"Ultimate Hitchcock Collection" Public Domain release (1 Viewer)

[Michael Elliott]

If Lionsgate continues their series then I'd certainly recommend them over the various PD companies but at this point the series is up in the air. I'm not sure what type of sales numbers the studio is looking at but I've been told they were "highly disappointed" in their sales of the L&H, Arkoff and Hitchcock titles. I'm just guessing but perhaps thats why we haven't seen any more L&H and Arkoff titles, which is a shame but then again, they're all available in R2 land. This just doesn't help those who won't go that route.

Roan is hit and miss with me as is Retromedia and various other small companies. There's just too much work to be done in order to find the best version and since I usually just watch these PD movies once, I opt for the 50 Movie Packs since they are cheap and offer plenty of movies. If I see something that I could watched yearly then I'd upgrade to a better product.

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is probably the biggest and most copied PD movie out there yet no one has ever ripped off the Elite transfer. Most of the PD copies are from the old VHS so I'm not sure if a remastered print is under some sort of new copyright or if these companies are just being lazy and not going after the Elite copy. I don't think anyone has used Criterion's CARNIVAL OF SOULS either. THE BLOB is another film that has been out there in the PD market yet I've never heard or seen one that was taken from the Criterion print.

On the other hand, Alpha, Mill Creek and various $1 companies have ripped off Image and their horror/sci-fi titles.

 

[Guido Bibra]

Even if this is way offtopic in this thread, I think I can shed some light on this phenomenon...

It's correct that most, but not all songs in A Hard Day's Night sound about a half-step lower than on the studio recordings if the film is played back at 24fps - this happens only in the scenes which were filmed inside the tv studio where the camera looks at the monitors and tv screens. The reason why the music in these scenes sounds so slow is because they were shot at 25fps to match the frame rate of the television monitors! Played back at the "sound speed" of 24fps we have something like "reverse PAL-speedup".

Except the title song, the first performance of "I should have known better" and "Can't buy me love" everything sounds 4% too slow at 24fps - the 25fps/PAL-versions of AHDN actually have more songs at the correct speed than the NTSC discs. But the slowed down versions have become a part of the movie with its own special sound, so making a pitch correction would be fiddling with the integrity of the movie.

Regarding the discussion about privately importing DVDs from other regions... it's true that a studio can limit the sale of a DVD to a specific country. That just means that shops only in this country can sell the disc, but they can sell it to people all over the world as long as it's a private customer and not for commercial resale.

 

[Patrick McCart]

MGM seems to be finally doing something with the Hitchcock films they seem to have rights to. Their HD channel (MGM-HD) will air The Lodger on Feb. 2nd. at 4:20 AM.

 

[PaulP]

Wonder what sort of transfer they'll show.

 

[widescreenforever]

I receive for Christamas ( which I haven't watched yet ) the Alfred Hitchcock 4 disc set called The Legend Begins by Legends ( Millcreek Entertainment #683904200310 upc ) is has a numebr of older titles such as the tiles in this post,, Is this DVD release legal or a bootleg ??

 

[Patrick McCart]

You have bootleg Hitchcock drink coasters.

 

[widescreenforever]

But are Public Domain release Bootlegs?? If the time frame of a film lapses and the owner doesnt renew, doesn't that qualify for the film to be 'public domain" ..
Like the story of It's a Wonderful Life'., we know the history of how that film wasn't picked up until the well past the 80's and that is why everyone and their dog had a copy on the market.
Nowadays, NBC and Paramount own this film and not even Christmas time would you find any other network or independent showing this film, as it was shown around the clock decades ago on many TV channels.
And the John Wayne estate kept a tight handle on certain John Wayne titles ( High and The Mighty/ McLintock), as they estate held the rights to these titles and kept them Unavailable.
With that said., Are these public domain AH titles legal copies on independent labels as they are basically lost titles with no Owners , or Hitchcock estate owners attached??

 

[Robert Harris]

Pubic domain titles are not "bootlegs."

The Hitchcock titles are not in the public domain.

RAH

 

[Ockeghem]

Guido Bibra:
Guido,

Many thanks. Even though I have PM'd you (so I don't go too far off-topic in this thread), I wanted to thank you publically for your response. Much appreciated.

I also edited my related post above to include your corrections. Again, thanks.

