Seen The 1959 Hercule's Threads - But does anyone really know who has the US rights to the film? (1 Viewer)

[Capt D McMars]

It looks very complicated. Whoever owns the rights may not even realise they own them!

at the end of the day you might be right, tucked away in a film vault somwhere. But at this point it's looking like Time Warner/New line cinema is the likly canidate.

 

[Joseph Goodman]

But at this point it's looking like Time Warner/New line cinema is the likly canidate.

Based on what? That they distributed Levine's original theatrical release? They've had nothing to do with the films since then, not Embassy's TV syndication of them, nor the 1973 Avco-Embassy double-bill reissue (supposedly that release was when the "export" English dub of the first film supplanted Levine's English version).

 

[Ed Lachmann]

What's also interesting is the German Intergroove Hercules Unchained DVD of a few years back. It's a really sharp, clean and colorful 16:9/ 2,35:1 with switchable German and English tracks. The cover claims "digital remastered" and I believe so after seeing the whole thing as I was blown away by the quality as opposed to the other versions. If we are optimistic here, and what with the French blu-ray announced, perhaps Explosive (God bless them) may surprise us with both of these beloved Hercules films in HD and an English option, or at least subtitles.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

But at this point it's looking like Time Warner/New line cinema is the likly canidate.

If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on StudioCanal, as they own rights to a large chunk of the former Embassy Pictures/Joseph E. Levine library. Paramount is also a stronger possibility than Warner via New Line. That being said, there are other titles from the Embassy/JEL library that have fallen into the public domain. Zulu, anyone?

 

[Ed Lachmann]

Just ran into some bad news in Blu-ray Forum:

HERCULES (1958) & HERCULES UNCHAINED (1959) from Artus Films - Blu-ray Forum

HERCULES (1958) & HERCULES UNCHAINED (1959) from Artus Films France

forum.blu-ray.com

 

[Capt D McMars]

If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on StudioCanal, as they own rights to a large chunk of the former Embassy Pictures/Joseph E. Levine library. Paramount is also a stronger possibility than Warner via New Line. That being said, there are other titles from the Embassy/JEL library that have fallen into the public domain. Zulu, anyone?

the archive has passed through so many hands it's hard to tell anymore...I wonder who the souce was for the French uncut widescreen release?

 

[Ed Lachmann]

I wonder why Artus created such elaborate packaging for the two Hercules films then pulled them at the last moment. They're the most likely to know who owns them. Also, funny how Explosive got Sodom and Gomorrah since Fox owned the rights for decades.

 

[RobertMG]

Just ran into some bad news in Blu-ray Forum:

HERCULES (1958) & HERCULES UNCHAINED (1959) from Artus Films - Blu-ray Forum

HERCULES (1958) & HERCULES UNCHAINED (1959) from Artus Films France

forum.blu-ray.com

Artus messaged me - the reason they canceled their release was bad film elements

 

[RobertMG]

People are conflating two entirely different concepts: essentially, no post-1925, non-US works are public domain in the US – or anywhere else for that matter.
This film belongs to somebody 100%; what remains to be seen is whether they claim(ed) their copyright and intend to enforce it.

Unless copyright was not renewed within the last 28 years VERY strange for a film that was everywhere on indie stations into the 90's and with DVD and Blu Ray now the rights holders still won't release?

 

[Capt D McMars]

Unless copyright was not renewed within the last 28 years VERY strange for a film that was everywhere on indie stations into the 90's and with DVD and Blu Ray now the rights holders still won't release?

the possibility that they may not even know that they own it may be quite possible. With so many holdings, locked away in vaults, and focused on other more recent properties...this one could very well be lost in the shuffel??

 

[Artanis]

A little inspiration for the home gym.

 

[RobertMG]

A little inspiration for the home gym.

Great stuff!

 

[Artanis]

This is from, Festival Films: Copyright Guide
Here's the link, and an excerpt below:


GATT RENEWAL OF FOREIGN FILMS Over the years many foreign films had been improperly registered or renewed with the Library of Congress. Effective in 1996 materials which were protected in countries falling under the Bern convention were permitted to be protected under U.S. Copyright. This GATT treaty automatically placed all such protected materials under copyright within the limitation of the U.S. Copyright laws. The rightful owners had two years to register their protection and upon registration there was a one year grace period for owners of record to exploit their ownership before ceasing such exploitation. Owners of record as of January 1, 1996 were considered compliance owners and were granted a perpetual exclusion for all materials not protected within the two year registration period. Any film protected under GATT by the foreign owner of that material or his designated representative on his behalf was granted Copyright status in the United States. Films which were re-claimed include most Mexican films, Swedish films of Ingmar Bergman, Italian films by Fellini and Rossellini, Japanese films by Kurosawa and German films like METROPOLIS extending back into the 1920s. Library of Congress filings were also made on most British films of the 1930s and 1940s, even though they were public domain in Britain at the time, and the validity of these claims has not yet been challenged in court. The British films of Alfred Hitchcock are still sold as public domain by many vendors. Some Italian, Spanish and other foreign, westerns and horror films from the 1960s-80s were not reclaimed under GATT, and presumably can no longer be claimed at this late date. ***** In summary, all materials which failed to meet registration requirements in any of the various phases of Copyright protection, through the numerous law changes over the years, would be usable by the Public today within its rights of Public Domain.

