petition to UCLA to make rare films available to the public

[wich2]

>I found it sickeningly ironic that disney corp spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying and buying congressional votes to get the bono law passed. Yet many of disney's billions have been made from public domain entities. What utter hypocrisy!<

"You don't f*ck with The Mouse!"
-Harlan Ellison

[misteranalog]

You are misdirecting your efforts with a petition.
UCLA is a university funded b y the state legislature of California.
The state government makes the rules for UCLA.
If that state saw some sort of financial opportunity to bring in some money by
selling copies of public domain films, things will happen fast.
The opposite case is Minnesota, which has an archive that you need a dozen forms of permission to even look thru the archives.
Archivists never want to deal with the public, let alone sell them them stuff,
so taking a purely legislative approach is a good alternative.
The emphasis needs to be on requiring UCLA to sell copies to anyone offering them money.
If not, why not?

[Tintin]

I wonder if the next time Congress has to convene to extend the copyright dates even further, that they could just make a Mickey Mouse exception. In other words, all copyrights expire, except Mickey Mouse, because he's a national treasure (or something like that). Isn't he the main reason DIsney keeps pushing for longer and longer copyrights? Or just make a law that Mickey Mouse will never be in the public domain.

[Tintin]

I've seen arguments that the archives' purpose is to preserve their films for future generations, not especially to make them available for viewing. But it seems that collecting all these unique films into an archive where they could all be wiped out in a fire is a terrible way to do this. Copying them and making them available as copies seems to be a much better way of making sure the films survive.

Yes, I know, some of them are too fragile to copy, etc. But UCLA for instance, already has many copies, including on videotape.

[Donald Binks]

I wonder if the next time Congress has to convene to extend the copyright dates even further, that they could just make a Mickey Mouse exception. In other words, all copyrights expire, except Mickey Mouse, because he's a national treasure (or something like that). Isn't he the main reason DIsney keeps pushing for longer and longer copyrights? Or just make a law that Mickey Mouse will never be in the public domain.

I think that the whole problem of copyright is the very fact that individual nations serve to legislate for it when it is a global issue. It would be far better if something was promulgated from the International Court of Justice and then recognised by every single nation.

[missdupont]

Much has been learned since the Fox fire in 1936, and not all would be lost in a fire. Most nitrate is kept in small vault rooms, not one giant warehouse, so it will not all be lost at one time.

[yorkmba99]

A few critics suggested acquiring films from LOC instead of getting readily available VHS copies from UCLA.
At least these two films were mentioned:
A Child of the Paris streets
Little Miss Hoover
What was not mentioned is that LOC charges a couple hundred per reel, so to make it simple, say each feature film would cost $1000 to digitize the reels. Getting the same films from UCLA should cost close to nothing.
So apparently the trillion dollar question is:
Why do something the easy way if it can be done the hard way?
I invite those critics who have a few grand to spare to buy the films from LOC and donate them to Silent Hall of Fame so that we stream them for the silent film lovers of the world. The donors' names will be posted for the world to admire. They will also get a tax deduction.

PS
Some critics ridiculed my alleged lack of knowledge by pointing out that many of the films in the petition are still copyrighted. That was a wrong assumption and those critics failed to read carefully the petition, which says:
"Below are the stars and their 59 films that we want to show on our website to the silent movie lovers of the world, or write a movie review and post pictures (for the films that are still copyrighted):"
In my view, writing a review and showing a slideshow with stills from a non-pd film, whether available or buried in archives, is a worthy work, and we have such posts on the site. Those articles have been seen many times and we know that our users appreciate the education. The same is true for films that unfortunately have been lost.

[boblipton]

You appear to be unaware of it, but several Nitratevillains have done just that -- although they may have not chosen to donate to your particular cause. Ben Model, Ed Lorusso and Tommy Stathes have run about half a dozen Kickstarter efforts (Ed's second has just ended successfully; Ben's latest will end in about three days, having funded comfortably). Various people here have contributed generously. If you watch TCM, you may have seen Enchantment because of that. Tommy Stathes has restored silent and early sound cartoons using the same methods. He got to introduce a bunch of them on TCM last year.

Thanks to Ed and his collaborators, there are at least a couple of hundred extra copies of Enchantment in existence and thousands of people have seen it. Thanks to Ben, I got to see several of the movies he and his collaborators restored in a packed theater last month. Thanks to Tommy... well, the same.

I wish you luck.

