"Rights Issues"

[hok007]

I notice that someone has recently mentioned that a port of the original Batman television series to BD is unlikely given certain unidentified "rights issues". I've received a similar explanation for why The Great Waldo Pepper (1975) is not being brought to DVD or BR in its OAR. I understand that, in both contexts, the "rights issues" alluded to are copyright restrictions. Is there a reason that we (outsiders) are not given more specific reasons why such titles can't be released on BR (or DVD)? I, for one, would like to know names: Who are the rightsholders who are standing in the way? How many parties are we talking about? If one were to start a campaign to pressure the relevant parties to reach an agreement so that the public has the opportunity to see and/or obtain a copy of a work locked up due to "rights issues", how might one go about identifying the folks who may need a nudge in the right direction?

Not trying to start something here. I just know that there are plenty of films (and television programs) that fall into this over-broad grouping. Some, like Gwynne Dyer's "War", are bound up in so many orphan works problems, that the owner (I believe it's still owned by National Film Board of Canada) feels unable to sort it out sufficiently to re-release any version of the original documentary. Others, like the original Batman television series, appear to be held up by personality issues (where interlocking rights-holders just can't seem to get along). Every work bound up in "rights issues" is restrained by a unique set of personalities and ownership puzzles. I'd just like to know the first step: Is there a way for us, mere cinophiles, to help grease the skids on sorting out rights-problems that may strike the insiders as unresolveable?

It would also be interesting to start a list of films held up in this manner. Off hand, I can mention the following:

• The Dawn Patrol (1930) (The Howard Hawks original, bound up by some sort of issue with its title, possibly involving its relationship to the 1938 remake staring Errol Flynn)
• Batman (1966-1968) (TV series, likely bound up by rights holders who don't want to deal with each other, or so rummor has it)
• The Great Waldo Pepper (1975) (released by GoodTimes Home Video in 1998 using a horrid Pan & Scan transfer; Universal will only say that the title is unlikely to receive a new OAR transfer due to unspecified "rights issues")
• Gwynne Dyer's War (1982) (TV documentary, likely bound up by orphan works issues, as near as I can tell)

I'm sure there are others. Is there a clearing house of information that might identify the current owner of relevant film stock (or archive-quality video tapes), just to get the ball rolling?

[benricci]

Honestly, your campaigns and online petitions would be worthless. These are legal issues that are outisde of your control, and are quite frankly not your business affairs to get involved in.

[hok007]

Originally Posted by benricci

Honestly, your campaigns and online petitions would be worthless. There are legal issues that are outisde of your control, and are quite frankly not your business affairs to get involved in.

I know perfectly well what I'm talking about. Frequently, though, I've run up a brick wall trying to figure out who holds what rights to which title. It's a big problem. I'm wondering if there are ways to figure out the names of the rights-holders, at the very least. I don't expect to know or learn the *terms* of licenses, cross licenses, claw-backs or other contract nuts-and-bolts. And I certainly don't expect that I, or anyone else outside these contracts, can "control" anything about them. However, I think it makes a world of difference to know that I'd be barking up the wrong tree if I'm about to spend a few months talking to a studio about a clip that is actually controlled jointly by the studio and the director (where attempting to talk first to the director would be both simpler and more productive). The same goes for knowing who to push for getting thorny "rights issues" sorted out. Yeah, it's their "business". But we all have an "interest" in it. That's why we're here.

[steve_dave]

I agree with benricci.

To be honest, for a lot of films its too hard to know where the rights end up.

You could also be dealing with companies that are adamant to protect their property.

For example, MGM Hong Kong has the elements to do a wonderful and proper 1080p release of Army of Darkness. However, when they licensed their version of the Director's Cut to Optiumum Entertainment UK, they only provided a 480p SD master. Its not known if MGM withheld sending the elements to create the HD release or if MGM did not want to do the work and end up sharing it with other distributors.

On that same note, distributors and rights holders change hands frequently. Going back to MGM US, the studio's home video releases have been hot patatoed from Warner to MGM to Sony and to Fox. And in fact, MGM/UA lost a very large chunk of their film library to Turner Entertainment which is owned by Warner Brothers.

