Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Booking Original Star Wars Films?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Booking Original Star Wars Films? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Booking Original Star Wars Films?

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 04-18-2015 08:02 PM

of the few times the AFI Silver has recently shown any of Episodes IV-VI - it's always been 35mm - I didn't think Fox had DCP's for theatrical exhibition of those

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-18-2015 08:05 PM

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

quote:
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.

The safest course is to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, you should consider avoiding the use of copyrighted material unless you are confident that the doctrine of fair use would apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine whether a particular use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Reviewed June 2012

Emphasis is mine.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 04-19-2015 05:36 AM

FWIW...last week here in L.A. there was a private screening of the original "Star Wars" in 35mm (original, pre-Special Edition version).

| IP: Logged

Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 04-19-2015 09:14 AM

How was the print? How big was the screen? How does one get invited to that sort of thing?

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 04-19-2015 11:29 AM

Section 30 of the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act doesn't specify excerpt only, and so theoretically the whole work could apply. If it came to court, however, I guess you would need a pretty convincing case that using the whole work was necessary to check the public interest box. The educational use exemption would have been stronger in this case.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-19-2015 12:32 PM

quote: Leo Enticknap
I don't know if this is still formally their policy, but Disney used to have a marketing strategy of doing a major re-release of their mega-classics at set intervals, effectively as if they were new movies, and keeping those titles totally unavailable (legally) on any medium during the intervening period. I'm guessing the rationale was that if customers did not have the chance to see these films most of the time, they would make the effort to do so at the periodic re-releases and that this would boost those theatrical grosses.

Disney shot that cash cow when the video age dawned. I guess they can make more money be reissuing ever-more-'special' editions of the classics that way.

Plus now they have new animated movies a couple of times a year, whereas in the old days it would be three or four years between animated releases -- so they think reissuing the oldies theatrically would be competing with their new stuff.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 04-20-2015 03:25 AM

It's hard to argue with studio execs, especially if they're making billions a year I guess.

Still I don't think that this "creating demand by scarcity" works in favor for them. Maybe it works for a new iPhone, but not or a movie that's been out there for years.

Furthermore, I doubt it would hurt their bottom line if they would allow theaters to run their catalog features more freely. Even if they plan a special re-release of e.g. The Lion King in a year or so, why would it hurt their business if a single theater shows it right now?

| IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 04-20-2015 03:07 PM

quote: Geoff Jones
How does one get invited to that sort of thing?

The right friends

quote: Geoff Jones
How big was the screen?

When we did screenings with friends only. Most of the places had 60 foot plus size screens. We ran screenings at the Chinese, Cinerama Dome, Hollywood Pacific, Paramount theatres in Hollywood. And we also used the Avco Cinema Center, Odeon Westwood and Odeon Fairfax and Sherman Oaks Twin.

We ran a friends only late show screening of "The Empire Strikes Back" in 35mm 4-Track Mag Dolby Stereo at the Paramount Theatre (now the El Captain) in Hollywood.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-21-2015 12:18 AM

I just picked up a rock concert video on Blu-Ray with 5.1 sound, so I ran it thru DCP-O-Matic yesterday and watched it in the theater after the movie tonight.

I may never need to go to a "real" concert again!

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 04-21-2015 01:37 PM

quote: Geoff Jones
How was the print [of "Star Wars"]?

I did not attend (unfortunately). I was told by a friend who did attend it was an IB Tech print in good condition.*

quote: Geoff Jones
How big was the screen?

Not huge, but not tiny, either. (The screening was held at the Crest in the Westwood neighborhood of Los Angeles.)

*I was informed it was a 1979 IB Tech print with the revised opening scroll. However, that information betrays a plausible timeline, so I cannot comment on the vintage of the print except to say it was the original (pre-1997 Special Edition) cut.

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 04-22-2015 08:11 AM

Back in the early 1990's, I projected a privately owned (not by me) IB Tech print of Star Wars for a private late night show at theatre here New Jersey. It was an original 1977 British print, with the later "New Hope" scroll physically spliced in. It has been a long time, so I don't remember much detail, but what I remember most was how deep and rich the black levels were in the print compared to the Eastman Color prints that were floating around at the time.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 04-22-2015 12:37 PM

Mitchell...I tried to suggest to my friend who had attended the "Star Wars" screening that if they in fact ran an IB Tech print then it would've been from '77 and had the opening scroll spliced in from an Eastman print struck later just like you described. But he'd have none of that! He was adamant the print was from 1979 and that the opening was splice free.

The plausible timeline betrayal I alluded to (if it wasn't obvious) is that I believe (1) the scroll wasn't revised until 1981, and (2) the IB Tech process had been discontinued by 1979.

On a related note, yesterday I received a private message from a Film-Tech member in response to this discussion claiming the 1979 print claim was plausible. I'm not sure why said member was reluctant to post right here in this thread for others to see and chime in on. I guess he must not have been confident in his claim. [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 04-22-2015 01:34 PM

As far as I know, 1974 was the last year for IB Tech in the USA, and 1977 was the last year for IB Tech in England. I have heard rumors that the dye-transfer line was kept running a few years longer in Italy, but I have never came across any solid evidence to support that rumor. As far as I know, the Bejing IB lab was not started until sometime in the 1980's.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 04-22-2015 05:30 PM

quote: article posted by Manny
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Seems to me that there is essentially a gray area in a case where a copyright owner wishes to keep their IP out of circulation totally. British case law basically says that depriving them of their right to do this (i.e. publishing the IP against the copyright owner's will) can only be done if there is a substantial public interest defense. The last time this happened was when a newspaper published a load of Prince Charles's private letters to support its claims that he was trying to influence government policy behind the scenes. He threatened to sue for breach of copyright but later dropped the case, I suspect because he was advised that the newspaper had a pretty solid public interest defense (i.e. it's the public's business that an unelected royal is trying to interfere with the work of the politicians they elect, and to prevent the fact that he's doing this becoming public knowledge) and he'd end up with egg on his face if it went to court.

Where you've got film (copyright) owners who want to keep their work out of circulation completely, it seems to me that this is usually for one of two reasons. 1 - a political/cultural/artistic reason (e.g. Disney and Song of the South, or Kubrick and A Clockwork Orange), or 2 - because they want to protect the revenue-earning power of a later, shall we say "refurbished" version, which I suspect is what is going on with Lucasfilm refusing to license any screenings of authentic 1970s Star Wars prints.

I'd further speculate that a public interest defense would be much harder to argue with 2 than with 1. But even there the line can be blurred as with the "guns vs. walkies" aspect of the E.T. rerelease.

| IP: Logged

Mike Heenan
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1896
From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 05-01-2015 11:25 PM

I once possessed an IB tech trailer for grey lady down which was released in 1978. It had Dutch subtitles. Whether it was one of the last ones printed at the British lab or was done at the Italian lab I don't know. I have an IB of Star Wars and was approached last year to lend my print for the LA screening but I could never make it work schedule wise. My print is missing reel 1 but complete otherwise in decent shape (was cleaned recently at a lab). I was told by the previous owner that the reel 1 he misplaced had an Agfa title scroll spliced in the print. Another collector friend in Chicago hosted a private screening of a supposedly mint IB print and that print had the original title scroll still intact. There can't be too many of those floating around.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.