My updated archives rant

[Tintin]

About 10 years ago on the alt.movies.silent group, I had a rant about archives not making their films more accessible to the public. A number of people shot me down and gave all the reasons why the archives were unable to do that (funding, donors rights, legal problems, not enough people would buy the DVD's, lack of musical scores, etc.). I suggested digitizing them and streaming them on the internet, but people said that was too problematic technically (at that time). Well, it isn't anymore, but as far as I know, only the Europa Film Treasures site is pursuing this (please let me know if there are others!). What are the current excuses/reasons that archives are not doing this? They could even partner with Netflix or Amazon.com and let them take care of the technical side. It seems that would be a way to bring in funding by charging per view. I noticed the US National Archives has been adding material from their collections to Amazon and to YouTube.

The other problem is that the people running the archives always seem to choose the most boring films from their collections to release (because they're "socially relevant" or something). My favorite comment EVER at a.m.s. was after the release of one of the "Treasure of the Film Archives" sets, when someone replied, "What, no 'North Dakota Podiatrists' Convention of 1926'"? My feelings exactly! The Europa site is a fairly good example of this. I don't have anything against them putting up "Austrian Acrobats" or "Madame Kuzetsky's Hoop Dance" or whatever, but where are the stars??

OK, long rant over.

[drednm]

This is from last month from Eastman House:
----------------

I am afraid we do not sell copies on film of our collection materials.

We do however work with several studios and distributors to release our restorations on DVD.

I would check the Milestone Film and Video and the Kino International websites. We have released several of our restorations with these companies. We have several of our Louise Brooks films with both of these companies. Kino in the last couple of years have released a Houdini box set with several shorts from our collection as extras. We have just released in the last year a DVD of our 1922 Sherlock Holmes starring John Barrymore, just to name a couple. Milestone also has a Phantom of the Opera (1925) box set using our material and a DVD on Dragon Painter as well as several other DVD releases using material from our collections.

We have also been involved in the release of the Treasures from the Film Archives Box sets released by the NFPF ( National Film Preservation Foundation) with many of our restorations including shorts and features.

I have only mentioned a few of the releases.

Hope this answers your question and that you will check out these releases of our collection materials. This will only continue and we will have more and more releases.

Thank you again for your interest in George Eastman House.

Ed Stratmann
Associate Curator
Motion Picture Collection
George Eastman House

-----
too little and way too slow.....

[Arndt]

A couple of years ago I asked Mr Christensen from the Danish Film Institute why they did not make their films available online, as he had just explained that they were making a loss on their DVD publications. He said the rights holders were normally uncomfortable with online streaming, as they thought it would lead to endless copying.
And - as we all know - copy-protected DVDs cannot be copied.

[Bob Birchard]

I suggested digitizing them and streaming them on the internet, but people said that was too problematic technically (at that time). Well, it isn't anymore, but as far as I know, only the Europa Film Treasures site is pursuing this (please let me know if there are others!). What are the current excuses/reasons that archives are not doing this?

Just for starters, why don't you list ten titles (and the archives they come from) you'd like to see made available, and we might be able to offer specific reasons.

I can tell you that, for the most part, the Warner Bros., Paramount and Fox titles held by UCLA are under copyright and controlled by Warners, Universal and Fox respectively.

The Paramount silents at LOC are either under copyright and still controlled by the company, or if they are PD they have certain donor restrictions.

The M-G-M titles at GEH are controlled by Warner Bros. and/or donor restrictions.

This would limit these archives to releasing films that are either PD or for which they have obtained distribution rights. All of these archives have released some titles through the Film Foundations "Treasures" series and have licensed items to various distributors.

Frankly, I don't see what you have to gripe about. There are many more major studio/star silents legally available today than at any time in the past, and just recently there have been releases of 2 Langdon features, 3 Sternberg features, a number of Constance and Norma Talmadge features, not to mention fairly recent Chaney, Keaton, Lloyd, Fairbanks, sets, the restored Metropolis, a number of von Stroheims, Pickfords and Swansons--not to mention the Warner Archive releases. How may of these have you rushed out to purchase?

