Would we see more films on Blu-ray if copyright expired like it used to?

[Bk_Tan]

There's perennial talk on websites such as these, lamenting the state of physical media and what titles are available from the massive studio inventories.

If not for the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, yet another blight on capitalism, movies (and everything else) up to 1958 would be in the public domain.

So, if that never existed, or is able to be repealed or modified in the future, would all the films rotting away in the studio libraries have a greater chance of seeing daylight and being exposed to the masses who obviously have no idea they exist?

The problem here is that too few own too many and are not willing, for their capitalistic reasons, to release anything. Most of these works then disappear as the generations go by because nobody has the rights to take a chance.

MGM killed the Alamo recently as we all well know. Maybe it's time people talked about this instead of complaining about things that are out of their control.

[42041]

Capitalism will still be at work, and I don't see how that will change the economic equation.
Unless you have some well-funded non-profit that can take over stewardship for these films, now you've got tens/hundreds of thousands of public-domain negatives rotting away with that much less reason for any individual company to bear the burden of storing, preserving and restoring them.

[AgentOrange]

Public domain releases tend to be rather shoddy, and you are forgetting that regardless of whether the film is in the public domain the studios would still tend to own the original nitrates. I think what would happen is for some (more popular) films the market would be flooded with multiple versions from outfits looking to make a quick buck. You honestly think for something like Casablanca or Wizard of Oz that would be a good thing?

In the real world, what you propose would just result in a bunch of low rent labels trying to cash in on releasing their own versions of those established classics. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it would allow a bunch of rarer stuff to hit blu-ray. But it would be in highly varying quality, if not sourced from existing SD materials or 16mm prints or...whatever. That's what tends to happen with Public Domain. Quality goes out the window. If you think quality of studio materials is bad... it would only get worse... far worse.

[Brad1963]

Each of the studios have a restoration department and they do magnificent work. I'd hate to think of what it would be like if they did not exist. For every Alamo there are many, many titles that have been saved and we have the studios and film societies like The Motion Picture Academy, AFI, UCLA Film Archives, Janus Films etc. to thank. Public Domain makes orphans of films, we would not want that.

[BaronVH]

I understand the point of the original post, but I must respectfully disagree. The issue is much deeper than that. Yes, it is true that copyright holders can make poor decisions, like the Alamo, but the world we live in already abuses the copyright owners enough. While the law in question definitely protects intellectual property of large corporations, but it also protects the property of the little guy. Just look at the controversy with Harper Lee for an example. Imagine a world where the estate of Tolkien would be forced to agree to a theme park by any large corporation that wants to build it. Imagine if Warner Brothers could just hire anybody to publish Harry Potter books and make them into movies and theme parks without Rowling getting anything. While we as fans would love to see all of our beloved media at any instant, there must be protections. Obviously, if the copyright holder wants to relinquish rights, they are free to do so. Whether you like it or not, Mickey Mouse and Disney are one in the same. It would simply violate the 'that ain't right rule' if another company could make Mickey Mouse cartoons.

[Banned User]

I think every reply so far is right on target. My only issue with copyright laws are when studio's can't release something or have to alter it by removing music due to copyrights on music. IMO music purchased for a film is a part of the film forever no matter how many times its released and their should be a standard royalty fee for that. So many times I've read where music was replaced or a films release shelved because the rights owners wanted insane amounts of money for their work.

[Bk_Tan]

Good points.

I suppose I'm coming from the idea that there will always be casualties.

Right now, we may not be able to see it because movies are still relatively young.

However, say, 50 years down the line, more than half of movies released in 2015 would be forgotten, maybe 75% would be out of print. It would only get worse the older the movies get.

The pro-public domain is about creativity. When it is necessary, creativity will grow as opposed to the stagnation that I believe we are seeing today.

If a studio has a large library, how can they take advantage of it and make sure that their product is the one that is bought, or they could presumably sell off their copy to someone who might have the money to restore it.

