The Ohio Sci-Fi and Horror Marathons

Well in infra-kids defense just about every theater in town that has held a marathon has used "collector prints" at one time or another and simply did not advertise the showing of the film (anyone remember Don't Look Now part 2: Still not looking?) So there are ways around getting permission especially is cases where your not sure who owns the rights. When I manged Marcus cinemas in Pickerington I showed my 35mm print of "Welcome to my Nightmare" and the powers that be told me that if anyone comes looking for money they would take care of it.

True if you showed STAR WARS your dealing with Lucas Films and you could be in trouble but in this case I don't think were talking about a block buster movie that everyone knows who owns the rights to it and the owner has publicly said many times that he won't allow any public screenings of this movie.

So if a "collectors Print" of Basket Case or any other low budget Horror film were to fall into Bruce and Joe's hands I am sure they could find a way to show it if they really wanted to.

_________________
Jaws3dfan®
Follow me on Twitter

Joe and Bruce can speak better to this, but I seem to remember that in the past studios would sometimes license screenings from collector prints for a fee. In college, the Page Manor in Dayton screened and advertised a triple feature of the Indiana Jones films from collector prints and the theater paid a small fee (but this was 1994). I'm sure our lawsuit happy corporate nation, is different now, but collector prints do occasionally screen.

_________________
"I came here to chew bubble gum and kick a**. I'm all out of bubble gum."

Does not matter. Joe and Bruce must work within the system. During the Studio 35 days they were lucky. Just speculating that they can't do that today. These days people are more protective of thier copyrighted works then before.

If someone would told me that they will take care of the fees to screen a "private collector" print I would like to see that in wirting and noterized. It wouldn't suprise me that these people you speak of would sell you out if they see the cost to screen these films in a commercial venue.

The ticket sales pay for the cost of renting the film prints and digital copies of the film. Joe and Bruce can't be saddle with unexpected cost if they choose to screen a "private collector" print. They are not made out of money.

A theater might get away screening a copy of the Star Wars Holiday Special according to the People vs George Lucas doc. GL have to acknowledge the special and he doesn't really want to do that. He did acknowledge the special somewhat on the Blu Ray box set.

That's why you don't advertise the film in anyway.

_________________
Jaws3dfan®
Follow me on Twitter

Seems like a certain individual speaks for Joe and Bruce now. Interesting.
I've done several horror marathons myself and when I rented the certain prints I wanted from people, that is what I did. I got the prints from the people. No retaliation. NO extra fees. Just smooth sailing.
If you've been watching lately there have been many drive in marathons going on in Pennsylvania and NY as well as other places and I'm going to bet that they didn't track down some long dead company to shell out a few dollars in "royalties". I'm pretty sure I know the actual guy who rented them the prints and he is cool and cheap.
It's kind of odd how people don't have any idea of the reality.

Lots to be said here.

One thing that is critical upfront is that there is a huge difference between studio films and indies. Yes, a lot of indies become 'orphan' films over time with ownership up in the air. However, it isn't necessarily that cut and dry - a lot of these 'orphans' are bought up by huge conglomerates and are actually owned by somebody. It can get pretty tricky, and legally, dangerous.

Two, there is also a difference in what market you are screening your films in. Some are more "public" to the studios than others. Recently, a theater in L.A. wanted to show Every Single movie they ran the first month they opened in 1978. They tracked down prints of all except one - LOGAN'S RUN. The studio only offered a DVD. I told them that prints had been shown at the Boston and Ohio Marathons. They told me that they, too, had tracked down a private print. But, they wouldn't touch them. They are in L.A., and were too obvious a target. And, just saying, "Don't publicize it" doesn't necessarily work anymore. Decades ago in Boston we showed STAR WARS. Fox and Lucas just said to keep it out of the publicity. But, nowadays, even if you're showing the private print in Podunk, Iowa there will inevitably be someone tweeting about IN the theater while it's showing - let alone the Internet and other social media.

Three, sometimes it is permissible to get around the problem by legally renting a DVD from the studio, tossing it aside, and show the private print you procured. Depending on the theater's policy, they might or might not tell the studio they are doing this.

Finally, it usually does come down to how comfortable an individual theater is with showing private/bootleg prints. This question has been discussed in Boston, L.A. and Columbus many times over the years at various venues.

Just last night, Carter9000 and I saw a double bill of SHRIEK OF THE MUTILATED and INVASION OF THE BLOOD FARMERS here in Hollywood. Both private prints. And, the Producer/Director Ed Adlum was there to introduce and do a Q&A. Did that make the screening "legal"? Possibly. Adlum no longer owns the films. In fact, SHRIEK contains the 70s hit song "Popcorn" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK5q1bU59Ic). But, when the movie was released on DVD by Retromedia, the song has been eliminated because of fear of legal issues. Last night, Adlum insisted he got legal authorization to use the song and claims he still has the letter to prove it. Retromedia, as an ongoing DVD distributor, wasn't taking chances. And, a lot of theaters feel the same way.

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

Ironically, YouTube, the person that posted the video on YouTube, L.A. Connection and this forum are all now in violation of posting "POPCORN" without getting legal permission by the rights holder. Yes posting a link to known copyrighted material is a DRM violation. The rules of the game have changed and "Copyright Holders" are just greedy people looking to squeeze a few extra pennies out of something they did 40 some years ago. In Europe the copyright law had a specific time frame and than the rights expired, however The Beatles library was about to become Public Domain and they were trying to revamp the law to stop that from happening (Greed).

_________________
Jaws3dfan®
Follow me on Twitter

I don't speak for Joe and Bruce this is why I used the word speculation. I could gladly post a defination of the word Infra-Kid.

