Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "Murdering" Imax prints

This is topic "Murdering" Imax prints in forum Large Format Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000215

Posted by Andres Briano (Member # 4621) on 04-08-2011, 10:04 AM:

It is a very sad reality: we strive each day to protect the integrity of that 70mm strip of plastic, no matter what the cost. Then one day, that print whose health you worship, no longer brings in the crowds.

NOTE: I don´t know how things were before this anti-piracy panic, but as you know, nowadays we are required to destroy prints.

I know it is not just a matter of piracy. The sheer volume of an Imax print makes it very hard (if not impossible) to ship back to DKP. Specially when you reside in the ass end of the world.
[Frown]

The first time we "murdered" a print (several actually: Poseidón, Happy Feet and Ant Bully) was back in June 08. And here are some pics.

DISCLAIMER: If you’ve got a weak stomach for gory images, then these pictures are not for you! Please exercise caution when viewing them.

Please share your own "evidence" of your own "murders".

Andrés

Posted by Jason Whyte (Member # 1433) on 04-08-2011, 10:45 AM:

Alright, stupid question time, I don't work in the IMAX field but whatever: I know it's a "requirement" to destroy the prints...but why not just store them somewhere? Do the IMAX people require proof that these prints get shredded?

Posted by Andres Briano (Member # 4621) on 04-08-2011, 01:08 PM:

quote: Jason Whyte
I know it's a "requirement" to destroy the prints...but why not just store them somewhere? Do the IMAX people require proof that these prints get shredded?

Jason,
The photos you see there were taken inside a Shred-It truck. That company provides a "destruction certificate" that is recognised by Imax and/or the distributor as valid. In a way it was good luck that Shred-It has a branch down here.

Some distributors don´t even bother asking for a certificate. Which would be good if you would like to collect films [Wink]

. However we don´t have any more space available in the booth to store prints. (Keep in mind that you want to store them somewhere clean (and not in dusty basements or attics). Besides, we believe that storing more kilos in that booth would be hazardous to the structure of the building. Bear in mind that a long 3D print can weigh as much as 300 kgs!! [Eek!]

Neither of these things leaves much room for alternatives.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-08-2011, 01:45 PM:

The least you could do would be to clip of a few frames as mementos.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-08-2011, 02:10 PM:

Methinks you could just pay the guy to give you a cert and keep the print.

Then again, I've never had a case where we had to throw a print away and I wouldn't care for someone coming after me for this. lol

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-08-2011, 02:14 PM:

For anyone still running real IMAX (meaning 15/70) I would greatly appreciate leaders. I use them with 5/70 so every third frame there isn't a frameline, but hey it works just fine for me. [Smile]

(I've no use for actual content, only leaders discarded from the shipping rolls.)

Posted by Andres Briano (Member # 4621) on 04-08-2011, 03:19 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
The least you could do would be to clip of a few frames as mementos.

(If there is someone reading who can get me into trouble for keeping frames then:) Joe: of course I haven´t.

Otherwise: Joe: I keep a nice collection! [Wink]

quote: Chris Slycord

Methinks you could just pay the guy to give you a cert and keep the print.

But... wouldn´t that be illegal...??? [Razz]

quote: Brad Miller

For anyone still running real IMAX (meaning 15/70) I would greatly appreciate leaders.

Brad,
I can supply you with leaders. However mine would be expensive for you because of the international shipping charges. It would be better for you to find a 15/70 facility inside the States.

Andrés

Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 04-08-2011, 04:43 PM:

Brad, I have about 50 you can have. E-mail me your shipping information and I will get them to you.

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 04-09-2011, 10:32 AM:

Why would anybody want to keep an Imax print for which they had no exhibition license, and the distributor wanted it destroyed.
If they have no reason to store it, and own the rights, why would an individual want to keep such a big bundle of film stuffed away somewhere? It's not as if many home theaters can run genuine Imax.

Posted by Andres Briano (Member # 4621) on 04-09-2011, 12:17 PM:

quote: Richard P. May
It's not as if many home theaters can run genuine Imax.

That´s another good point I haven´t addressed. Why would you want to store it if:
1) You cannot sell it?
2) You cannot privately watch it?