 

[Michael Elliott]

People keep going on about "these aren't public domain" then why in the hell have fifteen different companies released them over the past ten years of DVD? Could someone please explain why the right holders haven't put a stop to any of them? One little letter is all it takes to get them removed from every store shelf in this country.

Mill Creek have pulled titles before as has Alpha, Diamond and various other PD companies. Mill Creek has pulled their 50-movie-sets just so they could remove one movie, which turned out not to be PD.

 

[Robert Harris]

That's a wonderful question.

The other side of of it should be:

If someone files for GATT and regains their copyright, should they lose it if they do not make any attempt to place people on notice?

There are a number of legitimate distributors which made use of these films before GATT, and when they were in the public domain.

These entities, which played by the rules, and accepted the GATT filing, are now being damaged as they are unable to compete with other companies who ignore GATT.

RAH

 

[Michael Elliott]

That's a very good and interesting point.

Synapse Films have gone after a couple PD labels for releasing stuff as PD when in fact Synapse owned them. They are a very small company but it seems like they actually care that there stuff is being ripped off.

If these Hitchcock right owners don't care then there's not much anyone can do. There are certain foreign companies that simply don't care and they don't want to go to the trouble of contracts regarding certain titles so they simply took their films and passed them around to bootleg traders. Some of the smaller studios have asked these producers for the rights but the producer refuse. The guy in question is a VERY rich man who doesn't care about the films so instead of releasing them officially, he took a short cut and passed them around to traders.

 

[Pete York]

If the owner doesn't assert his rights, than he will de facto lose them from something as seemingly trivial as the statute of limitations. A general rule of thumb is three years from the time the owner knew or should have known of an infringement. A DVD being sold by a major retailer would obviously qualify. In other words, the clock is ticking. I don't see what the issue is, entities smaller than the Hitchcock copyright holders protect their copyrights all the time. Not only can you stop the sale, but there are damages at stake, statutory damage awards, even legal fees. Everything is in the holder's favor.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I'm not really sure how much money they could get from someone like Diamond but it would seem they'd at least want the title off the market. Again, from what I've read, various companies have had items pulled with a simple letter.

 

[DavePattern]

This is a fascinating thread, guys!

On my "list of things to do" is to write an article about Hitchcock, copyright, and "Public Domain" (partly because I'm fed up of explaining why his films aren't PD to people on Wikipedia!). I'm certainly not a copyright lawyer, so the following is based on research and I'd warmly welcome any corrections!...

As Mr Harris says, Hitchcock's films used to be in the Public Domain in the USA.

This is something I need to double-check, but I believe at the time Hitch made his British films, UK copyright existed for 50 years after the year a film was first distributed, so during the mid 1970s, his films would have started to enter the Public Domain in the UK too.

In the early 1990s, the UK made amendments to it's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in order to harmonise UK copyright with other European Union countries. As part of this, the legislation for UK copyright on films was changed so that it became 70 years after the death of the last principle creator (director, writer, composer, etc). Crucially, this was applied retrospectively. Therefore, any Hitchcock films that had become PD in the UK are now back under copyright until at least 2050 (being 70 years after Hitch's death in 1980). In fact, several of his British films should be copyrighted until 2065, as the screenwriter Charles Bennett lived to a ripe old age and died in 1995.

The USA had long refused to adopt the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (which effectively says if a work is copyrighted in one country, then it should be under copyright in all countries that have adopted Berne). The US came under increasing pressure to adopt Berne and President Clinton finally signed up on March 1, 1989. This was a major change for US copyright, as it no longer requires you to register for copyright.

As so many non-US works were previously deemed to be Public Domain in the US (e.g. all those VHS releases of Hitchcock films in the 1980s), the US Copyright Office embarked on a lengthy process of allowing non-US copyright holders to re-assert their rights in the US. The two UK companies that owned the copyright on the majority of Hitchcock's British films subsequently filed their "Notice of Intent to Enforce" with the US Copyright Office and the details can be found in the NIE's listed here (most are listed in the Aug 22nd file):

U.S. Copyright Office - Notices of Restored Copyrights

At the time, these two companies were UGC UK and Carlton Film Distributors, Ltd. Through various mergers and acquisitions, these companies are now known as Canal Plus UK and Granada International respectively.