[Penfold]

Not forgetting that European copright law is different to US law; to get an idea of what is or is not in copyright in the UK, have a look at the youtube channel run by the BFI; the content is either material where they own the rights, or where the rights have lapsed - what would be called Public Domain in the US. Which means some short films from the pioneer era - and not much else.

[WaverBoy]

Frankly, I don't see what you have to gripe about. There are many more major studio/star silents legally available today than at any time in the past, and just recently there have been releases of 2 Langdon features, 3 Sternberg features, a number of Constance and Norma Talmadge features, not to mention fairly recent Chaney, Keaton, Lloyd, Fairbanks, sets, the restored Metropolis, a number of von Stroheims, Pickfords and Swansons--not to mention the Warner Archive releases. How may of these have you rushed out to purchase?

I agree -- I've bought fourteen silents from the WAC, plus the Talmadge sets from Kino, plus the amazing CITY GIRL Blu-ray import all during the last month alone (please don't tell the Missus!). The Chaplin Keystones, the Von Sternbergs and the METROPOLIS Blu are next. Plus, there's still countless titles from Milestone and Image that I need to pick up. We're being extremely well-fed these days.

[Mike Gebert]

The other problem is that the people running the archives always seem to choose the most boring films from their collections to release (because they're "socially relevant" or something). My favorite comment EVER at a.m.s. was after the release of one of the "Treasure of the Film Archives" sets, when someone replied, "What, no 'North Dakota Podiatrists' Convention of 1926'"?

That was probably me, but even that set had a number of interesting things in between all that home movie stuff. The next two sets are really very good throughout, with plenty of entertainment value.

All in all, I completely agree with Bob Birchard-- for being a dead market, the silent DVD market sure has favored us with lots of goodies this year. If you look at it in turns of wanting one specific film you want, you may be frustrated, but if you look at it in terms of taking what comes, there's great stuff all the time.

[Tintin]

Hmmm...well, I guess I'm coming at it from a different angle than some of you are. I'm not as interested in OWNING my own copy of these films than I am of just seeing them. I've got three boxes overflowing with DVD's that I'll never watch again sitting next to me (including the Talmadge ones from Kino and many others). There are just very few movies that I want to watch over and over again, nor that I want to pay $20 to see. That's why I think instant streaming is the way to go, either by monthly subscription (like Netflix) or for a low rental fee (like at Amazon). Anyway, as a consumer, that's what I would like to see.

I agree that we have an abundance of silents available now compared to decades past. But I am an insatiable addict and I would watch film after film from the archives if it were possible. I've already seen the Fairbanks/Chaplin/Pickford films several times over, I'm not excited about yet another version of them on a new format, with 10 seconds of lost footage added. I want to see those 100's of films that have never been available before. And I can agree that maybe a Mae Murray set might not sell enough DVD's to be viable, but I would pay to watch them on streaming, even without full restoration or a music score. But that's just me.

OK, end of rant part two.

[Tintin]

Oh, and thanks to Bob Birchard for the info on who owns what. My gripe doesn't have to be directed at the archives - if the studios own the copyright, than why don't they allow the films to be digitized? They could make a little money off of their holdings that way.

[boblipton]

Bob Birchard wrote

Frankly, I don't see what you have to gripe about. There are many more major studio/star silents legally available today than at any time in the past, and just recently there have been releases of 2 Langdon features, 3 Sternberg features, a number of Constance and Norma Talmadge features, not to mention fairly recent Chaney, Keaton, Lloyd, Fairbanks, sets, the restored Metropolis, a number of von Stroheims, Pickfords and Swansons--not to mention the Warner Archive releases. How may of these have you rushed out to purchase?

Well said! I haven't rushed to buy these offerings for the simple reason that I have seen them or have them available to me without buying them -- my local tape store has the FANTOMAS set, for example, and I would rather support him in these choices, making them inexpensively available to people who don't have the resources to buy them. However, I do buy two or three things a month, usually stuff from LOOSER THAN LOOSE or Grapevine because otherwise I won't have the chance to see them.

We're an unsatisfied lot, more intent on what we don't have than what we do. I'd hate to have been collecting this stuff in the 1960s and 1970s when old movies were a much more expensive hobby -- those Blackhawk movies were not cheap, not to mention storage space and maintaining projection equipment. Really, old movies are more available, cheaper and easier to store than any time since the collapse of the rep houses in the late 1970s -- and you get to call your own shots much more than you used to. Think about the availability of Keaton, consider Laughsmith's offerings and how much Lloyd Hamilton is around compared to 'the good old days', even with all the Ham & Bud.

Bob

[Mike Gebert]

I'm not as interested in OWNING my own copy of these films than I am of just seeing them.

Then go to Cinesation, or Cinevent, or Cinefest or Cinecon where they show them. I saw eight silents I'd never seen before and likely would never have seen ever (except for Just Pals) at Cinesation this year. The stuff's out there; it just may not be out there on home video.

[Brooksie]

We're an unsatisfied lot, more intent on what we don't ave than what we do.

This is a very good point. Compared to even ten years ago, we are not only spoilt for choice, we are spoilt for access. There are things I barely dreamed of being able to see when I first became interested in silent film that I could order at the touch of a button today.

While I do appreciate the point that is being made about access, I think it is fair enough that archives hold back some material in the interests of making money out of it. Yes, it sounds grossly mercenary, but these places generally run on the smell of an oily rag, and have severely limited capacity. If every extra dollar they earn results in the saving of another foot of film, that's fine with me.

If we are to get these films out of the vaults in the first place, there needs to be a market for them. The only way a market can be created beyond us afficionadoes is to have decent, well-restored versions available. I can see the rationale of archives focusing attention on several larger restoration projects rather than digitising lots of smaller items.

[boblipton]

Well, Brooksie, now that I've made my major point, I'm going to turn around and attack the attitude of several archives who are intent on saving the films. Save them for what? Why, so that people can see them. Yeah, a lot of the archives are short of money, but don't you think that Nitratevillains are useful foot soldiers in the fight to preserve these movies? And what are we supposed to get out of it? The honor of making sure that the high muckety-mucks of a particular institution -- I have one in mind but I mention no names -- always has all the light bulbs in his office working while the escalator/stairwell to the screening room is blocked off? I want my payment in seeing some of the stuff that hasn't seen the light of a projector's bulb in decades.

I am very appreciative of the people who actually get the gol-durned films out to where they can be seen, whether it's Ben Model and Steve Massa running the Cruel and Unusual Comedy series at MOM, Rob Stone's efforts at LoC getting stuff for Slapsticon or the people who manage to get stuff for the other conventions . More than a lot of people nominally in charge of the archives Their job is to preserve these films and to make them available for people to see. Otherwise it's just another boondoggle and a waste of time and money.

We need to be grateful for the riches of old movies that have become avalable to us. We need to support financially and with praise those who make it possible. And we need to get on the case of people who don't do their jobs.

Bob

[drednm]

My point is that HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of films sit in archives and that's it. They don't make the rounds of festivals, they don't get DVD deals, they don't get shown on TCM.

Fine for those films that do. Fine for those who have time and money to travel to festivals and/or to the archives and watch films on a flatbed.

But ultimately, saving and restoring/preserving films for the sake of saving and shelving them makes little sense to me. Films were made to be watched.

I understand there can be many legal complications that impede showing these films in the various venues, and that some archives are comprised of collections that each have different rules etc.

It's great that so many films are available to buy, watch, etc., and I love watching them, but archives that merely store films are nothing more than mausoleums.

[Gagman 66]

Yeah, yeah, there are allot of Silents that have been released over the past several years. While all of that is great, it still hasn't resulted in our seeing the restored THE BIG PARADE or WINGS on DVD or Blu-Ray by the end of the year. I guess what I am getting at is that the most famous, and or desired titles often turn out to be the ones that are not available.

Whoops, it is the end of the year already again isn't it? So that means that for at least the past 5 straight years I have been told to expect THE BIG PARADE by late that year. The Von Sternberg collection and CHICAGO, not to mention the Talmadge set's were probably the high point of 2010 for me. Never thought I would ever see any of those.

Hey, my Avatar is gone, and I have not been able to post a different one. Anyone know why this? is Are you having the some trouble?

[missdupont]

So I guess we should burn down libraries and paper archives because virtually no one goes to read or research the material, so why keep them? And why keep film because virtually no one can see it? Maybe people need to vote to get different representatives in Washington who won't keep passing new copyright laws that extend copyrights for major corporations. We have people like the good Republican Mrs. Bono Mack to thank for that. And most of you have all touched on the reason why much of this isn't out there - money. Without money they can't afford to restore the films so that they can then make the best digital transfers they can to then make the digital copies they need to sell, on top of being able to pay all the people required to do this, film archivists, telecine operators, tape operators, dub houses, sound transfer houses, scorers, shipping facilities, etc. Where does the money come for that?

[Harold Aherne]

I'm with Miss Dupont on this one--existence is *always* better than non-existence, even if access must be deferred. And film isn't the only medium in this predicament; there are hundreds of thousands of hours of vintage television that survive but have no practical marketability. Think of all the talk and variety shows that aired from the 1950s-70s: a pretty fair chunk of them exist, but public interest is limited to particularly notable performers or incidents, not to the countless humdrum episodes that take up vault space. Music and celebrity clearances can be especially nettlesome for these programs and often not worth the limited financial and audience returns.

So what do we do--erase the tapes and trash the kinescopes? Well, that's been done before. And for the most part, subsequent generations (some members of them) have rued those decisions.

It's really quite a paradox: more studio-era material is available now, in one format or antother, than 15 years ago (including, indeed, some films thought to be irretrievably lost). But in 1995, both TCM and AMC might have been candidates to air these older films (along with Disney and even Cinemax on occasion); today, TCM is about the only one of these that hasn't abandoned movies from the years we're most fond of. Naturally, as a greater "classic burden" shifts to TCM it too has to be more things to more people and some of them will complain when too many films from the 60s onward appear on its schedule.*

And consider how the TV situation has changed with vintage animation, in spite of continuing interest in the characters and in DVD releases: in 1995, you could find Warner, MGM or Hanna-Barbera animation on channels as diverse as Cartoon Network, TBS, TNT, Nick and ABC. Now almost all of it is consigned to Boomerang with a few selections on CN.

Well, what are we to do? For starters, how can we get people interested in the films just returned from Russia and New Zealand? They'll probably appeal mostly to people already interested in silents or in film history and TCM is the only obvious broadcast choice (seriously, a project with LOC on airing and scoring the PD titles could provide some good cross-fertilization). But Slapsticon, the SFSFF and the other Cine-gatherings have also been remarkably successful in stirring up publicity about older films and I think the audience for lesser-known titles is there--the question is how to let *them* know that the *films* are there too.

-Harold

*There are also, lest I forget, Fox Movie Channel and Encore Westerns that show a fair amount of studio-era material; albeit with less of a reach than TCM and with devotion mostly to one studio and one genre, respectively.

[Jim Reid]

Oh, and thanks to Bob Birchard for the info on who owns what. My gripe doesn't have to be directed at the archives - if the studios own the copyright, than why don't they allow the films to be digitized? They could make a little money off of their holdings that way.

As soon as you can sell enough DVDs or dowloads or whatever to cover the cost of the transfers, I'm sure it will be done. It's not happening now.

[drednm]

Well I certainly didn't and don't advocate burning down libraries or film archives just because I can't get easy access to films.

But even as I support financially Eastman House, I fight it hugely annoying that they still don't even have a searchable database of their collections. And because (apparently) each collection has its own internal cataloguing (last time I checked) even contacting someone there to ask about a certain film or actor is a pain because even the staff can't get quick and easy info. They have to search various collections. So no one really knows exactly what they have stored away (other than staff).

It's fine and dandy that some (not all) films are available onsite, but that is such a small and ineffective way to make films available. So ok most archives can't afford to make on-demand DVDs of requested films or market DVDs (although I still don't see why this is so difficult short of legal issues) but LOC manages to do it (at a cost).