Bob

[DShepFilm]

On May 6th, I wrote (by U.S. mail) to the Silent Hall of Fame, which includes the following:

Although I have not checked every single one of your “free films” it appears that approximately fifty of them are copied from my published editions. Of course I also recognize many other films that are apparently ripped from published editions from Milestone and other dedicated but economically marginal companies such as ours.

As each of my releases represents thousands and often tens of thousands of dollars and the market for them is very small, I cannot give them away for free and expect to continue my work. Thus we sell copies, new projects being financed by the royalties earned for previous efforts. Each copy has a copyright notice on the disc/tape and on the packaging.

You apparently believe that in stripping the films of their scores and tints you are taking only content that is in the public domain. This is sometimes true but often it is not. For example, I am the author of intertitle texts that I have recreated with authentic typography in many of the films. But there is also the larger ethical issue that your “free” film offerings are based (to put it baldly) on the theft of hundreds of thousands of my dollars and years of my work researching, acquiring, editing, restoring and digitizing the films. Yes, if you found your own original copy of, say, EASY STREET or IN THE BORDER STATES, you would be free to use it as you wish. But that is not the pattern of your activity; rather, you obtain a single copy of a published edition and appropriate part of the content in a manner which acknowledges that you know there is copyright protection that you are attempting to evade.

The stolen versions of our material on your website are very degraded compared to our authentic publications. With raging video artifacts, no music and no tints, they are travesties of the films I have been working to present for twenty-five years, ripped without permission from my own best efforts! They do the films no service compared to the way in which they could easily be seen by reference to the legitimate versions.

To date I have not received a reply from Mr. Yorkmba.

David Shepard

[Mike Gebert]

Thank you for sharing that, David.

[kaleidoscopeworld]

What was not mentioned is that LOC charges a couple hundred per reel, so to make it simple, say each feature film would cost $1000 to digitize the reels. Getting the same films from UCLA should cost close to nothing.

Yes - as has been said over and over again, it is expensive to digitize AV material! You still have not solved the problem of who will meet the costs for UCLA to digitize their films ...

And as for VHS, I don't think they would even release that material to you because of its poor quality (both in original format and age of the tapes), and it would cost more again to digitize the original films.

I invite those critics who have a few grand to spare to buy the films from LOC and donate them to Silent Hall of Fame so that we stream them for the silent film lovers of the world. The donors' names will be posted for the world to admire. They will also get a tax deduction.

As several posters have mentioned, people are already doing this. Well, not donating them to you, but releasing the films publicly via crowdfunding. I myself already suggested the Kickstarter model to you ... it is a great way to get the material out there, and definitely something for you to look into. I wish you luck on this, I think you would have a good success.


But I must say that the points brought by Mike Gebert & David Shephard are very valid, and I'm even more dubious about your approach after reading David's post. Technically legal (maybe), but poor ethics. Thank you for posting your story, David.

[wich2]

Appropriation of the hard work of others without crediting them is not a good way to generate the good will needed for such a worthy goal.

-Craig

[syd]

If the movie industry had a shred of dignity,
film preservation would be placed in higher
priority. It can only promote a positive image
so I never understood why it has not been more
embraced.

Why does it take Kevin Brownlow shaking his finger
at the rattle-their-jewelry crowd at an Oscar ceremony
to bring some attention to the matter?

[BenModel]

What David Shepard said.

Ben (whose edition of THE MISFIT with Clyde Cook has been ripped from his "Accidentally Preserved: vol 1" DVD and posted sans music on the Silent Hall of Fame site)

[wich2]

>Why does it take Kevin Brownlow shaking his finger
at the rattle-their-jewelry crowd at an Oscar ceremony
to bring some attention to the matter?<

Because it is what it always has been - a business first, and an art, a distant second.

Sad, but true.

-Craig

[entredeuxguerres]

If the movie industry had a shred of dignity...

Dignity? DIGNITY??? In a national culture which approves of their Chief Executives making fools of themselves on frivolous TV talk shows? Makes celebrities of Kardashian trash? Tolerates incessant hard-on commercials on prime-time television?

The movie industry merely reflects the national rot.

[syd]

[quote="entredeuxguerres"][quote="syd"]If the movie industry had a shred of dignity...[/quote]

Dignity? DIGNITY??? In a national culture which approves of their Chief Executives making fools of themselves on frivolous TV talk shows? Makes celebrities of Kardashian trash? Tolerates incessant hard-on commercials on prime-time television?

