|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: How common are film prints for Hollywood movies?
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-19-2019 07:54 AM
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
I have personally only heard of one instance where a studio gave an ok for someone (other than Hollywood hotshots) to possess a print
Tony, never say never (or never say only once). With the "unrestored" 70mm release last year of 2001, seems retrospective art houses were allowed to purchase their own prints if they could fork up the big bucks for one. I guess Warner figured the more orders they could place would bring in a better price break-point. They'd get the price break while others paid for a portion of the print run. I don't know how many are in the ownership of the theatres, but I know this was a deal made with some theatres.
Decades ago, Fox evidently sold prints of ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW to what seamed to me, to be some unsavory characters who would 4-wall neighborhood theatres for a midnight show, come in with a bunch of young bouncer-type thugs and take over the theatre and the box office. After the show, leave with the print and a suitcase full of money. I tried to get some information about where the print came from and I got the distinct impression that if I kept up the questions I'd be taken out back of the theatre where nothing good would happen to me.
And as in the case of Roddy McDowell's fight with Fox, where he was able to prove in court that indeed prints do legitimately get into general circulation because as you say, the big wigs -- directors, actors, DCs etc., over the years before digital certainly, legitimately got their own personal prints. And those prints belonged to them. Once that ownership of the physical entity transferred to the big-wig, what he or she did with that print was out of the control of the studio. Private film libraries in estates were sold and bought, prints were given away and in a variety of different ways, could wound up in the hands of individuals. Copyright, as has been held up in court, has nothing to do with the physical medium. If you have a print gotten in any number of legitimate ways as already stated, if you are not copying it or exhibiting it, copyright is not in play.
Out on Long Island years ago, it is common knowledge that the the head a Projectionist local had a library of hundreds of 35mm prints and his own screening room in his basement. He was particularly a fond of 4trk mag prints and it was said he had nearly every feature ever release in magstereo. And this was common knowledge -- studios knew it, local members knew it. It is said that if he got a print that had any damage, scratches or the like, he'd send it right back to National Screen Service and they'd send him a better one and with the studios' approval. And this in one small corner of the country on the East coast; you can imagine it happening even more routinely on in Hollywood.
All this to say that there is no question that prints were not nearly as controlled as the studios wants the world to believe. If they were, there wouldn't be a collectors community exchanging prints regularly.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God
Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 02-21-2019 11:16 AM
quote:
As I understand it, the deal with the 2001 70mm prints is that the theatres do not actually own them. Warners does. It's a multi-year (renewable) rental thing, where the renter puts up the cash to make the print. Warners can still dictate when the prints can be shown and still collects the film rental as if it were a circulating print. On the surface, this doesn't sound like such a good deal for the theatre, but it does guarantee them a quality print (unless/until the theatres damage them) and avoids the need to pay shipping costs for every playdate.
In any case, it's not as if someone can just call up Warners, write a check for $15-20k, and own a 70mm print of 2001. It would be nice if it worked that way, but it doesn't.
Interesting. Since Warner's still owns the print, does that mean they can request it back from the theatre at any time, say to fill a date at another theatre who damaged their print?
That would be akin (on a much larger financial scale) to a studio calling you and asking you to give them YOUR DVD copy of a movie to send to Redbox or another DVD purchaser to replace their damaged or lost copy.
In simpler terms, if I, as a theatre had (or chose) to BUY a print to run it, then I own it, period. Of course, I would have to pay the proper license and splits every time I chose to exhibit it, but back to the physical property aspects of copyright laws, if I actually PAID for the print, it is mine forever.
If the studio wants it back, or wishes in the legal definition to claim they own it (the physical media), then they have to pay me for it.
It would be interesting to see the full actual contract from any theatre that "bought" a 2001 print.
quote: Frank Angel
Tony, never say never (or never say only once).
Frank, I was speaking from the strict aspect of a private party OTHER than studio execs/actors.
In the sense that you, or I, or any other Joe in the industry couldn't simply BUY a print even if we had the money to do so.
In my case, I actually did work for the studio in question, so they knew exactly what I did and who I was, so when it became known that I possessed the print, I got a letter from the studio granting me the ownership for technical testing purposes only, with no rights for exhibition or distribution (even to fellow techs.) I still have that print.
I do agree with the entirety of the rest of your post. In the latter years of 35mm exhibition, it seemed that print accountability went out the window....my guess is that, with the upcoming digital push, the studios preferred to abandon or "lose" prints rather than deal with collecting and storing them.
Not that print security was all that great for many years...when I worked at a certain location, we had a (damaged) 35mm print of "Teen Wolf" that the studio flat out refused to pick up..it ended up in the hands of one of the assistant managers. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-21-2019 01:25 PM
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Since Warner's still owns the print, does that mean they can request it back from the theatre at any time, say to fill a date at another theatre who damaged their print?
No idea. I'm willing to bet that the answer is "no." Otherwise, why would anyone pay for a new print that might get shipped to another theatre and destroyed there.
I haven't seen the paperwork behind any of these arrangements, but it's probably something along the lines of a lease, rather than a purchase. Imagine something like "$20k for the first year, $1 each additional year." In such a case, the theatre didn't buy anything, but has exclusive control of the print during the lease term.
As for abandoned prints, I've seen that happen many times. The reasons vary--shipping errors, distributor went out of business or stopped answering calls to pick up a print, etc. I think that pretty much every cinema that has been around for a while has ended up with a few old prints taking up space in a closet or behind the screen. I have also heard of cases where prints were stored in warehouses where the storage company failed to pay the rental fee for the warehouse. Ultimately, the prints would be auctioned off to whomever cared to buy them. Not that this conveys exhibition rights, but the property right would legally transfer.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic