Rohauer question

Open, general discussion of silent films, personalities and history.
User avatar
drednm
Posts: 7524
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Rohauer question

Unread post by drednm » Tue Mar 13, 2018 5:18 am

Does anyone know when Rohauer donated his collection to LOC? And was it a one-time donation or was it an ongoing thing?

And.... does anyone know why he placed a donor restriction on the collection?

THANKS
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
https://wordpress.com/view/silentroomdo ... dpress.com" target="_blank

User avatar
silentfilm
Moderator
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:31 pm
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Contact:

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by silentfilm » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:41 am

The donor restriction was so that he could still control these films. The Douris Corporation later held the copyrights, and now the Cohen group owns them. I agree that it is frustrating that there are donor restrictions on Public Domain titles like the early Talmadge films.

User avatar
drednm
Posts: 7524
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by drednm » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:53 am

silentfilm wrote:The donor restriction was so that he could still control these films. The Douris Corporation later held the copyrights, and now the Cohen group owns them. I agree that it is frustrating that there are donor restrictions on Public Domain titles like the early Talmadge films.
Do you know the year of Rohauer's donation to LOC?
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
https://wordpress.com/view/silentroomdo ... dpress.com" target="_blank

User avatar
drednm
Posts: 7524
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by drednm » Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:10 pm

Had a nice email exchange today with Tim Lanza at Cohen Media Group. While the donor restrictions on Talmadge films at LOC will not be lifted for Kickstarter campaigns and the like, he was hopeful that there would be upcoming (no timeline mentioned) DVD releases of some Talmadge films on the Cohen label. He noted that the prints of De Luxe Annie (1918) and The Woman Disputed (1928) are excellent.
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
https://wordpress.com/view/silentroomdo ... dpress.com" target="_blank

User avatar
Hamilton's Grandson
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 10:56 pm
Location: Tacoma,WA

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by Hamilton's Grandson » Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:43 pm

"he was hopeful that there would be upcoming (no timeline mentioned) DVD releases of some Talmadge films on the Cohen label".

Does the "no timeline" mean not in our lifetimes?
Mark Hamilton (I) is on imdb.com
Joseph Hamilton (I) is on imdb.com
Gertrude Brooke Hamilton is on imdb.com

Nick_M
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:02 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by Nick_M » Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:16 pm

How long does a donor restriction last?

User avatar
boblipton
Posts: 6144
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by boblipton » Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:19 am

drednm wrote:Had a nice email exchange today with Tim Lanza at Cohen Media Group. While the donor restrictions on Talmadge films at LOC will not be lifted for Kickstarter campaigns and the like, he was hopeful that there would be upcoming (no timeline mentioned) DVD releases of some Talmadge films on the Cohen label. He noted that the prints of De Luxe Annie (1918) and The Woman Disputed (1928) are excellent.
I have seen presentations by Joe Yrsasky (sp?) of these titles at the Donnelly library, digital projections pulled off the prints, and they were indeed in good condition.

Bob
Last edited by boblipton on Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Life's too short to sit on our rears watching other people's work.
— Bob Fells

Bor Enots
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 5:00 pm
Location: Culpeper, VA

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by Bor Enots » Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:03 pm

The Rohauer material is on deposit at the Library of Congress, it was not donated. The Library no longer accepts deposits.

User avatar
Jim Roots
Posts: 2865
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:45 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by Jim Roots » Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:35 am

Bor Enots wrote:The Rohauer material is on deposit at the Library of Congress, it was not donated. The Library no longer accepts deposits.
Can you explain the difference between a deposit and a donation, please? Thanks.

Jim

User avatar
drednm
Posts: 7524
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by drednm » Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:03 am

Bor Enots wrote:The Rohauer material is on deposit at the Library of Congress, it was not donated. The Library no longer accepts deposits.
I used the word "donation" since they are still called "donor restrictions" so far as I know, but you know more about this than I do.

Why do you no longer accept deposits?
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
https://wordpress.com/view/silentroomdo ... dpress.com" target="_blank

User avatar
CoffeeDan
Posts: 943
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by CoffeeDan » Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:30 am

If I remember correctly, the Library of Congress owns all rights to material that is donated to the library. If a person or company deposits material to the LoC, that person or company retains the rights, and in essence, pays the LoC to store the material.

If that's right, I can see where there might be some tricky issues with deposits -- especially where liability is concerned -- which is probably why they no longer accept deposits.