The idea remains, however. We feel lousy each time we have to destroy something that we have tried so hard to preserve. [Frown]

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 04-09-2011, 03:31 PM:

quote: Richard P. May
Why would anybody want to keep an Imax print for which they had no exhibition license, and the distributor wanted it destroyed.

To preserve prints for future exhibition
For legacy
Because many times before studios, distributors and film companies realised too late they had no copies of a film remaining and thence called on collectors to get their butts out of a hole

There is much more to the preservation of films than just profitability and short-sighted convenience factors.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 04-09-2011, 04:03 PM:

I've junked my fair share of IMAX prints and I'm sorry but the prints that get junked are not prints worth holding on to. Do you really want a print of "I am Number Four" or "Twilight: New Moon"? I didn't think so, these are not IMAX Docs were talking about here.

When we junk an IMAX print it gets shipped back to DKP in boxes to be recylcled. They are picked up and taken back to Canada.

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 04-10-2011, 01:08 PM:

Canada? I thought DKP was in Santa Monica, California.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 04-10-2011, 04:03 PM:

You are correct, I was talking with someone about IMAX Corp and just typed Canada by habit. It is in Santa Monica.

Posted by Andres Briano (Member # 4621) on 04-11-2011, 10:57 AM:

quote: Ian Parfrey

-To preserve prints for future exhibition
-For legacy
-Because many times before studios, distributors and film companies realised too late they had no copies of a film remaining and thence called on collectors to get their butts out of a hole

There is much more to the preservation of films than just profitability and short-sighted convenience factors.

Ian, I am a film collector myself. In the case of an Imax print, I don´t believe it is fair for anyone to rely on an exhibitor to store prints. Furthermore, an exhibitor cannot be expected to do more for future film availability that the Distributor or the owner of the rights themselves.

I believe every frame is worth preserving (no matter if it belongs to New Moon). However there are legal implications in disobeying the owners order to destroy his print. No profit-seeking company would chance that.

Finally, I have currently more than 25 films stored in the booth and we worry about overloading the structure. Nobody will pay to ship that volume from Arg back to DKP, which brings us full circle. We have to destroy Imax prints, but we feel awful doing it.

Andrés

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-11-2011, 11:44 AM:

So what happens if someone tries to book New Moon in Imax in a few years (I can't imagine why, but that is not the question here)? Will there be prints available? I would hope that at least a few would be saved from the shredder for this sort of purpose, just as is the case with 35mm and 5/70. Please don't tell me that every single Imax print gets shredded.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 04-11-2011, 12:12 PM:

IMAX holds prints of all there features. Its just a matter of how many for each movie. With Films by The Mouse we always send them back. Disney likes to keep their stuff. I'm not sure if the prints are then stored in Disney's vault or DKP, the cases we have for Mars Needs Moms right now is being shipped back to Disney and are owned by Disney so I guess that means they go to the Disney Vault.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-11-2011, 12:33 PM:

Ah...that makes sense. They probably don't need to save more than a few prints of each title. As long as they keep good ones and the printing negatives, I see no problem with shredding the rest. (Did I just say that?)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-11-2011, 01:51 PM:

As much as it costs to make those 15/70 prints I'm surprised anyone would want them destroyed. Then again, there's only so much space to store such things and some prints may get worn or damaged to the point where they're not useful anymore.

It would be pretty cool to have some frame trims from certain IMAX features, native 15/65mm photographed material that is. The DMR blow-ups from 35mm film aren't as interesting. Stuff blown up to IMAX from video sources is just plain embarrassing.

Collectors can't project such imagery, but you can fun scanning it or just showing to other people. Most who aren't familiar with film formats are pretty surprised when the see the massive size difference between a 4-perf 35mm film frame and a 15/70 IMAX film frame.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 04-11-2011, 03:50 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Ah...that makes sense. They probably don't need to save more than a few prints of each title. As long as they keep good ones and the printing negatives, I see no problem with shredding the rest. (Did I just say that?)

I don't see much of a problem of shredding the prints. The prints cost way too much to ship anyway. I am more than certain IMAX has a few prints of each title kicking around somewhere.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 04-12-2011, 07:19 AM:

I wouldn't mind having a reel of a cool feature in IMAX film (Harry Potter, Pirates, or that new Born To be Wild movie or whatever it is, Dark Knight, ...). Even trailers would work. As Bobby says, it would make a cool conversation piece.

