is best presented as a bonus feature and not in the actual INVADERS film itself. We all want (and highly regard) the intended "it's-all-dream" denouement.

The same is applicable to ROCKETSHIP XM (1950) while it may have been well intended with the replacement rocketship shots I would much prefer to see the film presented as it was originally screened in movie theatres when released in 1950.

In any renewed restoration efforts please don't tamper with these films anymore than (absolutely) necessary.

Now surely we can get all the vested interest parties to amicably come together on this as there is ample enough glory and profit for everyone involved.

What is in the best interest of INVADERS FROM MARS (1953) is what really counts here.

Footnote: Please Wade don't forget about DESTINATION MOON (1950) and FLIGHT TO MARS (1951) as well.

Jeff T.