I mean, I am relatively young and never lived in the States, so glancing at the majority of studio movies released even in 2000, I have no clue what they are already. Many haven't even made the jump to Blu-Ray and I am interested in movies. What about those who are more casual?

Whether music, movies or books, it feels as if a lot of culture is just wasting away. Granted, that is what time does and with finite resources, not everything will be saved or even if saved, will be seen again. Yet, you would think that those that truly make an impact will continue to last and those that aren't will be the ones that by their own lack of merit, fade away. (Say Blade Runner Vs Alvin and the Chipmunks 3) Either way, both are given the chance to live on in this scenario whereas how we have it now, if Warner decided to stop releasing Blade Runner, 50 years from now, no one will care about it too. They have the power whereas we do if copyright expires.

I understand that, you're right, there will be a lot of low quality cash grabbers of already widely existing popular flicks, but just like anything else, quality often prevails. It might take a couple years to sort through, but if people are learned to opportunities then it will last. There was a survey conducted where books written in the 1800s are more widespread today than those published in the 1940s etc.

Just like how certain movies made impressions on you in the past, and you'd like to see them saved or pushed to a wider audience, I feel the same way or would feel the same way about films now that obviously would quickly fall down the pecking order at studios as the years go by. The value of most films continue to decrease because less and less people know about their existence and when they remain in vaults that will continue to be the case. Why release a 1940 film in 2025 when 90% of people who would have remembered it would be dead?

There needs to be innovation and as things stand, there isn't any.

[Bk_Tan]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

I understand the point of the original post, but I must respectfully disagree. The issue is much deeper than that. Yes, it is true that copyright holders can make poor decisions, like the Alamo, but the world we live in already abuses the copyright owners enough. While the law in question definitely protects intellectual property of large corporations, but it also protects the property of the little guy. Just look at the controversy with Harper Lee for an example. Imagine a world where the estate of Tolkien would be forced to agree to a theme park by any large corporation that wants to build it. Imagine if Warner Brothers could just hire anybody to publish Harry Potter books and make them into movies and theme parks without Rowling getting anything. While we as fans would love to see all of our beloved media at any instant, there must be protections. Obviously, if the copyright holder wants to relinquish rights, they are free to do so. Whether you like it or not, Mickey Mouse and Disney are one in the same. It would simply violate the 'that ain't right rule' if another company could make Mickey Mouse cartoons.

I see where you're coming from but could not the law be updated for specific examples rather than having one size fits all?

Furthermore, an appropriate timescale would be something like author's life + 20 years. (Which I think it may be until Disney forces the issue again) Why would anyone else need to benefit from work they did not actually contribute to? The 20 years may be tacked on so anyone dying young could have their kids be taken care of for their childhood. Beyond that, people should work and that spark is dulled when people and corporations rely on the past and do not innovate.


Would not quality across the board improve? Perhaps more of a general increase over time as opposed to immediately, but the standard will keep getting higher. Right now, all we are seeing are endless spin-offs that benefit the corporation. Disney, for example, is dead and so is his son.

[benricci]

You would see more catalog titles on blu-ray if more people were actually buying catalog titles on blu-ray. Simple.

The "masses" (your word, not mine) don't give two shits about anything released prior to the '70s (and I'm being really generous there) and certainly not anything in black and white. And when they do care, they're either buying a DVD or streaming their films (or just going the old-fashioned piracy route).

So no, plopping a bunch of titles in the public domain will do nothing. No one will want to release them (what's the incentive if any company can come along and release their version as well?), there will be a tiny audience for them and it'll likely cost too much to restore the films "rotting in the vaults" (again, your words) to make any financial sense.

This is about the best it's gonna get for physical media, and it ain't all that bad - all things considered. At least we're getting a steady flow of catalog, niche and really oddball titles each month. We could be getting nothing.

