Note that I said "supposedly PD". There are a lot of titles out there that are being sold as if they were public domain when in fact they are copyrighted, only the copyright owner hasn't done anything about it (for whatever reason). AFAIK several of the early Hitchcock titles fall into that category.

Skip,

You're right. But I was talking about movies that actually never were PD, but were distributed as if they were. Either in the mistaken belief that they were actually PD, or in the hope that the actual owner wouldn't notice or wouldn't act. Those would be considered bootlegs.

There are also cases (I'm told) where the rights owner sold the rights but then proceeded to still issue the movie on DVD. Those would also be considered bootlegs.

You say that it takes research and knowledge. And since not everybody will have that knowledge, don't you agree that saying "There is absolutely no reason that any user with any size collection should be caught with boots, unless they are no exercising due care or don't care" is a bit harsh?

BTW, Gunnar< I apply almosrt the same standards to my data, I ASSUME nothing, if I cannot be reasonably certain that two names are the same person, then I won't deal with them. I will NOT enter data of any kind that I am uncertain of, even images which is why I use software to set my colors and NOT my eyes, which sometimes leads to lovely interpretations but incorrect relative to reality. The software brings a measure of objectivity to an otherwise tottally subjective issue. My scans always come very close to if not an exact match to the Actual cover.

Skip

And why did that happen? Because both those distributors  and the customers made an assumption. OTOH, Criterion knew what the story was, as did I, and they licensed the film for their presentation on DVD, once their license expired the tittle went OOP and full ownership reverted to the legal copyright holder. I forget who the Copyright holder is but they secured the Copyright back in 1995 and have thus far not chosen to do their own release. Maybe sometday, or maybe they will relicense it to Criterion again...who knows. For the record, I am no fan of ANY PD company, especially Madacy and I think the now defunct GoodTimes, but sometimes that is the only path to a title as it may be highly unlikely that any major Studio will ever get involved, sad but true. Mill Creek is preparing the Richard Greene The Adventures of Robin Hood in complete season sets. I have no doubt that the transfers will be poor at best, but also likely to be the best that can be done, but I can ALWAYS hope.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
And why did that happen? Because both those distributors  and the customers made an assumption. OTOH, Criterion knew what the story was, as did I

Well, good for you, but irrelevant to what we were discussing.

My point was that it's easy for anyone who isn't Skip to accidentally let a bootleg slip into their collection. If you have the time to thoroughly research each and every item, then that's commendable. I still say it's not reasonable to expect each and every person to do that kind of research, and thus it's a bit harsh to issue such a blanket condemnation as you did.

But since you seem to refuse to see that, I guess there's no point in continuing to argue about it. So that's all I have to say in the matter. I apologize to the rest of the readers of this thread for putting you through this bickering... 

oops

It's easier to get a "bootleg" than many of you might think.
If you buy a DVD that might be completely legit in it's original location and export it by what means ever into another country where this movie is not available on DVD, you just "bootlegged" it, because this DVD violates the licensed rights of the copyright owner in the import country, and you can be sure that there is one.

Quoting wintermute115:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
PD is a film or TV show whose copyright has expired and is  now open to any and all.

Under US law, for copyright to have "expired", it needs to have first been published in America before 1923. This is unlikely to include any TV shows. Content that was first published before 1964 (which would include a few TV shows) needed to have their copyright renewed after 24 years (this requirement was removed in 1978), but non-renewed copyright is legally slightly different from "expired" copyright.

Quote:
Because back in the "old days" and to soem ext3ent still today, once a show went into syndication, it would be edited to allow for more commercial time and IF the show was running in syndication at the same time it was still airing on network TV, then typically the theme music would be changed. It is that modified form of the shows which appear on DVD in PD.

Studios would take a show that was currently earning money for them and release a version of it into the public domain? That seems, frankly, unlikely. What would be the motive at that point for the syndicators to buy the non PD version?

Can you provide any documentation to demonstrate that this was common practice?

Quote:
IF the films were PD at the time they were released and subsequently had their copyright purchased...

This is an impossible scenario. No-one owns the copyright (that is what "public domain" means), so there is no-one that you could purchase copyright from. Once a work is in the public domain, it is there forever and cannot be re-copyrighted.

       

Winter:

What is it you don't comprehend? You start off sounding intelligent and then it goes to pot

It was very coomon fo older television to move into syndication while still airing on network TV. Bonanza, The Beverly Hillbillies and The Andy Griffith Show all come to mind. Once theshow moved into syndication it typically was re-edited for more commercial time, in other words the show was shortened) and the network demaded that the shows theme music be changed. For copyright purposes, the syndicating company now owned the copyright to these altered shows, while the network or whoever retained the copyright to the Original film stock. The syndicator did not apparently retain as tight control over its copyright as did the in most cases the original Owner. So many of these altered TV shows found their way into the PD. So you have the altered versions of these shows appearing on PD Distributor lists. While, in the case of Bonanza, Paramount still owns the film stock to the original and has restored the show and is running it on TV Land, they have not yet chosen to release the Original to DVD. Copyright law is far more complex that even I understood it to be, as was recently demoinstarted by the The Bionic Woman remake. UNiversal still owns the Originasl show and film stock, but they apparently went to sleep relative to the Bionic concepts the show was based on and which apparently were also copyrightable. When the rights to those concepts expired, the Weinstein Company pounced on it and pproduced the new show, but they have apparently also blocked release of the Original show to DVD because to do so would be a violation of the copyright noiw held by the Weinstein Company. So, Universal now owns film stock they can currently do nothing with, unless they can come to some sort of an agreement with the Weinsteins.

It's a very messy area.

And a copyright can absolutely be "purchased", it happens all the time. You evidently don't track Hollywood as closely as i do and are unaware of such transactions. Sometimes a film is picked up for restoration purposes and as soon as that process is complete the company then establishes the Copyright to the restored film, see El Cid for an example of this. El Cid is now owned by the Weinstein Company, a company that did not exist at the time El Cid was filmed. It's a very complex field and has taken me many years to learn what I know wabout it, but The Bionic Woman affair tought me something new, concepts copyrightable? Wow.

Skip