Even a large majority of Golden Harvest's films in Hong Kong have been ping ponged finally ending up at Fortune Star who has had to find a distributor for these titles. Going from IVL to Joy Sales and then to Kam & Ronson.But even then a handful of Golden Harvest films went to other companies like Warner Brothers Hong Kong.

[benricci]

Look, you can "bark up" whatever trees you want, you're wasting your time in legal matters that don't involve you.

Believing otherwise is incredibly naive.

[hok007]

If I want to know who owns a parcel of land, I know where to look. If I want to know who owns a design or utility patent, I know where to look. If I want to know who owns or asserts ownership in a registered trademark or distinctive trade dress, I know where to look. All of these *can* be incredibly complicated tasks (determining who owns what), but it can be done by someone not "in" on relevant transfers of rights. I simply want to know if there's a way to do the same with respect to ownership interests in works of authorship. If there isn't, fine. I'll take such as the answer. But it's utterly beside the point to assert that it's none of my business.

[benricci]

Since video rights can change hands at any time without public notice, then the answer is no. There is no central, public database to determine who owns the video rights to a certain title. Throw international rights into the mix and forget about it. There are some directors out there who don't even know who owns the video rights to their movies (happens a lot with older, independent productions whose original production company goes out of business or gets sold/acquired).

From your post above, it seems as though you think you are somehow entitled to this information. Keep in mind this is private business and not public record.

If you are really that curious, start with the company that originally produced or distributed the film, or a company that has previously released it on home video. They will most likely know the current owner, or at least who obtained the rights after them.

But trying to pressure a company into releasing a title, or creating some silly online petition is likely a complete waste of your time and energy. You have no authority or sway with how rights are handled, or how the involved parties behave with each other.

[steve_dave]

Plain and simple since the OP is going to want this:

No, there is no one clearing house that can tell you who owns the rights to a specific work of film.

No, there is no specific database of who has the "original" or best elements for a specific work of film.

Going back to Army of Darkness:

Anchor Bay wanted to put together the director's cut and had to find the original elements to do it. Due to limited resources or MGM "simply forgot," AB had to turn to Bruce Campbell who had beta tapes of the filmed footage. These beta tapes were edited with film elements to create the director's cut.

Months later, MGM debuts the director's cut in Hong Kong and the entire presentation was mastered from film elements. MGM even saw fit to throw in an additional scene that was not on Bruce Campbell's beta tapes.

And then there is Warner Brother's Supergirl:

Anchor Bay secured distributtion rights to Supergirl from Warner Brothers who in all likelihood didn't want to even go near it. They in turn released the international version on DVD along with a two disc liimited edition that included the international version and the director's cut. which was thought to be lost forever. Anchor Bay found the elements for the director's cut of Supergirl in a London Vault where the film canisters were marked "Do Not Use."

Warner Brothers has since taken back the distribution rights for this film because they realized they could include with their Superman Returns promotion with special editions of the Christopher Reeve starring films and this one-time spin-off. However, Warner Brothers has only released the international version (pretty much the same as the AB disc except Warner package and logos) and not the director's cut. The director's cut DVD itself is out of print as is the two disc LE, which more than likely means Warner did not want to renogotiate the rights to the director's cut.

One last example is the holy grail of film element location:

Fritz Lang's Metropolis was cut heavily by Paramount in 1927. The original cut was considered long lost to the ethers of time and foggy memories. Until Mid Summer 2008, when a surviving master of that original cut surfaced in Buenos Aires, Argentina. It was found in the Museum of Cinema and prior to that was in a private collection. Now Kino will release this long lost version on home video.

So to sum up, even if you figured out who has the rights now, those rights holders may not even have the elements in their possesion. So now you have to spend time to find those elements and then clear those.

[hok007]

Thanks Steve. That's the sort of info I was looking for.

As for "entitlement", I'm not sure why benricci is trying to pick a fight. Childish put-downs and snide remarks strike me as singularly inappropriate in this context. You will note that I never mention "online petitions" (which I have no interest in), and never suggest anyone other than the parties to a license or transfer of a copyright has "authority" to do anything with respect to them.

I asked a genuine question, with serious industry ramifications, and Steve has been nice enough to provide complete answers with useful anecdotes.