Go Back   Forums @ The Digital Fix > Entertainment Discussion Forums > DVD and Blu-ray Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-07-2008, 20:44   #741
Guest 18933
Trusted User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 'Uddersfield
Posts: 739
Thanks: 22
Thanked 21 Times in 9 Posts
I guess the price is probably on a par with what the long-out-of-print Criterion Hitchcock set used to retail for and presumably most retailers will sell the set for less than $120?

I'm trying to find out if Triad Productions have picked up the US rights to the other titles that MGM were originally going to include in the 2004 set (e.g. The 39 Steps), as apparently the transfers on their DVDs are considerably better than the "public domain" US DVDs.
Guest 18933 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2008, 20:57   #742
Livius
Is it far?
 
Livius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere in the Med
Posts: 1,587
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
According to DVD Times, Rebecca, Spellbound and Notorious are getting individual releases for $19.98 SRP.
__________________
Riding the High Country
Livius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2008, 11:58   #743
Richie
Trusted User
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 23,671
Thanks: 238
Thanked 159 Times in 82 Posts
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=68213
Awesome news!
I can finally get the best version of Vertigo (with glorious 4th gen mono) without having to buy the big box with films I don't want in it.
Richie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2008, 17:40   #744
Guest 53410
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London
Posts: 11
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Is it worth picking up the new cheap individual releases of Network's R2 Young and Innocent and Sabotage, at £3.99 each at HMV, or wait for the R1 MGM Premiere Collection (but I suppose MGM won't release these 2 titles individually, at least not right away) ?
Guest 53410 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2008, 22:51   #745
Guest 57708
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 99
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Neither are great. Some say a very good print of Y & I was shown on TCM, at least in the States.

Anyway, the Network Young & Innocent is at least free of the dreadful colour-speckling which made the Carlton issue a disgrace. Sabotage is, I think, the first UK DVD issue of this title from official sources. It's a step or two up from the Public Domain issues which circulate but nothing to write home about.

At the asking price, they'll do. That whole Network set had one or two good extras but was a missed opportunity to provide fine transfers of material which will always have a slow but steady sale.
Guest 57708 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2008, 19:38   #746
Guest 61191
Trusted User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 32
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Remember those other copies that HMV (and others) sell are not 'public domain', they are bootlegs.
Guest 61191 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2008, 20:16   #747
Guest 64522
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 494
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by James M View Post
Remember those other copies that HMV (and others) sell are not 'public domain', they are bootlegs.

Its unlikely that HMV would sell bootleg dvd's.

Although the Public Domain rules are irrelevant in the UK its always possible that some UK companies can get away with releasing films that have fallen into the PD in the US so there isnt a company in the UK that owns the rights either so presumably there is nobody to complain about it.

The label Elstree Hill has a catalogue that is nothing but PD titles.
Guest 64522 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2008, 23:17   #748
Guest 53410
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London
Posts: 11
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by James M View Post
Remember those other copies that HMV (and others) sell are not 'public domain', they are bootlegs.
Ugh... why exactly are we talking about bootlegs (or, rather, accusing HMV to sell bootlegs) ?

Unless I am very mistaken, the 2 DVDs I mentioned are very clearly labelled as being released by Network, and they are part of the Hitchcock British Years released earlier this year, mentioned in post #720 above, which also gives the URL of the company's website. I must therefore conclude that you are also accusing Network of releasing bootleg DVDs in the UK...

Quote:
Originally Posted by tips4tnt View Post
Network have now added details to their website:

Hitchcock The British Years

Special Features:
* Digitally restored versions of The Lodger, The 39 Steps, Sabotage, Young and Innocent, The Lady Vanishes and Jamaica Inn
* Cinema: Alfred Hitchcock – unseen for forty years, Mike Scott interviews Hitchcock about his life and career
* Aquarius: Alfred the Great – taken from the 1972 arts programme, this show includes candid photography of Hitchcock filming Frenzy in London
* Charles Barr On… - a series of featurettes in which film historian Charles Barr introduces and analyses each of the ten films contained within this set
* On Location featurettes for both Sabotage and The 39 Steps, introduced by Robert Powell
* Original theatrical trailer for The Lady Vanishes
* Hitchcock: The Early Years - 25 minute documentary covering Hitchcock’s pre-war career
* Script PDFs for The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes and Jamaica Inn
* Image Galleries
* Introductory booklet written by Charles Barr
* More TBC
Guest 53410 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2008, 02:11   #749
Guest 61191
Trusted User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 32
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
"Its unlikely that HMV would sell bootleg dvd's.", well I'm sorry but it's already happening and has been happening for a long time.