Rob, feel free to correct me on any of these points. I'm speaking with my paralegal hat on . . .

User avatar
drednm
Posts: 7524
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by drednm » Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:54 am

CoffeeDan wrote:If I remember correctly, the Library of Congress owns all rights to material that is donated to the library. If a person or company deposits material to the LoC, that person or company retains the rights, and in essence, pays the LoC to store the material.

If that's right, I can see where there might be some tricky issues with deposits -- especially where liability is concerned -- which is probably why they no longer accept deposits.

Rob, feel free to correct me on any of these points. I'm speaking with my paralegal hat on . . .
That might explain why they no longer accept deposits. The only "donor restrictions" I've run into at LOC are from collections by Paramount and by Rohauer (now Cohen), and these date back to the 70s and 80s, respectively.
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
https://wordpress.com/view/silentroomdo ... dpress.com" target="_blank

wich2
Posts: 1544
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:11 am

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by wich2 » Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:18 am

CoffeeDan wrote:If I remember correctly, the Library of Congress owns all rights to material that is donated to the library. If a person or company deposits material to the LoC, that person or company retains the rights, and in essence, pays the LoC to store the material.
???

Please clarify: is there a difference between "donate" and "deposit" in this case?

Thanks,
-Craig

User avatar
missdupont
Posts: 2434
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:48 pm
Location: California

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by missdupont » Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:24 am

In most archives, anything that is donated becomes the property of the institution, anything that is deposited is still the property of the party that is allowing it to be stored there. LACMA has some paintings on deposit from various people, which means they are just housing them, but the party that has them on deposit could pull them back at any time.

User avatar
Jim Roots
Posts: 2865
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:45 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by Jim Roots » Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:28 am

Ah, I see now. Thanks for the explanation.

Jim

ajabrams
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by ajabrams » Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:48 pm

I'm hoping that Cohen will eventually get to DuBarry, Woman of Passion. I know it's not supposed to be wonderful, but I think it's historically important and I've always wanted to see it. Maybe in a Talmadge collection or box set?

User avatar
silentfilm
Moderator
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:31 pm
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Contact:

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by silentfilm » Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:33 am

Du Barry, Woman of Passion (1930) was sold on Super 8mm and 16mm film by Thunderbird Films in the 1970s, so there is a chance that it could be public domain. But the only distributors that I see selling it on disc are bootleggers like LovingTheClassics, so maybe it is copyrighted.

Paul Penna
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:02 am

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by Paul Penna » Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:54 pm

silentfilm wrote:Du Barry, Woman of Passion (1930) was sold on Super 8mm and 16mm film by Thunderbird Films in the 1970s, so there is a chance that it could be public domain. But the only distributors that I see selling it on disc are bootleggers like LovingTheClassics, so maybe it is copyrighted.
I was a collector of Super-8 films, mainly sound, in the 1970s; Thunderbird wasn't known for being particularly rigorous vis-à-vis the copyright issue.

User avatar
drednm
Posts: 7524
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by drednm » Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:36 pm

Paul Penna wrote:
silentfilm wrote:Du Barry, Woman of Passion (1930) was sold on Super 8mm and 16mm film by Thunderbird Films in the 1970s, so there is a chance that it could be public domain. But the only distributors that I see selling it on disc are bootleggers like LovingTheClassics, so maybe it is copyrighted.
I was a collector of Super-8 films, mainly sound, in the 1970s; Thunderbird wasn't known for being particularly rigorous vis-à-vis the copyright issue.
My old copy is from an MCA Video.....
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
https://wordpress.com/view/silentroomdo ... dpress.com" target="_blank

User avatar
Brooksie
Posts: 2809
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:41 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon via Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by Brooksie » Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:32 pm

I believe Du Barry, Woman of Passion has turned up on YouTube from time to time. The fact that it's been taken down suggests that someone not only holds copyright over it but is willing to defend it.

User avatar
Harold Aherne
Posts: 1734
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:08 pm
Location: North Dakota

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by Harold Aherne » Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:29 pm

Copyright to Du Barry, Woman of Passion was renewed by Joseph Schenck with a filing date of 27 Jan. 1958.

--HA

User avatar
greta de groat
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:06 am
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by greta de groat » Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:27 pm

Harold Aherne wrote:Copyright to Du Barry, Woman of Passion was renewed by Joseph Schenck with a filing date of 27 Jan. 1958.