The movie industry merely reflects the national rot.[/quote]

With proper presentation and promotion, silent films can
still be viable commercial products. With great strides in
digital restoration some silent films can look as if they
were shot yesterday. A negative of The Last of the Mohicans
(1920) still survives. Has anyone put it through a 4K transfer?
Imagine the detail that could yield.

I remember (and have a few of) the efforts Paramount made
by releasing titles like The Covered Wagon and Running Wild
on VHS with good scores and prints. They got cold feet when sales
stalled, however.

[Mike Gebert]

A practical discussion of how to release archive-held titles has been moved here.

[judex85]

David Shepard -

I've only had a quick look through a few of the films featured on their website, but they're not actually hosting any of them. They are all embedded links to the files held on Archive.org, where you can actually download the file as well as stream it.

[missdupont]

After Shepard's and Model's legitimate complaints, they pulled most of those titles, so yes, they were there.

[judex85]

I just had a look and I couldn't see anything changed. It wouldn't have mattered if they had removed them though, they are only links - the easily accessible source would still be there. I would imagine that SHoF linked these files in good faith - Archive.org has a very respectable pedigree, it's even got ties to the Library of Congress. You wouldn't immediately think it's hiding a poorly moderated cesspit of terrible quality copies of copyrighted work.

[jazzbo]

I just had a look and I couldn't see anything changed. It wouldn't have mattered if they had removed them though, they are only links - the easily accessible source would still be there. I would imagine that SHoF linked these files in good faith - Archive.org has a very respectable pedigree, it's even got ties to the Library of Congress. You wouldn't immediately think it's hiding a poorly moderated cesspit of terrible quality copies of copyrighted work.

archive.org does what it can, however the films listed on the Silent Hall of Site were uploaded by the same person who wrote the post here and runs the site. If you look at one of the entries, say for The Cameraman (which as we know, is copyrighted) you can see where "yorkmba3" uploaded it, and I believe that is the case with all of the films they list.

So while folks are saying that the films are really on archive.org, that is just a red herring -- SHoF is totally updating those films and hoping to fly under the radar until someone makes a complaint. See for example this comment: https://archive.org/about/faqs.php#234" target="_blank" target="_blank "We are not copyright lawyers, and copyright is a tricky business, so you may want to consult a copyright researcher to clear material before you use it." They are other statements on the site where they reserve the right to pull content if it is found to be infringing, but in no way are they either 1) supplying the content (as opposed to hosting it), or 2) vetting every single upload for copyright clearance.

Items regularly get pulled from archive.org because of copyright claims.

[Donald Binks]

I was thinking today - yes I know, a rare thing indeed - but what do NitrateVillians think of the idea of approaching UCLA and asking them if they would be prepared to make one of the films they are holding available to be copied on to a DVD master resultant from a Kickstarter campaign raising sufficient funds to enable such to be done?

I don't know what the steps would be if UCLA said "Yes" - where all the copying etc., would be done, and as I live outside the United States it would be difficult for me to do a lot of the organising but I would be prepared to do as much as I could.

The film I have in my mind as a candidate is the colour copy of "The Vagabond King" (1929). I know I get told that UCLA allows it to be shown every so often, but I can't afford to hop on an aeroplane to go to the United States to just see a picture.

[boblipton]

Given the cast and the and Lubitsch had in the movie, I would certainly be willing to contribute to a Kickstarter project.

It's a Paramount sound picture,which means it's probably controlled by Universal, so the rights may be snarled. However, if someone decides to ask, the worst that can happen is the slaying of the firstborn.

Bob

[Donald Binks]

Given the cast and the and Lubitsch had in the movie, I would certainly be willing to contribute to a Kickstarter project.

It's a Paramount sound picture,which means it's probably controlled by Universal, so the rights may be snarled. However, if someone decides to ask, the worst that can happen is the slaying of the firstborn.

Bob

Thanks Bob, it is heartening to know that there is someone besides me who is interested in a project of this nature. I shall send an email to UCLA in the first instance and see what hurdles there are to jump across in the first instance.

[drednm]

I was thinking today - yes I know, a rare thing indeed - but what do NitrateVillians think of the idea of approaching UCLA and asking them if they would be prepared to make one of the films they are holding available to be copied on to a DVD master resultant from a Kickstarter campaign raising sufficient funds to enable such to be done?

I don't know what the steps would be if UCLA said "Yes" - where all the copying etc., would be done, and as I live outside the United States it would be difficult for me to do a lot of the organising but I would be prepared to do as much as I could.