I've seen bootleg DVDs in HMV shops in the high street as well as online. To be fair, Amazon sell them as well.

Since 1996, ANY British film that is in copyright in the UK is also in copyright in the US. They didn't sell DVDs before then, I believe, so any DVD of a 1920s or 1930s Hitchcock film that is unlicensed is be definition a bootleg. I've seen bootleg DVD copies of US films that have always been in copyright on sale in HMV such as The Crimson Pirate

Last edited by James M; 24-07-2008 at 02:12.
Guest 61191 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2008, 09:06   #750
Guest 47807
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 359
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by James M View Post
"Its unlikely that HMV would sell bootleg dvd's.", well I'm sorry but it's already happening and has been happening for a long time.

I've seen bootleg DVDs in HMV shops in the high street as well as online. To be fair, Amazon sell them as well.

Since 1996, ANY British film that is in copyright in the UK is also in copyright in the US. They didn't sell DVDs before then, I believe, so any DVD of a 1920s or 1930s Hitchcock film that is unlicensed is be definition a bootleg. I've seen bootleg DVD copies of US films that have always been in copyright on sale in HMV such as The Crimson Pirate
How is any retailer supposed to know what is a bootleg? It's up to the copyright holders to take action but in many cases it is either not worth the trouble or the rights may have become obscure.
Guest 47807 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2008, 09:26   #751
Guest 61191
Trusted User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 32
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by big2 View Post
Ugh... why exactly are we talking about bootlegs (or, rather, accusing HMV to sell bootlegs) ?

Unless I am very mistaken, the 2 DVDs I mentioned are very clearly labelled as being released by Network, and they are part of the Hitchcock British Years released earlier this year, mentioned in post #720 above, which also gives the URL of the company's website. I must therefore conclude that you are also accusing Network of releasing bootleg DVDs in the UK...
Yes, you are correct but in the post prior to mine the poster refers to what he describes as 'public domain'.

The Network DVDs are properly licensed but all other versions available of these films in the UK on DVD are bootlegs.
Guest 61191 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2008, 09:34   #752
Guest 61191
Trusted User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 32
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas R View Post
How is any retailer supposed to know what is a bootleg? It's up to the copyright holders to take action but in many cases it is either not worth the trouble or the rights may have become obscure.
It may not the retailers fault and I suspect that someone like Granada can not be bothered to do anything about it because they have already licensed the titles out and have their money. It's worth letting the consumer know though.
Guest 61191 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2008, 11:49   #753
Guest 57708
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 99
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
"in the post prior to mine the poster refers to what he describes as 'public domain'."


I should certainly have put it in quote marks so this needless diversion could have been avoided.
Guest 57708 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2008, 20:53   #754
Guest 64522
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 494
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by James M View Post
"Its unlikely that HMV would sell bootleg dvd's.", well I'm sorry but it's already happening and has been happening for a long time.

I've seen bootleg DVDs in HMV shops in the high street as well as online. To be fair, Amazon sell them as well.

Since 1996, ANY British film that is in copyright in the UK is also in copyright in the US. They didn't sell DVDs before then, I believe, so any DVD of a 1920s or 1930s Hitchcock film that is unlicensed is be definition a bootleg. I've seen bootleg DVD copies of US films that have always been in copyright on sale in HMV such as The Crimson Pirate
To say that HMV would knowingly sell bootleg dvd's is probably libellous apart from being silly.

You obviously have no knowledge of US copyright laws.

How is copyright in the US related to UK law?