If I had a film collection worth leaving to an archive, I can't imagine why (other than legal issues) I would mandate the films to be preserved and stored but basically never seen.

So ok, I'll stop the broken record.

[syd]

40 years ago, the Kino collection of silent films that
were cleared for broadcast aired over my local
station very early Sunday mornings.

They would advertise them during the hours I was
permitted to watch tv and I would get permission to view
them when they aired (at an hour parents though
unsuitable for children).

During that time, 1970, I had only seen clips of
silent movies during ads for The Tonight Show
with Johnny Carson when it broadcast from New York.

The Kino Collection and Robert Youngson's silent
comedy documentaries provided significant guideposts,
but unless you were a well-heeled fan of silent movies
who could afford the 8mm and 16mm offerings of
BlackHawk or Niles film catalogs, you eventually hit
a brick wall.

The silent film fan of today is in the best of times.
Digital technology has allowed access to silent
era movies undreamed of in the past.

Archives worldwide are re-evaluating their holdings
and are making major discoveries as a result.

Young people are connecting to these films, ensuring
that they will not be forgotten by future generations.

[Gagman 66]

Syd,

I don't know if there was a Kino yet then or not? Don't believe so? You might be thinking of Killiam Shows, and or Blackhawk films?

[Arndt]

Syd,

I don't know if there was a Kino yet then or not? Don't believe so? You might be thinking of Killiam Shows, and or Blackhawk films?

There were lots of Kinos in Germany at the time.

[syd]

Syd,

I don't know if there was a Kino yet then or not? Don't believe so? You might be thinking of Killiam Shows, and or Blackhawk films?

You are correct sir. Killiam it is.

The choices were limited but had quality.

Broken Blossoms, The General, The
Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Phantom
Of The Opera, etc.

It didn't matter, however. To a kid watching
in fascination, images that seem to come from
another planet, the weakest title would've sufficed.

[deverett]

It is weird I kind of agree with everyone here...

It is so good right now for silent film fans that I had amassed such a collection of DVD's I was running out of space (counting the short films it was thousands of titles), but there are always more out there I still want to see.

Are there plenty of titles that have been preserved yet are not readily available? Yes....I would KILL for a DVD of the preserved Lonesome to watch over and over again!

Do the archives sometimes make questionable calls in terms of what to preserve and/or what to screen or release? Yes....Sometimes this is because of demand and return on investment like Metropolis, Pandora's Box, The General, and others..Sometimes it is because there is NO question as to who owns the rights, so they can be safe......Sometimes it is because it covers unique territory that fills in the blanks of what is out there like the Treasures sets...If all they did was release popular well known titles it would falsely represent the overall cultural history they were set up to preserve

.Remember it costs multiple thousands of dollars to preserve even a one-reeler...and even then it is not simply put into the preservation machine and spit out perfect in one try, most of the archives are trying to do a very good job on it before putting it out there for people to enjoy or criticize.

That being said I still would love to see them exploring more avenues of access, and you know what? I know they all are.....It is not the "archives" that are the problem, or even the "studios" and rightsholders...The problem is us!

We are growing so accustomed to everything being available at our fingertips, that if we had it our way there would probably be no more archives left, It would just be Google Silents, or something similar.

I work in archives and may have issues with this place or that place, but usually it is based on personal experiences and therefore is not the institutions' fault...When it comes to making things available a great deal of that comes back to us again...I think it is a similar case of wanting everything at our fingertips... Why go to the theatre when it will be on dvd soon has become why buy it when you can stream it, where does that leave the archive? the specialist theatre? They are so busy rethinking their very existence and trying to stay alive they can't add a bunch of copyright/loss leader issues to it...

Do yourself a favour and concentrate more on quality than quantity...I think I had a silly idea there was so little out there that I could see it all, then one day while trying I looked and my house was filling up with DVD's faster than I was watching and I needed to watch 2 or 3 films a day to keep up with all that was coming out..

As soon as you can come to grips with the fact that you will NEVER have everything you want out and available as quickly and easily as you desire you can slow down and enjoy the ones that are, just like when some of us watched and enjoyed the truncated Killiam Shows simply because we were inside and watching TV at the exact perfect time, or else we would have missed it forever...


