Jack The Ripper from Severin Films (1 Viewer)

[disctrip]

https://severin-films.com/shop/jack-the-ripper-blu/ They are releasing a limited edition and they are using the original artwork from the Monarch Books paperback movie tie-in edition. Is that legal?

 

[bigshot]

Is that legal? View attachment 42346 View attachment 42348

I really don't care. Do you?

 

[moviepas]

I really don't care. Do you?

My sentiments before I read your line.

 

[Thomas T]

https://severin-films.com/shop/jack-the-ripper-blu/ They are releasing a limited edition and they are using the original artwork from the Monarch Books paperback movie tie-in edition. Is that legal? View attachment 42346 View attachment 42348

Why are you assuming they didn't get clearance from the publishing company?

 

[Brent Reid]

I don't believe it: even home video sleeves are being subjected to the dreaded teal effect now! When will this madness ever end?

It's also clear even from the small images above that Severin's sleeve has less resolution than the book cover and is a lot 'grainier' looking. They obviously didn't have access to the original artwork or even an earlier generation scan or photo.

On a separate note, while she's undoubtedly attractive, nothing about the young lady's hair, make-up or outfit suggests the Victorian era – such sloppiness on the part of the artist! #YouHadOneJob

 

[TravisR]

Why are you assuming they didn't get clearance from the publishing company?

Or maybe the painting used on the book cover has always been owned by the owner of the movie and they just used it for the book.

 

[disctrip]

I really don't care. Do you?

Just found it interesting. Not making a federal case out of it. Chill.

 

[haineshisway]

Monarch is long gone and the art can be used by anyone for anything.

 

[haineshisway]

Well, that was inane - they release a limited edition of 1500 on Black Friday and it's available only for three days. Bravo. Not.

 

[Brent Reid]

Monarch is long gone and the art can be used by anyone for anything.

And you know this how? I don't even know who the artist is; do you? How do you know copyright doesn't reside with him or her, their estate, the rights holders to the Monarch catalogue or some other corporate entity?
This is why there's so much misinformation on the internet: folk presenting misinformed opinions as fact.

On the other hand, I'm still wondering why the question was asked in the first place. I doubt anyone outside of this thread is in the slightest bit bothered!

 

[TravisR]

On the other hand, I'm still wondering why the question was asked in the first place. I doubt anyone outside of this thread is in the slightest bit bothered!

I can't speak for anyone but I think Hank was just curious.

 

[disctrip]

I can't speak for anyone but I think Hank was just curious.

Exactly, No big deal. Thank You

Some people just get a hair up their you-know-what.

 

[EricSchulz]

I've never seen this movie. Is it worth tracking down? HUGE Ripper fan here.

 

[haineshisway]

And you know this how? I don't even know who the artist is; do you? How do you know copyright doesn't reside with him or her, their estate, the rights holders to the Monarch catalogue or some other corporate entity?
This is why there's so much misinformation on the internet: folk presenting misinformed opinions as fact.

On the other hand, I'm still wondering why the question was asked in the first place. I doubt anyone outside of this thread is in the slightest bit bothered!

I know this how? Because I've been collecting original paperback cover art for thirty years? Monarch is no more, period. They began publishing paperbacks around 1958 and I believe their last published book was in 1965, at which point they went out of business. While the texts may or may not have reverted to the writers, the cover art did not revert to the artists, ever. The paperback cover art of this era and any era was/is work for hire - the artist owns nothing. So, misinformed opinions? I don't know - mine seem more informed than yours, yes?

Furthermore, Jack the Ripper movie tie in was not even a paperback original. Monarch licensed it from the hardcover publisher Frederick Fell, Incorporated, who issued the hardcover prior to the paperback, as a movie tie-in - it has garish and good cover art, too. Fell publishers, BTW, is still with us, although they only publish self-help books now and obviously Jack the Ripper went out of print the year in which it was published, 1960. Any other questions?

 

[haineshisway]

Here's the hardcover art, for those who might be interested.

 

[lark144]

What got me to see the movie was neither the hardcover nor paperback, but this:

They were playing the LP at my local record store. I asked what it was and the man behind the counter showed me the LP cover. The movie happened to be playing across the street. So I went and saw it. Probably I should have simply bought the record instead.

 

[haineshisway]

I saw the film the day it opened here in LA, at the Wiltern Theater, which always played Joseph E. Levine films. I rather liked it (of course I loved the color insert of the blood) - it's a cheap little film, but I watched it recently and I enjoyed it.

 

[3D Projectionist]

I take it that's the 1959 Shepperton film they advertised as very little information given as to what exactly it was on Blu-Ray

 

[Robin9]

. . . . I've been collecting original paperback cover art for thirty years?

I'm sure you must have some wonderful images in that collection. A lot of paperback covers from the '40s, '50s and '60s were superbly vivid and imaginative.

 

[Brent Reid]

I know this how? Because I've been collecting original paperback cover art for thirty years... etc.

Once again you post impressive-sounding assertions with no sources or links to back them, as you've done on many previous occasions. I don't doubt the veracity of much of your last post, but only because it sounds plausible. Certainly, your first post, which I responded to, was terse in the extreme and could be paraphrased as "It is so, because I say." Forgive me for indulging in a little healthy scepticism. Meanwhile, an occasional dose of humility wouldn't go amiss; it's all in the phrasing, you know.