The film I have in my mind as a candidate is the colour copy of "The Vagabond King" (1929). I know I get told that UCLA allows it to be shown every so often, but I can't afford to hop on an aeroplane to go to the United States to just see a picture.

I have approached UCLA with this idea and got a flat NO as a response. Same from Eastman House.

[Donald Binks]

I have approached UCLA with this idea and got a flat NO as a response. Same from Eastman House.

Oh dear! Was there any reason given as to why they put the mockers on it before it even got off the ground?

[drednm]

Copyrights and donor issues and I gather, their own in-house policies... But I thought I'd read recently Eastman House was embarking on a program to make films more accessible....

[deverett]

I am obviously very late to this discussion, but I am deeply offended by the tone and actions of yorkmba99 , because I have been on the receiving end of this gentleman's pestering. I have 2 Marceline Day films on 28mm, that is he is deeply interested in and seem to be what started all of this in the first place. I posted the first reel from That Model From Paris (1926) on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AizyifuNri0 4 years ago, when I was hoping somehow someone at Cinecon would let me screen the whole feature on 28mm while Frecerica Sagor was still alive. He began emailing me and asking for a copy of it, and I told him maybe if I ever get around to fixing all of the repairs and broken sprockets needed to do anything with I might digitize it I would give him a copy...He then began emailing me every couple of months asking me if I had digitized it yet, and finally stated to call me at work and ask me when I was going to digitize it...He wore me down so much I ultimately set up a screening at Echo Park Film Center of the whole feature on 28mm, and guess what? He did not come even though he lives in California....

Most of the films he is insinuating are "locked up" in archives are regularly screening in festivals all over the world, and the VHS tapes at UCLA can all be watched on campus anytime he or anyone else wants to, but that is not what he wants, he wants them to be given to him, so that he can post them on what I can only interpret as a self-serving web site designed for him to potentially make money off of other people's hard work...Charging $30 or $50 donation fees to watch films he has no rights to is a bootleg racket, not something that helps any community...If you want to put stars on Hollywood Blvd, that sounds like a great campaign, but stop the bootlegging it leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths.

In his list of "Hidden Gems" http://silent-hall-of-fame.org/index.php/free-movies-2he states that he will soon upload That Model From Paris, which can only be done by one of 2 ways, if I send him a transfer of the movie, or if he received one from the archive in Canada, and as David has said, he is not asking for permission from the people who own the master material if he can post this material for income, and in many cases, is not even hosting the digital transfers. This is not the way to gain access to rare movies, and this is not the way to deal with archives/collectors who have this material..Illegitimately putting other people's rare films behind a $30 - $50 wall of access , and essentially saying "I paid such and such to obtain an access research copy which now somehow gives me the right to turn around and post it online for profit" is against the law no matter how much you hide behind a non profit. No one is badmouthing you they are simply trying to help you understand why what you are doing is actually ethically and legally wrong.

Please support legitimate enterprises such as Ben Model who are not "archive shaming" and are not doing any shady business dealings, and charge extremely fair prices ($15) for an actual product, that is in turn endorsed by the archive where the material resides.

30 years ago we were ecstatic to have companies like Blackhawk putting out films of silent titles, that would cost us anywhere from $20 - $200, and we were never shaming them and saying "How dare you not give me a copy of such and such title, because I know it exists in a complete edition in your collection." so many more silents are available today than ever before and yet yorkmba99 is still not happy because he cannot have absolutely everything he wants right now today ...Oh yes and once he has it for him to make money off it..

The rights and restrictions of collections in all archives/libraries can be very complex, and sometimes have 30-50 year clauses restricting access (not including copyright issues) with perhaps even non-disclosure clauses prohibiting them from even talking about it...I just this weekend heard about a major giant nitrate collection taken in very recently by one of the big archives that literally has a 30 year restriction from anyone using or accessing the material...The archive now holding the films is doing everything in their power to find a way to make the stuff available, but the owner of the material won't allow it..

I once uploaded a 1920 Hal Roach produced Eddie Boland short from a 9.5mm print I had on youtube (for free) and it was pulled down within 2 days because some German company claimed to youtube that they held all copyrights of Roach material....I would suggest to yorkmba99 that he spend more time reading up on rights issues, and the legalities of re-using someone elses material, and the actual laws that the archives and the rest of us have to follow to keep making ANYTHING available, rather than shaming the people and places that are doing the best they can...You will never have the instant access to everything you want simply because you want it, that seems to be implied is some sort of new generational "right".....

[Mike Gebert]

Thank you for posting that, Dino. Very interesting.