Neither company has so far released Hitchcock DVDs in the US themselves, although both have licensed other companies to do so (e.g. Criterion and Lionsgate). If you find that surprising, then consider that neither company has directly released any Hitchcock DVDs in the UK -- again, they've licensed the films to other companies to release (e.g. Network and Optimum releasing).

To be honest, I was fast giving up hope of Granada ever releasing a Hitchcock film in the UK on DVD since they took over Carlton. Fortunately, Network managed to license 10 titles and their box set is due for release on the 25th Feb.

----

I would welcome any comments about the above, especially if you think I've misunderstood any aspects of copyright (very possible!) or just plain got it wrong! :-D

Dave

 

[John Hodson]

Granada International's 'in-house' label is ITVDVD and they have been steadily working their way through the old Carlton catalogue re-releasing them under that label with new covers; The 39 Steps is one, and Jamaica Inn is another (even though that's getting a stand-alone release from Network later this year - whether that will prompt the ITVDVD disc to go OOP is anyone's guess, though I note it's 'out of stock' at several etailers).

 

[Damin J Toell]

Just some quick notes after perusing what you've posted. I specifically quoted the above, as noting that your assertion that Bill Clinton was president in 1989 might tip you off that you've gotten a few historical bits wrong.

Although the US joined Berne effective March 1, 1989 (with the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, signed into law by President Reagan on October 31, 1988), but actually failed to properly implement Berne. Rather than retroactively restoring copyrights, Berne was only applied to works published on or after March 1, 1989. As a result, no PD works had their copyrights restored. In fact, the Berne Convention Implementation Act, at Section 12, actually says: "Title 17, United States Code, as amended by this Act, does not provide copyright protection for any work that is in the public domain in the United States."

Eventually, the US passed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, implementing the Uruguay Round of GATT. Signed into law by President Clinton, and efective January 1, 1995, the US finally granted copyright restoration to foreign works (from countries that are members of Berne, the WTO, or certain WIPO treaties) that had fallen into the PD in the US.

These restorations were immediate and automatic. The US Copyright Office was not responsible for allowing foreign rights holders to assert their rights in the restored works. The purpose of the Notice of Intent to Enforce was strictly for notification to parties, so-called "reliance parties," already making use of the PD works as of January 1, 1995 (or the later date that the work's country of origin joined Berne/WTO/WIPO). Rights holders for restored works needed to provide a Notice to reliance parties in order to get such reliance parties to stop making use of the PD work; without a Notice (either actual or as publised in the Federal Register), a reliance party can continue to make use of a restored work indefinitely. However, as to parties that made unauthorized use of the foreign work after January 1, 1995 (or the later date that the work's country of origin joined Berne/WTO/WIPO), a Notice of Intent to Enforce is not necessary.

I hope this helps.

Damin

 

[DavePattern]

Thanks for that Damin -- I'd definitely got the two presidents well and truly mixed up there :-D

It also clears up the Copyright Office's involvement and the NIE's. I hadn't appreciated that copyright to PD works had been automatically restored (without any action required by the non-US rights holder) and had guessed wrongly that filing an NIE was required to make that happen.

John -- I'd not spotted any ITVDVD had repackage The 39 Steps. I did pick up a copy of that a few months ago from Amazon UK when they had it on offer and the packaging was still branded Carlton (just double-checked and there's no mention of Granada or ITV). However, I did notice that Granada had resubmitted several Hitchcock films for classification at the BBFC awhile back.

 

[John Hodson]

Here's a shot of the The 39 Steps re-package; the ITVDVD logo is top left, as it appears to be on all their new packaging.

 

[DavePattern]

Cheers John! I actually ordered that DVD from Play.com when I spotted the different packaging. When it arrived and it was the old yellow Carlton packaging (which matched the one I'd just bought from Amazon UK), I complained and sent it back. Within a couple of days, Play updated their site and changed the packaging shot back to the Carlton one (which is the one they're still using now).

Have you actually seen the ITVDVD packaging in any shops? I'm wondering if Granada created a new packaging shot, but have actually been shipping out the remainder of the old Carlton stock to retailers? It seems strange that Play and Amazon UK are both shipping out (or at least have been in the last few months) the old yellow Carlton DVDs :-S