OH and if you are in the Los Angeles area I will be screening a very rare silent film on Nov 18 at the Echo Park Film Center..

[Brooksie]

Well put deverett ... if I weren't on the other side of the world I'd love to take you up on that November 18 offer!

[Bob Birchard]

As soon as you can come to grips with the fact that you will NEVER have everything you want out and available as quickly and easily as you desire you can slow down and enjoy the ones that are, just like when some of us watched and enjoyed the truncated Killiam Shows simply because we were inside and watching TV at the exact perfect time, or else we would have missed it forever...

I don't think there's any doubt that most of us will be getting our movies via video streaming in the future, but even when this Edenic day finally arrives I can assure you that still not everything will be available.

All sorts of factors enter into the decisions over what gets released. For example, you can bet your bottom dollar that if Raymond Rohauer were still alive none of the films he controlled would be available to the public in their original form. Rohauer kept close tabs on everything he owned, and altered many of the films he actually did circulate ostensibly to thwart other film pirates, though one might also suggest thet he wanted to leave his mark (so to speak) on the films he owned. So with the Keatons, for example, Rohauer reedited, changed titles, and deliberately circulated inferior prints. Douris U.K. has been much more open with the films. Would'a thunk the Constance Talmadge pictures would ever be avaialble to collectors? But the factors that motivate Douris today, may have more to do with trying to realize anything they can on the titles they control, than with any desire to be "good citizens" in sharing their treasures.

Just for example, let's talk about a film I'd like to see in circulation--"The Night of Love" (Goldwyn/U.A., 1928) starring Ronald Colman and Vilma Banky and directed by George Fitzmaurice. Material is held by MoMA rights are owned by the Samuel Goldwyn Trust and the potential market for this great film that should be better known is likely a few hundred to a thousand DVDs and a handful of showings on TCM--and maybe some other cable and streaming sales down the line. MoMA has preservation money in the picture--they won't give it away. At the same time, the Goldwyn Trust has a fiduciary responsibility to make the best deal for its assets. So now a Dennis Doros or David Shepard or Kino shows interest. They have to make a deal with both the Museum and the Trust and they have foot the expenses for video tranfer and clean-up, commissioning and editing a musical score, DVD authoring, advertising and publicty, warehousing and order fulfillment. Even if they were to stream only, the costs for tranfer and music are still there, and there may be different expenses for servers to get this stuff up where it can be accessed.

Now, what about revenue? In the 1980s you might be able to generate $150 for a Super 8mm print--and you might sell 300-500 prints--if you had a hot title. When home video first came along distribs tried to get $89.95 for a video cassette and over the years that price eroded so that now $24.95 minus 10% (and often much less) is the going retail rate for a DVD. With streaming you'll eliminate a lot of direct expenses for lab work and packaging, but you'll maybe bring in $3 to $5 a download. In the meantime, the dollar isn't worth what it was thirty years ago, and you now have to sell something over 18,000 downloads to generate the same gross income you hight have generated from the sale of 500 Super 8mm prints. Most silent DVDs aren't selling more than 1,000 units now, is it reasonable to assume that suddenly 18 times as many people will download because the price is cheaper? It's not really likely. Now you have to split a portion of the after-expense revenue with MoMA and Goldwyn and you suddenly remember the old joke about losing money on every unit but making it up on the volume. Distributors make their money by having a lot of titles in circulation, but generally speaking only a small percentage of their total revenues will come from any one title.

So, those of you who want to get those rareties out there, start your own distributions companies, put up guarantees and/or advances, negotiate with rights and property holders and have at it, and I'll be just as happy to catch your title on TCM and record it on my DVR to save myself the cost of the download.

[Jack Theakston]

Amen.

[boblipton]

Bob Birchard wrote

MoMA has preservation money in the picture--they won't give it away.

No, they won't, Bob and maybe it is not reasonable to expect them to ..... but their charter is that they are a not-for-profit organization. Return on their dollar -- or even return of their dollar or some portion of it -- is not something that should dominate the equation.