By the way... I do not own an IMAX projector. I do not have access to an IMAX projector, and I have no intention of ever getting an IMAX projector. I just think the film would be cool to show to people and talk about. That is all.

Posted by Greg Shapps (Member # 6713) on 02-17-2012, 12:46 AM:

If anyone is interested - I happen to have an IMAX print that I was given to me and I need to actually get rid of it ASAP. I have no use for it and its been a great conversation piece but I would really hate to have to put it in my dumpsters.

I am moving and it can't come with me.

If there is anyone in Chicago that would like this its all yours - it just needs to be picked up.

The film is called - Legend of Loch Lomond and its stored in a Innerspace Cases metal shipping case.

Like I said - I would hate to have to put this in the dumpster and would love for it to go to someone who can give it a home. I do not want anything for it - its free for the taking.

Thanks,
Greg

Posted by Andy Frodsham (Member # 4061) on 02-17-2012, 05:40 AM:

There are numerous students of film (and other technology) attending courses in UK colleges and universities who would love to see and hold just a couple of frames of motion picture film (even 16mm or 35mm). A few feet of 70mm Imax would set them up for life!!

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 02-17-2012, 09:15 AM:

Greg

Does the distributor know you have this print ?

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 02-17-2012, 10:13 AM:

I bet they know now.

Posted by Greg Shapps (Member # 6713) on 02-17-2012, 10:35 AM:

The film was actually found next to a dumpster near one of my client's office about 2 years ago. The maintenance guy saw one of my equipment cases and said that there is a large case just like that sitting there and asked if I wanted it. I had no clue what was in there except that it was huge and really heavy. I loaded it up in my truck, didn't open it until I got home and did some research as to what exactly it was. Its just been sitting here in a corner ever since.

The only real connection I could figure out is that there is a Scottish Development company in the same building as to where it was found and this is a Scottish Film.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 02-17-2012, 03:11 PM:

Greg were you able to make out the condition of the film at all?

Posted by Greg Shapps (Member # 6713) on 02-17-2012, 04:05 PM:

The film looks in good condition to me but I am a stills guy not a film guy - There appears to be a lead in attached to it of Penguins on the ice in Antarctica - I assume its a lead in as it wouldn't match the description thats written on some tape on the case as well as the platter.

Here is a web gallery of pics of it which I hope is ok to post:
gallery

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 02-18-2012, 03:23 PM:

Is there a soundtrack with the print?

Original distributor was SK Films. Legend of Loch Lomond is not on their current "In Distribution" list.

Posted by Greg Shapps (Member # 6713) on 02-18-2012, 03:47 PM:

no soundtrack that I know of - how would I know actually??

is the soundtrack a separate reel?

or can someone tell me based on looking at the the pics I linked above?

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 02-18-2012, 05:09 PM:

The soundtrack would be on separate media.

You can see the first 5 minutes on YouTube.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-18-2012, 08:18 PM:

The soundtrack could be 3 common type 3 cds or a single dvd or a roll of 35mm mag

Posted by Greg Shapps (Member # 6713) on 02-18-2012, 11:48 PM:

Thanks guys for the responses!

There was no other media was with this unless its hidden somewhere in the padding or under the platter in the case.

Is it legal for me to posses this? Since I found this thing people have been telling me to sell it on EBAY and what not - but I have always been very worried about doing that especially not knowing the legalities behind it - and now that I am moving my studio I figured I would try and just get rid of it any way I can.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-21-2012, 10:15 PM:

With any copyrighted material, the copyright restricts COPYING it, and EXHIBITING it. That's it. There is NOTHING in the copyright law that addresses the physical medium on which copyrighted images or sound are recorded. It's not illegal to possess the FILM, only to exhibit it or copy it. You are doing neither.

The question then is only one of ownership and physical property rights. What comes into play here are the circumstance as to how that print has come into your possession. You didn't buy it, but there are many other ways one can take possession of something without buying it. Someone could give it to you -- in the famous case of Roddy McDowell, where the studios claimed that his film collection had to be "stolen property" because the physical prints were their property and since studios don't sell their prints, it means they were obtained by illegal means. How embarrassed were the Fox lawyers when the defense proved that 16mm prints (the bulk of McDowell's collection) were sold all the time and indeed McDowell actually bought some of his own picture from Fox.