 

[Capt D McMars]

This is from, Festival Films: Copyright Guide
Here's the link, and an excerpt below:


GATT RENEWAL OF FOREIGN FILMS Over the years many foreign films had been improperly registered or renewed with the Library of Congress. Effective in 1996 materials which were protected in countries falling under the Bern convention were permitted to be protected under U.S. Copyright. This GATT treaty automatically placed all such protected materials under copyright within the limitation of the U.S. Copyright laws. The rightful owners had two years to register their protection and upon registration there was a one year grace period for owners of record to exploit their ownership before ceasing such exploitation. Owners of record as of January 1, 1996 were considered compliance owners and were granted a perpetual exclusion for all materials not protected within the two year registration period. Any film protected under GATT by the foreign owner of that material or his designated representative on his behalf was granted Copyright status in the United States. Films which were re-claimed include most Mexican films, Swedish films of Ingmar Bergman, Italian films by Fellini and Rossellini, Japanese films by Kurosawa and German films like METROPOLIS extending back into the 1920s. Library of Congress filings were also made on most British films of the 1930s and 1940s, even though they were public domain in Britain at the time, and the validity of these claims has not yet been challenged in court. The British films of Alfred Hitchcock are still sold as public domain by many vendors. Some Italian, Spanish and other foreign, westerns and horror films from the 1960s-80s were not reclaimed under GATT, and presumably can no longer be claimed at this late date. ***** In summary, all materials which failed to meet registration requirements in any of the various phases of Copyright protection, through the numerous law changes over the years, would be usable by the Public today within its rights of Public Domain.

well that was a mouthfull!! Where do you think the Steve Reeves films fall under?

 

[Artanis]

well that was a mouthfull!! Where do you think the Steve Reeves films fall under

well that was a mouthfull!! Where do you think the Steve Reeves films fall under?

It's been PD for years.

 

[RobertMG]

This is from, Festival Films: Copyright Guide
Here's the link, and an excerpt below:


GATT RENEWAL OF FOREIGN FILMS Over the years many foreign films had been improperly registered or renewed with the Library of Congress. Effective in 1996 materials which were protected in countries falling under the Bern convention were permitted to be protected under U.S. Copyright. This GATT treaty automatically placed all such protected materials under copyright within the limitation of the U.S. Copyright laws. The rightful owners had two years to register their protection and upon registration there was a one year grace period for owners of record to exploit their ownership before ceasing such exploitation. Owners of record as of January 1, 1996 were considered compliance owners and were granted a perpetual exclusion for all materials not protected within the two year registration period. Any film protected under GATT by the foreign owner of that material or his designated representative on his behalf was granted Copyright status in the United States. Films which were re-claimed include most Mexican films, Swedish films of Ingmar Bergman, Italian films by Fellini and Rossellini, Japanese films by Kurosawa and German films like METROPOLIS extending back into the 1920s. Library of Congress filings were also made on most British films of the 1930s and 1940s, even though they were public domain in Britain at the time, and the validity of these claims has not yet been challenged in court. The British films of Alfred Hitchcock are still sold as public domain by many vendors. Some Italian, Spanish and other foreign, westerns and horror films from the 1960s-80s were not reclaimed under GATT, and presumably can no longer be claimed at this late date. ***** In summary, all materials which failed to meet registration requirements in any of the various phases of Copyright protection, through the numerous law changes over the years, would be usable by the Public today within its rights of Public Domain.

Interesting . . .look at Japan under their laws Song Of The South is now PD

 

[Artanis]

Getting back to Capt. Cheese' question: Unquestionably, Hercules (not necessarily Labors of Hercules) did indeed fall into Public Domain. Hence the reason for all the bad dubs that have flooded the consumer market for years, public broadcasts on countless UHF stations, Creature Features, etc. As a big fan of the movie, Reeves, and genre, I've never been made aware of any copyright lawsuit...Not that there hasn't been one. Nor to say that, if there was a reissue with pristine remastering, packaging, marketing and resulting sizable profits that a suit couldn't come out of nowhere. Only sure way to know and prove due diligence is to hire a copyright / entertainment lawyer and at minimum, due a search. If you're looking to find the best source to master from, as Bob Furmanek with 3D Film Archive would most likely attest, it can be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

[Capt D McMars]

Interesting . . .look at Japan under their laws Song Of The South is now PD

Thats why they felt they could do a BRD release, but they also added RKO and Disney in the packaging both Case & Disc.

 

[Capt D McMars]

Getting back to Capt. Cheese' question: Unquestionably, Hercules (not necessarily Labors of Hercules) did indeed fall into Public Domain. Hence the reason for all the bad dubs that have flooded the consumer market for years, public broadcasts on countless UHF stations, Creature Features, etc. As a big fan of the movie, Reeves, and genre, I've never been made aware of any copyright lawsuit...Not that there hasn't been one. Nor to say that, if there was a reissue with pristine remastering, packaging, marketing and resulting sizable profits that a suit couldn't come out of nowhere. Only sure way to know and prove due diligence is to hire a copyright / entertainment lawyer and at minimum, due a search. If you're looking to find the best source to master from, as Bob Furmanek with 3D Film Archive would most likely attest, it can be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

so....treasure hunt!!! I'm game!!

 

[Capt D McMars]

So, that being assumed, the problem that still remains is, still a matter of accessing the best film and audio elements to remaster both Hercules and HUC. Go to Film Socities and Film Archives to do deep dives. Mant times you see coordination between the searchers and film archives to be able to put enough quality elements together for a descent edition. Let the Treasure hunt begin!!