Bob

[Bob Birchard]

Bob Birchard wrote

MoMA has preservation money in the picture--they won't give it away.

No, they won't, Bob and maybe it is not reasonable to expect them to ..... but their charter is that they are a not-for-profit organization. Return on their dollar -- or even return of their dollar or some portion of it -- is not something that should dominate the equation.

Are your really a pig-ignorant boob, just naive, or perhaps mad--as in your Mark Twain quote? ;-}

"Non-profit" does NOT mean "for free." Let's assume, in another hypothetical, for example that MoMa preserved "The Night of Love" back in the day when they might have been able to do the work for $5,000 in direct costs and some undetermined figure in indirect costs like rent, insurance, office staff. postage, phone service, ongoing rental fees for storage of the film elements, etc. So, now maybe they have $7,500 all-in toward the project--and they still have a vault full of unpreserved nitrate they'd like to also preserve some day. So they make a deal with a video distributor for 10% of net receipts on a $24.95 DVD--which will bring them in a fast $1.50 per unit of every unit sold at full wholesale price--but then there are promotional copies, discounts, etc and the actual return is likely to be less. So the distributor would have to sell in excess of 5,000 copies just for MoMa to recoup its costs. They know it is unlikely that a DVD sale of the film would move that many units, but they do it anyway. Some money coming in is better than none, afterall, and they still have a vault full of nitrate that needs to be preserved and today it might cost $35,000 to preserve a similar silent feature. They attempt to make up the funding gap by solicitng funds from outside donors, and offer a tax deduction as an incentive for such giving and such appeals are hit and miss because of the state of the economy, tax law at the moment, etc. (They might pray for an end to the Bush tax cuts, for example, as an incentive for donors to open their wallets to lower their tax burdens). Then when you add to this equation the fact that even if they wanted to make suhe a deal all they can supply are the physical elements--they don't control the rights to the film, and the deal may not be possible for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with greed.
But, wait, there's good news! in 2023 the film will go into P.D., and digital storage and streaming may be sufficiently advanced and reasonably priced that MoMA can contemplate eliminating the middle man and setting up their own streaming system. They charge $5 per download, and may be able to keep $2.75 (a big advance over the $1.50 they might have gotten from Dennis Doros in 2010)--so now they only have to sell something like 2,800 units to make their costs back--and still very few silent films have sold even that many units, and by 2023 it is likely that the cost of preserving a similar film (on film for long term preservation) could be $100,000!
So, even without a profit motive MoMA might well question whether they could afford to set up such a streaming system.

[sepiatone]

I can tell you that, for the most part, the Warner Bros., Paramount and Fox titles held by UCLA are under copyright and controlled by Warners, Universal and Fox respectively.

[ The Paramount silents at LOC are either under copyright and still controlled by the company, or if they are PD they have certain donor restrictions.]

The M-G-M titles at GEH are controlled by Warner Bros. and/or donor restrictions.

I don't see why this is. The movie studios have treated their past silent product like crap. When the LoC restores a film, that is essentially the tax payer funding it is it not. I remember Lillian Gish talking in conversation about getting Congress to shell out more money for film preservation. Bless her! But when the LoC restores or preserves a film why does the original studio, providing the studio is still in existence, have a say so over how that film is exhibited or marketed ilregard of copyright. If the studio wants to make claim on a movie they neglected or worse willfully discarded then they need to help the LoC(and like organisations) fund the restoration and preservation of these films. In small instances I think this does happen such as Paramount releasing in the 1980s 2 Von Sternbergs & two WC Fields silents, I would've liked to have seen Pola Negri's A WOMAN OF THE WORLD in that batch in sparkling new print. The LoC sits on a wealth of great silent material many of us have never even heard about. Im sure many of us don't have the rest of our lives to wait for the LoC, Eastman, MoMA, UCLA etc to show these treasures at THEIR behest. The streaming idea isn't a bad idea if it frees up some of this content for viewing by the public that pays for it, not just for scholars. I always said back in cable's heyday that there should be a silentfilm oriented cable channel 24/7, that would be beautiful.