In the US copyright on films and tv shows needs to be renewed every 28 years - if its not it falls into the Public Domain.

This is how and why films like Its A Wonderful Life gained a following in the 70's when its lapsed copyright permitted unlimited tv broadcasts for free.

Its also why there are countless releases of the same old films like the original Night of the Living Dead aswell as Laurel & Hardy material like Babes In Toyland and Flying Deuces.

I agree that the PD rules are meaningless in the UK as copyright doesnt need to be renewed- however its quite possible the company that owns the rights to a lot of this stuff no longer exists.

There are also issues in the US regarding buyouts over the years which has lead to questions over who actually owns the rights to certain films and certain studio output.

For this reason its easy to see UK dvd companies obtaining prints from sellers who while not being the original owner dont have anyone to answer to.

If a film or tv show has no copyright holder that exists - how can it be possible for material to be illegal.

If the current owner is out of business or unknown then surely its fine for stuff to be released.

It would appear that US copyright on many early Hitchcock films lapsed long ago

Last edited by dennisspooner; 25-07-2008 at 21:00.
Guest 64522 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2008, 20:57   #755
Guest 64522
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 494
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by James M View Post
Yes, you are correct but in the post prior to mine the poster refers to what he describes as 'public domain'.

The Network DVDs are properly licensed but all other versions available of these films in the UK on DVD are bootlegs.
"Public Domain" is not just something that I made up.
Its part of US copyright law. Look it up

Network obviously obtained the prints and the rights from the genuine owner who has access to the vault materials.

But if the copyright had lapsed in the US then the original owner cannot stop US releases at all.

And it may be not cost effective to pursue UK companies.

Stanley Donens Charade is another title that seems to fall into the PD category.

After years of searching for a quality disc- even checking one given free in the Daily Express- it was down to Criterion to access the genuine material and give us a legit version that looked and sounded good.

However - the countless other versions are still available

Last edited by dennisspooner; 25-07-2008 at 20:59.
Guest 64522 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2008, 03:25   #756
Guest 57579
Tennessee Stud
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: My Medium-Sized American Heart
Posts: 184
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Oh wow, public domain discussion. It should probably be noted here, for the sake of avoiding confusion, that the 28 years thing isn't entirely accurate. There are different rules depending on when the copyright originated. Most copyrights will be for a much longer period of time.

It's a Wonderful Life is an interesting situation because it was believed to have had a lapsed copyright, but was much later ruled to be a derivative work of the original short story, which was still protected. That's why Paramount now has exclusive rights.

Charade was a matter of pure neglect due to a lack of copyright notice on prints. That caused it to fall into public domain. However, Universal's original prints are still under copyright. That's why Criterion's DVD looks so much better than the cheap versions, because they directly licensed Universal's materials.

Last edited by clydefro; 26-07-2008 at 03:27.
Guest 57579 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2008, 13:56   #757
Guest 47807
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 359
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dennisspooner View Post

Stanley Donens Charade is another title that seems to fall into the PD category.

After years of searching for a quality disc- even checking one given free in the Daily Express- it was down to Criterion to access the genuine material and give us a legit version that looked and sounded good.

However - the countless other versions are still available
Universal also released Charade on DVD in the UK. It's still available and picture quality is excellent.
Guest 47807 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2008, 20:23   #758
Guest 64522
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 494
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas R View Post
Universal also released Charade on DVD in the UK. It's still available and picture quality is excellent.
Yes- it was that one or the Criterion one I had to choose from.

However - having seen so many bad discs - including the one in the Express - I thought Criterion were a sure thing whereas Universal arent.

Have you seen their UK disc of Invasion of the Bodysnatchers - its appalling

Last edited by dennisspooner; 26-07-2008 at 20:23.
Guest 64522 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2008, 08:13   #759
Guest 18933
Trusted User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 'Uddersfield
Posts: 739
Thanks: 22
Thanked 21 Times in 9 Posts
Just to clear things up, the majority of Hitchcock British films are currently copyrighted in the US.