--HA
Interesting. I wonder if he just did that one or if he renewed all of her films. This was just over a month after her death. Joe had had a stroke recently and apparently had not been at the funeral.

greta
Greta de Groat
Unsung Divas of the Silent Screen
http://www.stanford.edu/~gdegroat

User avatar
Harold Aherne
Posts: 1734
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:08 pm
Location: North Dakota

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by Harold Aherne » Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:13 am

According to a 2003 AMS post by Joe Moore, only the following post-1922 Norma Talmadge films (along with Du Barry) were renewed. Here's the renewal information, with JMS standing for Joseph M. Schenck.

Secrets: copyrighted twice by JMS on 11 Feb 1924. Both copyrights renewed 15 Oct 1951 by Samuel Goldwyn Productions, Inc. (Worthy of note: Goldwyn also renewed the two copyrights of the 1933 remake on 28 Mar 1960.)

Graustark: copyrighted twice by JMS on 31 Aug 1925. Both copyrights renewed 7 Nov 1952 by Samuel Goldwyn.

Camille: copyrighted by JMS on 21 Apr 1927. Renewed 28 Mar 1955 by JMS.

New York Nights: copyrighted by JMS on 28 Dec 1929. Renewed 18 Jul 1957 by JMS.

Schenck renewed other Feature Productions/Art Cinema titles in the late 1950s, including The Bad One, Be Yourself, The Lottery Bride, Puttin' on the Ritz, etc.

The sources of all this information are the copyright catalogues placed online by the University of Pennsylvania:
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/

--HA

User avatar
greta de groat
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:06 am
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by greta de groat » Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:08 pm

Wow, thanks! That's interesting--especially to see Goldwyn getting in there too.

greta
Greta de Groat
Unsung Divas of the Silent Screen
http://www.stanford.edu/~gdegroat

sepiatone
Posts: 2392
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:10 pm
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by sepiatone » Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:08 pm

drednm wrote:Had a nice email exchange today with Tim Lanza at Cohen Media Group. While the donor restrictions on Talmadge films at LOC will not be lifted for Kickstarter campaigns and the like, he was hopeful that there would be upcoming (no timeline mentioned) DVD releases of some Talmadge films on the Cohen label. He noted that the prints of De Luxe Annie (1918) and The Woman Disputed (1928) are excellent.
...and The Branded Woman(1921). Please get that out! :)

wich2
Posts: 1544
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:11 am

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by wich2 » Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:24 pm

Paul Penna wrote:I was a collector of Super-8 films, mainly sound, in the 1970s; Thunderbird wasn't known for being particularly rigorous vis-à-vis the copyright issue.
WHAT!

Those STAR TREK eps were boots?

Subspace radio the Federation!

-Craig

:roll:

User avatar
Tommie Hicks
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:35 pm
Location: Bugtussle WV

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by Tommie Hicks » Wed Apr 04, 2018 8:02 pm

Thunderbird offered films that were copyrighted and received permission from the copyright holders. Most of these however, like LOVE HAPPY were available only in Super 8mm magnetic sound. Hard to make a 16mm dupe from that gauge.

wich2
Posts: 1544
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:11 am

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by wich2 » Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:47 pm

Not the TREKs, I am almost positive.

User avatar
silentfilm
Moderator
Posts: 9361
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:31 pm
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Contact:

Re: Rohauer question

Unread post by silentfilm » Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:35 am

Paramount/Desilu made a mistake with the credits on about a dozen episodes of the original Star Trek, where no copyright notice was included. This lead several 16mm distributors like Canterbury and Reel Images to sell these in 16mm and 8mm. I can remember as a teen I could check out some of these 16mm prints from our local library. They were just gorgeous. In the catalogs that I have, Thunderbird only sells the two Star Trek blooper reels. (Of course they sold a lot of prints that were not listed in their catalogs.)

However, Paramount sued, and the courts ruled that the episodes were under copyright even though the notice was missing.

The episodes that I see in the catalogs that I have are:
Amok Time
Cat's Paw
City at the Edge of Forever
Dagger of the Mind
The Deadly Years
Galileo Seven
Man Trap
Menagerie, parts 1 & 2
Miri
Shore Leave
Space Seed
The Squire of Gothos
Tomorrow is Yesterday
The Trouble with Tribbles
Where No Man Has Gone Before

Sadly, these prints were made in the late 1970s and they have mostly faded to pink.

Post Reply