His defense lawyers proved that prints are transferred all the time; directors and cinematographers all get prints of their work. So the case revolved around the fact that there are may ways in which prints legally find their way into the hands of people in the industry. Pints obtained by those various legal means are property like any other property, copyright notwithstanding. Copyrighted material means as much as the copyrighted images from movies that appear in a newspaper. A studio can't claim they own that newspaper because their copyrighted images are contained on it (well, maybe Disney would....). Point being, the individual who obtains possession legally of a print (abandonment is one legal way you can obtain a print), there is nothing preventing the sale of it, giving it away, or just throwing it in the garbage.

The person who has gotten it as a gift or who walks by and picks a print out of the garbage dump takes legal possession of it, at least in most jurisdictions. Abandoning property -- putting something in a dumpster or at the curb for garbage collection shows intent to abandon and to relinquish ownership -- can't be undone because the original owner has a change of heart (again, at least in most jurisdictions -- some may have time and/or value constraints); the owner can't come back a year later and say, I want the couch back that I left on the curb because I still own it. Doesn't work like that, as the studios found out -- Roddy McDowell was never charged or convicted of anything. He discovered that the films he bought from Fox had an agreement which he had signed but never read, which said they always retained ownership, but as the case had fallen so far down the tubes, they couldn't even press that because it was such an obscure clause in a hugh "Master Contract" kind of thing with 6 point type. Funny thing was, at this circus of a trial, it came out that half the A list stars and certainly most of the big directors in Hollywood all had print collections -- Rock Hudson, Elizebeth Taylor...most of his friends. What were the studios going to do -- arrest directors and major stars?

If the producers of that print of LOCH claims it's still theirs, then the question is, was it stolen? If so, did they ever report it stolen to the police? Or did they ever report it to their insurance company as lost? Without those actions to show that the intent was never to relinquish ownership and with no steps taken to affect retention of ownership, then it becomes a prima facie case of abandonment, and as I said, under most torts and statutes, the person retrieving abandoned property receives full ownership rights. And I say again (even though studios love to use the boogy-man of The Copyright Law and the big bad red FBI label to scare everyone), copyright has NOTHING to do with collectors' prints, unless you are making copies of them -- fat chance of that with an IMAX print! Fat chance anyone will ever be able to show it illegally as well.

I am not a lawyer (and I don't even play one on TV) so take what I say with as much or as little salt as you like, but I do know pretty much of what I speak given my close proximity to this particular topic and to some FBI agents in NYC who deal with this particular issue regularly.

Posted by Greg Shapps (Member # 6713) on 02-22-2012, 06:55 PM:

Just wanted to let everyone know that the IMAX print has found a good new home.

I really appreciate all the information and help from you guys - this is a fabulous forum!!

Posted by Jesse August (Member # 1798) on 02-22-2012, 09:04 PM:

Gordon
don't forget DAT.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 02-25-2012, 04:13 PM:

> Abandoning property -- putting something in a dumpster or at the curb for garbage collection shows intent to abandon and to relinquish ownership -- can't be undone because the original owner has a change of heart

This assumes that the party putting something out for garbage actually owned the something. If you put a film print from your theatre out for garbage, that does not mean the studio that owns it abandoned it. Someone unrelated to the theatre removing it from the dumpster may not be guilty of theft, but that is a far cry from them being able to claim they own it because it was abandoned.

Like Frank, I am not a lawyer and this post is my opinion only.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-27-2012, 02:44 AM:

BUT -- problem is, the studio has never gone back to that theatre and said, "Hey, where's our print?" There needs to be some show of intent by the studio to retrieve their property or find out who is putting it out on the curb with the garbage.

With all the trailers that are dumped on a daily basis, one would think that any studio that really had any desire to retain ownership of the physical entity would in the course of DECADES of this routine modus operandi, the owner of said trailer prints would have made some noise about where the trailers are going, if indeed they wish to actually retain physical ownership. They can't show disregard for the on-going disposal of their property while making no move or take any action to stop it, and then come to someone who fishes a trailer out of the city dump and claims it still belongs to them.