Dementia (1955)

[vortexx]

Originally Posted by modernmalaise

Makes sense as this one should be a Cohen restoration (and thus maybe from Rohauer's collection). And we've seen that the Keaton releases from Kino and Cohen can have significant differences as a result of scanning and reconstructing from various elements. Perhaps Kino may release their own blu-ray with their own restoration.

Kino said they only distribute for Cohen and it would be completely up to them.

[modernmalaise]

Originally Posted by vortexx

Kino said they only distribute for Cohen and it would be completely up to them.

Yes but I think Dementia is in the public domain. So only Cohen's restoration is protected. Kino could still scan their own (likely different) print and release that, and still distribute a competing Cohen product. Maybe this isn't true, but it looks like Kino will distribute Cohen's Keaton Vol. 4 while still selling their own blu-ray of College.

[vortexx]

Originally Posted by modernmalaise

Yes but I think Dementia is in the public domain. So only Cohen's restoration is protected. Kino could still scan their own (likely different) print and release that, and still distribute a competing Cohen product. Maybe this isn't true, but it looks like Kino will distribute Cohen's Keaton Vol. 4 while still selling their own blu-ray of College.

Technically with copyright law, the restoration of a public domain film is still in the public domain unless something extreme like colorization is done. The labels are mostly friendly with each other and don't do stuff like that (at least the ones on this board).

[Killer Meteor]

The Kino transfer came from The Raymond Rohoaur collection, as did the Cohen.

[johnpaul2]

Originally Posted by vortexx

Technically with copyright law, the restoration of a public domain film is still in the public domain unless something extreme like colorization is done.

Not my understanding at all. For instance, that's why you can licence a movie like Detour or Fritz Lang's M but will still have to pay the proper rightholders to use the latest restorations.

Originally Posted by vortexx

The labels are mostly friendly with each other and don't do stuff like that (at least the ones on this board).

Labels are "mostly friendly" with each other but still, when one of them do a brand new expensive restoration, they don't be licence it cheaply.

[bigshot]

Copyright protects creative works. Restoration is returning something to its original state, so that is technical, not creative. If it was, it would result in a derivative work that could receive its own copyright. (Like the Jim Carrey Grinch movie having a separate copyright from the Dr Seuss book.) But that isn't the case with restoration. The film's copyright is the copyright. Companies don't pirate other companies' restorations (much) because of a gentleman's agreement, not because of copyright. They do lie and claim copyright to make other people think twice about copying their restoration, but something like that wouldn't hold up in court.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Copyright protects creative works. Restoration is returning something to its original state, so that is technical, not creative. If it was, it would result in a derivative work that could receive its own copyright.

I think there's a bit of mixing up going on. I understand it like this:

Restoring something won't return a film itself to copyright protected status. Anyone can do their own competing restoration (see the competing versions of Nosferatu, Birth of a Nation and Phantom of the Opera for example).

However, you can't just rip off someone else's restoration. That restoration is theirs, do your own but you can't rip off someone else's. You need to pay for the rights to use it. For example, Night of the Living Dead. Anyone can scan a print and release it in whatever resolution they want, but to use the 4K restoration from the negative you must buy the rights to that particular restoration.

Restoration is often more of a creative choice than a "returning to the original state" anyway. Returning something to it's original form is often impossible, and creative decisions have to be made. Also some guesswork in how to best reconstruct when materials are scant and scene ordering/intertitles etc are in question.

[bigshot]

Restoration is not protected by copyright. The reason you can't just use someone else's restoration is because the licensing world is small, and a distributor would instantly lose the ability to do business with a big chunk of the companies licensing films.

By the way, I am speaking of copyright law in the United States here. I have no idea how it works in all the various countries all over the world.

[oddbox83]

The idea everyone is just playing nice is, frankly, ludicrous.

OK there's a lot of grey area, but a quick Google pretty much says what I said.

Who can register a work? Only the author or the author's transferees, or someone with their authorization, can apply for registration. Film restoration, though it requires great skill and craft, does not demonstrate sufficient originality, by itself, to claim a derivative copyright in a public domain film. However, film restoration plus additions or revisions -- for example, a re-recorded soundtrack and commentary -- may be the subject of copyright. Claiming ownership in a purely public domain work is verboten.
http://dearrichblog.blogspot.com/201...of%20copyright.

Basically - you cannot claim ownership of a film simply by restoring it. However, your own work on the film is protected. OK, so it might be fairly nuanced, but it's obviously been clear enough to stop the floodgates of ripped off Night of the Living Dead from the Criterion master. There's not a chance in hell everyone would be playing nice - well indeed they don't, look at all the Spanish bootlegs of films very much in copyright due to loopholes in the law there.

Public domain is shaky ground anyway - Warner recently grabbed back their rights to Satanic Rites of Dracula when a small label specialising in PD scanned a print and almost released it. There have been amendments made to US copyright law that now allow this is certain situations.

Where there is uncertainly, a better explanation is simply it's not worth the legal costs of challenging it - so where there remains any doubt, that feels considerably more plausible then being awfully nice about it all.

[vortexx]

A precedent would have to be set for a restoration to be copyrighted and the copyright upheld in court. It has never happened. I saw what happened with Saranic Rites, I dont know exactly what Warner did to try to make it copyrighted, but it may be they are just sending cease and desist notices and may try to set a court precedent if it ever goes there. I'm just guessing on that.