[blonde_devil]

No, we would see more crappy dvd versions. I get where you are coming from but it isn't copyright that is holding them back, the studio just doesn't want to release them. Problem is when copyright expires and anyone can release a version, they usually use a second or third (or older) generation copy of the film to do that and it looks horrible. Lack of copyright doesn't mean the studio has to give up the original negatives. Without access to that original negative, you can't do a proper restoration and release and copyright won't change that. If the studio feels the demand is there, they will release it. Beverly Hillbillies was a great example - there were a ton of episodes issued as copyright was expired and they always looked so-so. The studio finally did release a restored version and they looked much better. What needs to happen is studios need to hire other companies to deal with this stuff and allow it to be released instead of just sitting on it. Cut a deal, take 10% and let someone else release it. I find it amazing that they would rather get 100% of $0 than 10% of anything.

I do agree though that the copyright law is messed up. I fully understand the need for it but at some point, it has to be released to the public. What gets me is so many of these shows and films are just sitting - it isn't like the studio is making money off of them and are afraid they will start losing money, they are not doing anything with the films anyways. How many films are pretty much lost simply because the studio is sitting on it and not doing anything? Release it to public domain and at least it will live on. Otherwise, might as well trash it since no one is seeing it anyways.

[Bk_Tan]

Originally Posted by benricci

You would see more catalog titles on blu-ray if more people were actually buying catalog titles on blu-ray. Simple.

The "masses" (your word, not mine) don't give two shits about anything released prior to the '70s (and I'm being really generous there) and certainly not anything in black and white. And when they do care, they're either buying a DVD or streaming their films (or just going the old-fashioned piracy route).

So no, plopping a bunch of titles in the public domain will do nothing. No one will want to release them (what's the incentive if any company can come along and release their version as well?), there will be a tiny audience for them and it'll likely cost too much to restore the films "rotting in the vaults" (again, your words) to make any financial sense.

This is about the best it's gonna get for physical media, and it ain't all that bad - all things considered. At least we're getting a steady flow of catalog, niche and really oddball titles each month. We could be getting nothing.

That's because that's how it is now. If the movies were any good, and many profess them to be, plus, not everything new is good etc. then they will find a new audience if someone so wanted to make money or push their interests.

How should I put it...take football or soccer clubs. There are a number of big, established clubs and dozens of growing ones. An investor can continue to sponsor a big club or take a chance on a growing one or one that has declined. All of it really depends on who is willing to give a shit and take a chance. Then you get a new title winning club like Manchester City or clubs who have never recovered like Leeds United or Portsmouth.

The titles are not simply going to plonk all at once. How it used to work was every year, titles that had their copyright expired would join the public domain. It was a gradual process. Even if it gets repealed or amended now, it's still going to be yearly.

Humans are incredibly resourceful creatures so somebody will take advantage of it. Why we always accept "the way the world works" when it really, honestly doesn't, is a bit befuddling to me. From the Internet to cars etc. someone had an idea, a will, that everyone else called impossible. Just because this is the way things currently are does not mean they will always will be this way. The status quo would like to keep it up but if they cannot compete with new competitors they fall (Nokia, I think an iconic American Airlines went bankrupt no?).

Look at the music industry. The way people consume music has changed drastically. Movies have had a slight advantage because of the nature of its length, size etc but I'm sure there are those with great foresight willing to take on a challenge.

So, you can choose to be negative about it all, fine, that's what society makes us do anyway, but I think you'd be surprised.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Bk_Tan

Humans are incredibly resourceful creatures so somebody will take advantage of it. Why we always accept "the way the world works" when it really, honestly doesn't, is a bit befuddling to me. From the Internet to cars etc. someone had an idea, a will, that everyone else called impossible. Just because this is the way things currently are does not mean they will always will be this way. The status quo would like to keep it up but if they cannot compete with new competitors they fall (Nokia, I think an iconic American Airlines went bankrupt no?).

Look at the music industry. The way people consume music has changed drastically. Movies have had a slight advantage because of the nature of its length, size etc but I'm sure there are those with great foresight willing to take on a challenge.