Infra-Kid I do find it amusing that your comment that we don't live in the real word. The fact is that as L.A Connection pointed out and Arron pointed out and I pointed out that there are legal ramifications if a commercial venue doesn't sercure the proper legal documents to screen a film.

This is 2012. Half or slightly more than half of mobile phones are smartphones. iPhone, Android, Blackberry, WP7, WP8, and Symbian all have access to Facebook or Twitter. Via the browsers or apps. Now don't go saying that smartphones are expensive when Sprint's Virgin Mobile is selling an Android phone for $100. There are feature phones that also have access to Facebook and Twitter. The world is more connected these days.

I would like to get a copy of 1980's SHE on DVD. There are websites that does offer SHE on DVD. They also sell copies of Jaws 3(D) in 3D witch stop me from ordering the DVD.

True there are films that exist in a legal grey zone. These films are too risky to screen due to that if a venue schedule a legal grey zone film that film copyright issue might get resolve before the screening date.

And some of you guys say that film is dead! Look at all the talk a measly little print of BASKET CASE has spawned!

Geez, a guy doesn't look at the board for a few days and look what happens. Chaos reigns!

In any case...let's see, how best to address this......

First, what my old pal L.A. Connection posted is, for the most part, correct. And yes, folks, he's been working behind the scenes at the Boston Marathon for quite some time. So he knows of what he speaketh.

With the studios having an ever more tenuous commitment to repertory 35mm prints, collectors and film archives have increasingly been invaluable to the continuing survival of repertory/revival houses and film fests. Look at the programming slates of most of major houses in New York, L.A., etc, over the last few years and you're more than likely to see collector and private archive prints peppered throughout them. That print of THE HITCHER that we enjoyed last year? We teamed up with the Alamo Drafthouse and several other major revival houses nationwide to fly it in from the BFI archive. There have been no domestic prints for quite some time, so it became necessary to consult alternative sources. And as part of that tour, we all paid a rental back to the BFI to cover the domestic rights.

Now some of the major studios are very amenable to clearing screenings of collector and archival prints. They're realistic about the state of their own archives, so as long as the venue pays them, they'll gladly give them the rights. On the other hand, there are a few studios (like, as L.A. mentioned, Warner Brothers) who have a very strict no collector print policy. It's too bad, but they're also completely entitles to enforce their copyright as well.

(On a side note about copyright: yes, there are major corporations who can get very draconian with their copyright enforcement. But under law, there are also a large number of artists and creators who have shed blood, sweat and tears for their works, who deserve to get some compensation for those works, and who are rarely paid due to the abuse of those laws by some parties. Yeah, call me crazy, but if I know of a filmmaker like Ted Mikels or Hershcell Gordon Lewis, both of whom financed a decent part of their own careers, I want them to be compensated for their efforts. But that's another discussion for another time...)

A key term that often gets bandied about in the film programmer's community is "due diligence." There are often situations (like the seemingly orphaned films that L.A. referred to) where tracking down the rights holders can be difficult. Most programmers will exercise their own due diligence in trying to find those rights holders, but it's often an extremely hard proposition. As MeatFetish pointed out, the Page Manor tactic of screening a print and holding back some cash in the event that the rights holder the venue was looking for surfaces is not all that uncommon.

That being said, most revival houses and festivals will also strive to pay a studio if they are able to clear rights for a private print. We did so with that (ahem) vintage print of PIT AND THE PENDULUM we screened last year. We also cleared rights to screen DAY OF THE DEAD in 2009 with Taurus Entertainment. It's just good business practice and helps keep everyone happy.

Now, are there still non-cleared screenings that happen around the world? Yes. Will there continue to be screenings like that? Yes. Argue ethics all you want, but in this internet age, does it benefit anyone if some goon on the net blows the whistle on a single screening of a film that would be nearly impossible to otherwise clear? In my mind, no. The key (once again, as L.A. pointed out) is the venue location. Bigger markets attract more attention, which leads to more risk for a non-cleared screening. Smaller venues off the beaten path are likely to draw less immediate attention. But that's no guarantee.

So yeah, in general, it's always best to at least attempt to pay the rights holders, and usually an even better idea if said rights holder is a major studio. But exceptions have occurred and will continue to do so.

Just to be clear the fee I was referring to was paid up front, not as a fine. Can't imagine Lucasfilm being that cool now, but this was before Lucas first started his "special editions" of Star Wars.

So from what I gather, it sounds like, yes, even today some studios are open to licensing screenings of collector's prints. So let's just thank the host organisms for going to such lengths and expenses to secure the prints we do get and stop worrying. And I'll take a bullet for them for securing that Don't Look Now 2: Still Not Looking 16mm print many years ago. I certainly hope that no one on these boards would purposely sound any alarms because of "righteous" crusade to make sure that every letter of the law is complied with. I mean really, how do we know that Bruce and Joe didn't just steal all the posters and T shirts they give out? All this copyright talk on this board is kind of like lecturing people on the evils of smoking at a party-it's a real downer. Be happy that you and your friends don't smoke and just enjoy the party.

_________________
"I came here to chew bubble gum and kick a**. I'm all out of bubble gum."

Yeah, it's more about due diligence for sources that might be tough to locate. LucasFilm is pretty hard NOT to get in contact with.



Shhhhh.......don't tell anyone, but our plot involved backing up a truck containing a large magnet to the studio prize vault.

I'll say no more.

Yeah, bitches! MAGNETS!

_________________
Aliens? Us?
Is this one of your Earth "jokes?"

F*%^$#g magnets ... how do they work?

_________________
David A. Zecchini; Creature of the Wheel, Lord of the Infernal Engines
"Damnati Im Ludum" (VitruvianZeke@att.net)