[bigshot]

Tonight I screened Dementia again, after seeing the uncut DVD version on YouTube. There is no footage cut from the BFI version. The running time and soundtrack is exactly the same. They just repeated scenes to cover the censored bits. For instance, the space for the director's credit is there. They just repeat a bit from just before that to fill the gap. The same for the guy in the window. The shot where she puts the severed hand in the flower basket is still there. I'm going to make a merged version of the two. I'll use the YouTube copy to fill in, but if anyone can send me a lossless rip of the original DVD, I would appreciate having that to work from.

[ztjbluray]

It's really a shame about the couple of cuts. I guess watching the Blu-ray and skipping over to the DVD for the final scene would be ideal, although you could just pull it up on YouTube around the point of the cut in that scene. It's hardly a deal breaker for me, but it'd be nice if Kino or some other company in the US does their own version on Blu-ray. Either way, I'm just happy to finally have it and glad that more people are now getting to see it.

[drownsoda]

I just ordered the BFI release tonight—I somehow missed that this ever got a Blu-ray release. I am thrilled. I have the Kino DVD but will likely get rid of it given the superior picture quality of the BFI release (I am basing this off the screen captures on DVDBeaver). Can't wait to get my hands on it.

[latehong]

Originally Posted by drownsoda

I just ordered the BFI release tonight—I somehow missed that this ever got a Blu-ray release. I am thrilled. I have the Kino DVD but will likely get rid of it given the superior picture quality of the BFI release (I am basing this off the screen captures on DVDBeaver). Can't wait to get my hands on it.

I'd advise you to carefully read this thread before you throw away your Kino DVD.

[oddbox83]

Basically - Kino DVD is the uncut pre-censor version.

BFI Blu-ray - As released censored theatrical version with shot substitutions.

[drownsoda]

Good to know (re the edits). I guess I will keep the Kino DVD after all. I skimmed through DVDBeaver's review and didn't see a mention of there being any cuts—I should've looked closer at past entries in this thread. In any case, I am still excited to have the censored version on Blu-ray; the picture quality is immensely better. A shame it's not the original uncut version though. I am glad to see there is a commentary with Kat Ellinger on there, whose input I always appreciate.

[jackranderson]

Mental how this was made in the 50s, pretty damn wild and it really does capture that dream essence, really glad I got this now.

Great extras too.

[Killer Meteor]

Having another look at this BD and the Kino disc, I'm now no longer convinced that the version on the BD is the theatrical cut, as it is missing the "stump" shot, but the other censor-dictated cuts are not there, and the same footage also appears on the Daughter of Horror edit either, which does have the "stump."

BUT the Kino extras mention that one point in the 1955 pre-release preperations there was only the stump shot cut, and one distributor cut to aid continuity. Following some further research and consultations, the further cuts were made.

So it seems the version on the Kino disc is what was used to make DAUGHTER OF HORROR (or the stump shots were taken from DOH and put back into Kino's DEMENTIA print), and the BD version is a edit made before the final DEMENTIA release version was locked down. Both versions remove John Parker's director's credit, but the BD version just about shows the remants of it in a dissolve. I think it had left his hands by 1955, and I suspect he removed the credit following his failure to secure a release in '53.

[Killer Meteor]

So the version history is

1953 - uncut DEMENTIA with John Parker's director credit (now lost, I think)

1955 version 1 - uncut film aside from the missing director's credit (KINO DVD) prepared by distributor

1955 version 2 - prepared censor-viewing version with Preston Sturges intro, censor cut of stump and accommodating cut (BFI Blu-ray), likely the one shown to the teachers review panel

1955 version 3 - final New York release print (likely with Preston Sturges intro), censor cuts of hand in basket, stump shot, and second shot of hand in drawer.

1957 - DAUGHTER OF HORROR

The weird thing I suppose is that Version 2 still exists and is gumming up the works. It'd make more sense for there to be the theatrical version ONLY, plus DAUGHTER OF HORROR!

What a strange mess!

[bigshot]

All right. I went through the whole film on the Cohen disk comparing the blu-ray to the Kino DVD. There are several cuts from the Shorty Rogers section to the very end of the film. It totals about 1:10 missing. By the way, the hand in the basket is in the Cohen version.

Here's my editing notes.

The DVD doesn't have the quote scroll at the beginning.
Both are missing the director's credit.
Blu-ray is good until 48:58
Cut to DVD from 48:43 to 49:17 (:30) Gamin and Shorty / guy mashing girl at table
Back to blu-ray from 49:30 to 50:04
Cut to DVD from 49:52 to 50:29 (:30) Extended Shorty Rogers scene (stock music)
Back to blu-ray from 50:19 to 52:07
Cut to DVD from 52:16 to 52:22 (:05) Stump in the window
Back to blu-ray from 52:06 to 52:54
Cut to DVD from 53:10 to 53:15 (:05) Montage scenes of gamin with switchblade cutting off hand
Back to blu-ray from 52:55 to 54:09
Cut to DVD from 54:31 to 54:36 (:05) Hand in drawer
Back to blu-ray from 54:11 to the end.

There is a fairly long section of Shorty Rogers missing, a scene where a guy mashes on a girl in the nightclub, numerous cutbacks to the window with the cop and rich man- including a cut showing his stump, and at the very end of the film where the girl opens the dresser drawer and sees the severed hand with the necklace, a scene is missing where the hand comes to life and clenches the necklace.

I'm going to see if I can put Humpty Dumpty back together again.