So, you can choose to be negative about it all, fine, that's what society makes us do anyway, but I think you'd be surprised.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. The issue is, fundamentally, that it costs more to preserve and restore and release some of these older, more obscure movies than you could recoup. I'm not clear on how changing copyright law would change that situation?

[solaris72]

I don't imagine it would solve all the problems, but I do think it would result in fewer films rotting away. The scans could be crowdfunded, the cleanup could be crowdsourced. A lot of boutique labels are run by one or only a few people.

Look at how much great work in preserving/disseminating public domain literature has been done by Project Gutenberg, for example. It's true that preserving a film is a lot more complicated than preserving a book, but there's also, I would argue, a lot more people interested in the former than the latter, and if there were a crowdsourced film preservation movement, a lot of people could be taught different parts of the process.

[benricci]

Originally Posted by Bk_Tan

That's because that's how it is now. If the movies were any good, and many profess them to be, plus, not everything new is good etc. then they will find a new audience if someone so wanted to make money or push their interests.

How should I put it...take football or soccer clubs. There are a number of big, established clubs and dozens of growing ones. An investor can continue to sponsor a big club or take a chance on a growing one or one that has declined. All of it really depends on who is willing to give a shit and take a chance. Then you get a new title winning club like Manchester City or clubs who have never recovered like Leeds United or Portsmouth.

The titles are not simply going to plonk all at once. How it used to work was every year, titles that had their copyright expired would join the public domain. It was a gradual process. Even if it gets repealed or amended now, it's still going to be yearly.

Humans are incredibly resourceful creatures so somebody will take advantage of it. Why we always accept "the way the world works" when it really, honestly doesn't, is a bit befuddling to me. From the Internet to cars etc. someone had an idea, a will, that everyone else called impossible. Just because this is the way things currently are does not mean they will always will be this way. The status quo would like to keep it up but if they cannot compete with new competitors they fall (Nokia, I think an iconic American Airlines went bankrupt no?).

Look at the music industry. The way people consume music has changed drastically. Movies have had a slight advantage because of the nature of its length, size etc but I'm sure there are those with great foresight willing to take on a challenge.

So, you can choose to be negative about it all, fine, that's what society makes us do anyway, but I think you'd be surprised.

The main issue is that so few people care about the movies in question (namely anything close to its copyright expiration date) that there's really no point for any home video company to put much effort into public domain titles. The buying audience just isn't there. No one (OK, relatively no one) is clamoring for these films, at least not in the numbers required to justify the time and expense needed to release them. Yeah, you can crowd fund small runs, but really, there's no sustainable business model there.

Your football analogy makes little to no sense here. You just want companies to "take a chance" on the off chance that somehow, miraculously, there's a big buying audience for a public domain title they release? You'd have better odds playing the lotto than trying to make money on catalog blu-ray titles right now.

[42041]

Originally Posted by solaris72

Look at how much great work in preserving/disseminating public domain literature has been done by Project Gutenberg, for example. It's true that preserving a film is a lot more complicated than preserving a book, but there's also, I would argue, a lot more people interested in the former than the latter, and if there were a crowdsourced film preservation movement, a lot of people could be taught different parts of the process.

I'm not sure crowdfunding restorations would solve the problem, except for maybe a handful of films. Twilight Time often can't find 3000 people to pay $30 for a disc - and the studio's already done the hard work for them.

[Trax-3]

Originally Posted by Bk_Tan

I understand that, you're right, there will be a lot of low quality cash grabbers of already widely existing popular flicks, but just like anything else, quality often prevails.

How? Even if something is in PD and the PD people are nice and honorable there is still the question of access to quality elements and money.

Why release a 1940 film in 2025 when 90% of people who would have remembered it would be dead?

What's that got to do with anything? people are still reading books written centuries ago.

Also, preservation has nothing to do with home video releases. That work is constantly going on in all studios. Even if a film is out on BD or DVD it doesn't mean it is preserved. Films are preserved on film.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Bk_Tan

Why release a 1940 film in 2025 when 90% of people who would have remembered it would be dead?