The combination of the US adoption of Berne (specifically the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988) and changes to the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 that were made in the 1990s (see Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995 SI 1995/3297) mean that any Hitchcock films that had previous fallen into the Public Domain in the UK were retrospectively brought back under copyright until at least 2050 (being 70 years after Hitchcock's death). As the US now honours foreign copyright terms, the films are also no longer in the Public Domain in the USA.

The confusion arises from the fact that many of Hitchcock's British films did enter the UK (and US?) Public Domain during the 1970s and 1980s. As the home video market began to take off, companies began to (legitimately) release unlicensed prints of the films on VHS.

As part of the implementation of Berne in the US, non-US rights holders could register a "Notice of Intent to Enforce a Restored Copyright" with the US Copyright Office. You can find notices for nearly all of Hitchcock's British films in the documents linked to here http://www.copyright.gov/gatt.html

Despite all of the above, budget DVD companies in the US continue to release unlicensed DVDs using the prints previously used for PD video transfers. To my mind, it is acceptable to call these releases "bootlegs" (as the source material is copyrighted and the releases are unlicensed).

Ultimately it's down to the rights holders (Granada International and Canal UK Plus) to take legal action and, perhaps, they feel it's not worth their while to do so?

More recently, there have been a number of DVD releases in the UK which appear to be unlicensed (specifically the packaging does not include copyright details and does not reference the rights holders). The transfer quality of these DVDs is on a par with the US "PD" DVDs -- in fact, some are direct copies and are still in NTSC format. I'm guessing these are the ones on sale at HMV which previous posters are talking about? UK companies which have released these apparently unlicensed DVDs include Orbit Media and Waterfall Home Entertainment.

It's also probably worth noting that Amazon.com has recently begun selling unlicensed Hitchcock transfers on DVD-R. This may come to a head soon, as a DVD-R of "Stage Fright" recently went on sale -- I believe Warner Bros own the US copyright on that film and they make not take too kindly to Amazon selling DVD-R bootlegs of their films!!!
Guest 18933 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2008, 18:18   #760
Guest 61191
Trusted User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 32
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dennisspooner View Post
To say that HMV would knowingly sell bootleg dvd's is probably libellous apart from being silly.
It would also be silly to say that all giraffes have thirteen legs but I would ordinarily refrain from making such a point until someone makes such a claim.

Placing such a statement following a quote of mine may suggest that you believe that I had made such a claim. Do you believe that I claimed that HMV knowingly sell bootleg DVDs? If you do, can you please tell me where I made this claim? If not, can you point out that I did not make such a claim.

I did make a claim that HMV sell bootleg DVDs of Hitchcock's early British films alongside Network's licensed versions. You subsequently disputed that this was unlikely, suggesting I was mistaken. I re-iterated my statement and explicitly stated that unlicensed copies of the early British Hitchcock films, which are in copyright, (that is the definition of a bootleg) are on sale from HMV. Perhaps it might have helped to provide you with further evidence.

Have a look at this list of titles produced by Orbit Media, one of several companies who have released bootleg DVDs of Hitchcock's British films that have made their way to the high street. You will find this company has produced bootleg DVDs of many titles.

http://hmv.com/hmvweb/advancedSearch...bel=ORBITMEDIA

Quote:
Originally Posted by dennisspooner View Post
You obviously have no knowledge of US copyright laws.
I am curious to know which of my comments allowed you to reach such a conclusion. Is that you wrongly believed that the Hitchcock films I talked of were in the public domain in the US and therefore wrongly concluded that copies of the film being sold in the US were counterfeit? You can see from the post made by tips4tnt (and appreciated by me) that NIEs had been recently made for some of these British Hitchcock films. An NIE was a Notice of Intent to Enforce restored copyright, not a renewal.

NIE evidence on Young and Innocent can be found here:-

http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1997/62fr44841.html

You will find it in the list of films that Carlton (now Granada) supplied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dennisspooner View Post
How is copyright in the US related to UK law?
I will take this as a question you would like me to answer (despite doubts expressed previously of my ability to answer such a question).

