Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 16mm non-theatrical booking

This is topic 16mm non-theatrical booking in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=002707

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 11-21-2003, 01:42 PM:

My church wants to do some movie screenings (semi/recent major and independent films) they want to do this on a regular basis, and the person organizing it has expressed a desire to make it "more like being at the theater"

I have been thinking about lending them my 16mm projector (with me operating it, of course) and booking the films.

Can anyone recommend a service through which to book the films? (other than Modern Sound Pictures or Swank)

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-21-2003, 01:50 PM:

Criterion Pictures
New Yorker Films
Kino International

Note that any given title (except for PD material, of course) will generally be available through only one of these distributors.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-21-2003, 05:43 PM:

ok, without getting ideological....

if it's only an in-church thing, surely it's not a public performance and any 16mm print, obtained anywhere (bought, say) could be used, without restriction, right?

or is it open to the general public?

carl

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 11-21-2003, 05:47 PM:

Church

Bar

Club

Free

By invitation only

it's all a public performance.

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 11-22-2003, 06:12 PM:

Screenings are free and open to members and visitors of the church (the general public).

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 11-23-2003, 03:10 AM:

You have to book legit; this is a public performance.

Jeff

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-23-2003, 11:09 AM:

If he has access to a collector's print can't he save some money by just making some sort of licensing deal? Avoiding shipping costs and wear and tear on the distributor's print ought to be worth something. The late Films Inc./PMI used to offer public performance licensing for videos obtained elsewhere. I presume others offer similar options.

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 11-23-2003, 11:40 AM:

If you have a print, but want to pay rights, Swank Motion Pictures will allow you to do so. The costs will vary from title to title. You won't save a ton of money on the rental (probably $30-100), but that savings coupled with not having to pay shipping will help.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-23-2003, 11:48 AM:

I didn't know that Swank had this policy (Kit Parker used to do something similiar when they had rights but no prints for some titles), but I'd be _very_ nervous about telling anyone connected with distribution that I had access to a privately owned print of anything that isn't PD.

Even though private ownership of prints is a legal grey area and even though the collector is trying to do the right thing by trying to license the screening, some people and distribution may not see things this way. Unless you know and trust the booker, it might be better just to keep quiet.

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 11-23-2003, 04:54 PM:

I really don't think that Swank is organized enough to try to help the studios track down a collector's print. However, I agree with you, Scott. I would be wary of passing along that information. You could tell them that you were planning on showing a DVD or video, and pay the rights without pricking up the ears of the print police.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-24-2003, 05:26 AM:

but it's 16mm. where's the grey area? especially if it's also available on video or dvd and thus not a threat for bootlegging.

are there instances i don't know about where people have been busted for having a 16mm print of something or is this just an extension of 35mm paranoia?

carl

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-24-2003, 07:03 AM:

This probably isn't the right place to talk about film collecting. It should suffice to say that most film distributors can afford better lawyers than most film collectors and that most film collectors are somewhat paranoid as a result.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 11-24-2003, 08:19 AM:

quote:
but it's 16mm. where's the grey area?

Ownership of 16mm prints, at least of features, is certainly a grey area. 16mm shorts were sold for home use, as was also done with 9.5mm and 8mm. Some instructional material was available for outright sale on 16mm, for certain specified purposes. Complete feature films were not normally sold on 16mm, ex. library prints do quite often turn up at collectors' fairs, (as has 35mm nitrate before now, but that's another matter) these are normally stated to be for 'home use only', but it is a grey area. Even if you legitimatly own the print, this is very different to owning the rights to exhibit it.

You could certainly get into some fairly serious trouble for exhibiting a 16mm print in a public cinema, or to an institution such as a school, church, college, prison, youth club etc., without being licenced to do so; this is certainly not private home use.

I do know of cases where a cinema has booked a 35mm print for a public show, but has just stored it without being run, and then returned it to the distributor, having run another print, in better condition, which they have borrowed from a collector. I doubt if anyone would get into trouble by doing this, if for no other reason than that it is unlikely that anybody who might care would be aware that it was not the 'legitimate' print which was being run.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-24-2003, 10:44 AM:

I think that the issue Scott and Joe were raising is that of physical ownership of the print. Given that feature film prints were never and are never legitimately sold outright to third parties (apart from to other distributors who take over the theatrical rights, and a very few Super 8 prints which are sold with the same domestic licences as videos), then in theory at least one illegal act has taken place in order for them to change hands. I can think of several possible scenarios, for example:

Distributor passes used release print to a disposal contractor, who fails to dispose of it and passes it to a collector instead.
Prints which are surplus to requirement never being collected from the venue of their last playdate. I've worked in several cinemas where the odd feature film print was lying around which was simply never collected. From here it's a small step to that print being 'rescued' by a collector.
Prints getting lost in transit and eventually finding their way into the hands of collectors. I was once told that around 30 release prints are lost in transit in the UK per year, never to be seen again.
Prints being deliberately stolen from cinemas, exchanges or labs.

In all of these scenarios the print is still the legitimate property of the distributor, so I can understand why any collector who has one - even if (s)he committed no offence by acquiring it - would be reluctant to reveal the fact in public. One way of getting round the booking issue might be to say that you're showing an archive print. These are also cleared separately with the theatrical rights holder, though I guess they may check with the archive to ensure that the the title has been booked as stated.