So you only watch films from after you were born? So no Star Wars, Planet of the Apes, Casablanca, Wizard of OZ, Snow White? Ever read Shakespeare or the bible? Ever listen to classical music? What makes you think a film from 1940 can't be enjoyed today? I just bought 2 sets of pre-code films to watch - pre1934. Ago alone isn't a factor in whether people will enjoy a movie or now. I think a lot of the films that come out today are garbage and people won't be watching them in 5 years, never mind 50. A good film is a good film, doesn't matter how old it is.

[Yojimbo68]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

So you only watch films from after you were born? So no Star Wars, Planet of the Apes, Casablanca, Wizard of OZ, Snow White? Ever read Shakespeare or the bible? Ever listen to classical music? What makes you think a film from 1940 can't be enjoyed today? I just bought 2 sets of pre-code films to watch - pre1934. Ago alone isn't a factor in whether people will enjoy a movie or now. I think a lot of the films that come out today are garbage and people won't be watching them in 5 years, never mind 50. A good film is a good film, doesn't matter how old it is.

Most of us here agree with you on that. But to the public at large films do have an expiration date. The simple answer here is money. Paramount did an outstanding restoration job on Star Trek: The Next Generation TV series. You would think that the series would be a popular seller, especially given all the hard work that went into each season but it's been met with indifference. Even most folks on here lost interest when they saw the price tag per season. If a popular series from a popular franchise can't sell, why would a studio take a chance on an obscure movie from 1940? I really can't blame the studios. They are not in this for nothing. They are not a charity. Better for them to keep re-releasing know moneymakers or movies that tie in with new releases in "cool" packaging. They don't have to make a huge restoration investment. It's money in the bank.

[benricci]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

Most of us here agree with you on that. But to the public at large films do have an expiration date. The simple answer here is money. Paramount did an outstanding restoration job on Star Trek: The Next Generation TV series. You would think that the series would be a popular seller, especially given all the hard work that went into each season but it's been met with indifference. Even most folks on here lost interest when they saw the price tag per season. If a popular series from a popular franchise can't sell, why would a studio take a chance on an obscure movie from 1940? I really can't blame the studios. They are not in this for nothing. They are not a charity. Better for them to keep re-releasing know moneymakers or movies that tie in with new releases in "cool" packaging. They don't have to make a huge restoration investment. It's money in the bank.

Exactly. The film snobs keep spouting the same nonsense, "Oh, well if they'd just release these films people would buy them." And come on, we all know that's bullshit. The majority of the film-buying public doesn't give two craps about older films. Sorry, that's just a fact. Doesn't matter what "hidden gems" are lurking in studio vaults, because there's such a tiny, limited group of aficionados they can be sold to. It's not worth it.

I mean, that's a bummer for people who enjoy older films, but it's how things are. And you're not just gonna suddenly have a new generation of people grow up thirsting for 1930s B&W films. Just not gonna happen. Ever. There's no money to be made there.

[Yojimbo68]

Originally Posted by benricci

Exactly. The film snobs keep spouting the same nonsense, "Oh, well if they'd just release these films people would buy them." And come on, we all know that's bullshit. The majority of the film-buying public doesn't give two craps about older films. Sorry, that's just a fact. Doesn't matter what "hidden gems" are lurking in studio vaults, because there's such a tiny, limited group of aficionados they can be sold to. It's not worth it.

I mean, that's a bummer for people who enjoy older films, but it's how things are. And you're not just gonna suddenly have a new generation of people grow up thirsting for 1930s B&W films. Just not gonna happen. Ever. There's no money to be made there.

Sad but true. Even in collector circles it's more about genre titles, steelbooks and cool collectable covers. The studios and boutique labels are just giving collectors what they want. Halloween III with collectable cover? "Cool! I'll get the Universal release too!" Top Hat from 1935 on Blu-ray? "Meh."