For the copyright ownership and authorship of a foreign work eligible due to Berne Convention membership, the law of the membership country is applied but the duration of copyright depends upon whichever ends soonest, the copyright in the member country or the maximum period of copyright that work could have enjoyed if it were a US work. Copyright for works in the US are aligned with those in the UK for works made since 1978 but a period of 95 years applies to works published in the US for works made before then.

For example, a Marc Bolan composed song first published in the UK and subsequently published in the US in 1974 would have enjoyed copyright until 2069 but will only remain in copyright whilst it is in copyright in the UK, which will be until 2047, 70 years after his death.

Young and Innocent will have another 58 years of copyright in the UK but only another 25 in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dennisspooner View Post
In the US copyright on films and tv shows needs to be renewed every 28 years - if its not it falls into the Public Domain.
Only US works made prior to 1964 could fall into the public domain in the US due to failure to renew copyright in the 28th year. This means that no US television shows have been required to renew their copyright since 1991 to prevent them from falling into the public domain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dennisspooner View Post
This is how and why films like Its A Wonderful Life gained a following in the 70's when its lapsed copyright permitted unlimited tv broadcasts for free.
It's a Wonderful Life as a film (a series of images) lapsed copyright but, as a derivative work (and using other derivative works), 'unlimited' TV broadcasts may have seemingly occurred but they were not permitted under US copyright law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dennisspooner View Post
Its also why there are countless releases of the same old films like the original Night of the Living Dead aswell as Laurel & Hardy material like Babes In Toyland and Flying Deuces.
Night of the Living Dead is in the public domain due to failure to issue a notice of copyright, NOT due to failure to renew but you are right about the two Laurel and Hardy films.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dennisspooner View Post
I agree that the PD rules are meaningless in the UK as copyright doesnt need to be renewed- however its quite possible the company that owns the rights to a lot of this stuff no longer exists.

There are also issues in the US regarding buyouts over the years which has lead to questions over who actually owns the rights to certain films and certain studio output.

For this reason its easy to see UK dvd companies obtaining prints from sellers who while not being the original owner dont have anyone to answer to.

If a film or tv show has no copyright holder that exists - how can it be possible for material to be illegal.
Generally, copyright does not last longer than the period of that of the originating countries (though I think there is an exception to this in one country in Europe, I can not think off-hand which one this is) so, yes, it is okay for an original US film to be released unlicensed if that film has fallen in to the public domain in the US itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dennisspooner View Post
If the current owner is out of business or unknown then surely its fine for stuff to be released.
It's still illegal in the UK but some are making moves to make it legal in such cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dennisspooner View Post
It would appear that US copyright on many early Hitchcock films lapsed long ago
True for some films but all the British ones came back in to copyright in the US in 1996 and two years later they got another 20 years. The Pleasure Garden will no longer be in copyright in the US from 2020 if things stand as they are. It had been just two years short of entering the public domain 1996.

I haven't always been as clear as this on these issues but, if I ever came across something someone had said on a forum which I had doubts about, I don't recall ever arrogantly and categorically denying that someone else was right without checking the facts. It's good practice.
Guest 61191 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
39 Steps, Alfred Hitchcock, Always Tell Your Wife, Champagne, classic, Dial M For Murder, Elstree Calling, Frenzy, Jamaica Inn, Lady Vanishes, Marnie, Mountian Eagle, North by Northwest, Pleasure Garden, Psycho, Rear Window, Rebecca, Saboteur, Sound Test for Blackmail, Suspicion, The Birds, The Farmer’s Wife, The Manxman, To Catch A Thief, Vertigo

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[Blu Ray] Hitchcock HD Thread jroadley DVD and Blu-ray Discussion 69 29-05-2014 15:11
The Ultimate Fighter Series 2 Thread d2000s Television Discussion 67 08-11-2005 00:31
The ultimate apps thread - lol too many stickies! Guest 267 Computing Forum 7 21-10-2005 22:58
The DVD Forums bi-monthly Hitchcock thread Film Discussion 19 12-05-2003 13:21

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:32.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.qq
Copyright ©2000 - 2021 Network N Ltd.