Hallmark did indeed sue Nostalgia Family Video , etc.
Mister Levity
Hardy rights to images and movies. One paragraph:
New Filing - Laurel and Hardy Films
Hallmark Entertainment Distribution v. Nostalgia Family Videos. The
owner of several Laurel and Hardy films claims that a video company
copied and sold the movies without permission. New Filing SD New York
*********************************************************************
And this:
New Filing - Laurel & Hardy
Richard Feiner v. Larry Harmon. Feiner accuses Harmon of infringing on
Feiner's copyrighted Laurel & Hardy images. New Filing SD New Filing
**********************************************************************
Another one:
New Filing - Laurel & Hardy
Richard Feiner & Co. v. Passport International and Diamond
Entertainment. Owner of Laurel & Hardy movies alleges companies were
distributing video containing excerpts without a license. New Filing SD
New York
**********************************************************************
Here's the link:
http://www.entlawdigest.com/search.cfm?sort=AA&page=10&areaID=3
There's a lot more you can read but if you press 'Full Story' it takes
you to another page asking for $19.95 to read it!! I don't want to pay
for it but if anyone goes further, post it here. ;-) Have fun.
Mister Levity
Kimba W. Lion
Just to be clear, those "new filings" are from October 2003, June 1998,
and January 1998, respectively.
That's a pretty interesting site. Too bad they only go back to 1996. I
need a similar site that goes back to the early 90s, maybe earlier.
thebobster
site, unless it was decided, for some reason, they could still sell
those two.
JohnnyCat
property.
Mister Levity
JohnnyCat wrote:
> Those versions contain alternate/added scenes making them a different
> property.
Thought so. Would the same apply to the original entirely different
edited 42 minute version of A CHUMP AT OXFORD?
Mister Levity
JohnnyCat
NFV
JohnnyCat wrote:
> Yep
Wow, I made headlines, Hallmark did file a complaint, but it was
dropped
Jeremy Brunner
Nostalgia Family Video
Mister Levity
Does that mean you're going to sell the Laurel and Hardy talkie shorts
and features DVD collections again?
Mister Levity
NFV
well.....as the story goes, I asked for proof of ownership of said
laurel & hardy titles (they never would provide), so they filed a
complaint against me, then I again asked for proof of ownership (which
would include a chain of title, like you get with a purchase of a car,
home etc..), they said they didn't have to show me any proof they owned
them. They gave me an article from a biz journal stating Hallmark
bought Hal Roach Library. I guess they thought that was good enuff
proof that it was in a magazine :)
So I thought since they "owned" them I kindly asked for a licensing
agreement to sell said laurel & hardy titles, they said they would try
to get me one, so they dropped the complaint and guess what? They said
they couldn't provide me with a license since they were already
licensed to Artisan. So now you know the whole story (short version)
Jeremy
Mister Levity
Thank you very much for sharing your story Jeremy. Interesting indeed.
Rather than Artison/Lions Gate, the Laurel and Hardy titles would be
better off in your hands.
Mister Levity
greg o r y
> Thank you very much for sharing your story Jeremy. Interesting indeed.
> Rather than Artison/Lions Gate, the Laurel and Hardy titles would be
> better off in your hands.
Rather than Artison/Lions Gate, the L&H titles would be better off in my
cat's litter box.
NFV
Does that mean Nostalgia Family Video putting out Laurel & Hardy is no
better off then your cat's litter box putting them out??? just curious
:)
Jeremy
mla...@yahoo.com
great.
While we're on the subject, will you be making the 42-minute "Chump at
Oxford" available on DVD, too?
Thanks,
Matthew
greg o r y
> Does that mean Nostalgia Family Video putting out Laurel & Hardy is no
> better off then your cat's litter box putting them out??? just curious
What I meant to imply is that Artisan/Hallmark has metaphorically pooped all
over the L&H canon. I wholeheartedly support NFV, the European licensees,
Agee, etc. If Artisan eventually utilizes the UCLA elements and reissues the
films as they should be seen (or even if they relinquish/sell the catalog to
someone who gives a damn), then I'll change my tune and support them too.
Jim Reid
get what you want. Maybe Hallmark decided that NFV had already
saturated the market with their illegal videos and that made it too
risky to have an official release.
James Neibaur
> Maybe Hallmark decided that NFV had already
> saturated the market with their illegal videos and that made it too
> risky to have an official release.
I don't think that is likely, Jim. Why, then, would Hallmark be so lax as
to offering better prints and more varied titles in the Roach catalog?
JN
Jim Reid
L&H films has already gone to NFV. I would doubt any major home video
company would be interested in releasing any other Roach films other
than Our Gang. It takes a smaller specialty company like Kino or David
Shepard.
greg o r y
> get what you want.
The legit rights-holders have proven themselves to be incompetent and
non-communicative regarding the Roach films. I sent tons of emails and
complained via phone after that first DVD. Has anyone else here badgered
them and gotten results? Artisan has access to superior elements for the
Roach catalog. If they release them, then I (and everyone else on this
newsgroup) will buy them.
So yeah Jim--this is the perfect scenario for bootlegs. Let me put on my
eyepatch --ARGH PIRACY ARGH.
> Maybe Hallmark decided that NFV had already
> saturated the market with their illegal videos and that made it too
> risky to have an official release.
No. Boots generally encourage the legit rights-holders to retaliate with a
round of offical releases. Example: look how much Sony has made with their
ongoing Dylan bootleg series. Some of those boots have been circing and
selling for 40 years. I already owned the Royal Albert Hall gig but still
purchased the official version when it was released. Apparently I wasn't the
only one--those discs have brought Sony a ton of easy cash.
And do you really think NFV have "saturated the market" with L&H? Come on.
Hell--the entire original Twilight Zone series has already OFFICIALLY been
repackaged and released three times on dvd alone, and sales for the latest
Image sets are off-the-charts.
I doubt baby Jesus is crying too much over NFV.
Jim Reid
Not always. Hallmark is obviously under the impression that a full
blown release of the L&H films is an iffy proposition. If they know,
which obviously they do since they threatened NFV, that anyone who
wanted the films probably already have them, they will not release the
films. I'm no fan of Hallmark, but to me, stealing is stealing.
NFV
I appreciate your concern for bootleg/piracy, but if the "owner" cannot
prove they own their properties, they are PUBLIC DOMAIN, belonging to
everyone (that was the original purpose of PUBLIC DOMAIN was so that
big companies like Hallmark cannot monopolize properties, so they
eventually revert back to the PUBLIC).....well Hallmark is a great
example of why things should eventually fall into the PUBLIC DOMAIN,
they are monopolizing the entire Roach Library and don't care about it,
AT ALL! which they prove over and over again, truth be known they did
file a complaint against me, and I kindly/respectfully asked for proof
of ownership, they refused to provide it (maybe because they don't have
it?)
also.......I did my homework before releasing the Laurel & Hardy titles
and there was no chain of title, to Hallmark (the Roach library has
been sold, bankrupted more times then you can count) also the Laurel &
Hardy titles were originally copyrighted by MGM (Metro-Goldwyn), then
renewed by Hal Roach Studios Inc,. now there has to be a paper trail as
to why MGM copyrighted them in the first place, they were the
distributor not the copyright holder. It was a common practice for a
distributor to copyright someone else work, but....there has to be a
paper trail to get it back to the original owner to give them right to
RENEW the copyright or the right for the distributor to copyright it in
the first place. Same thing when you purchase a car, there is a chain
of title, it shows who owned it first and so forth all the way down to
when you bought the car, that is a proper chain of title. Through my
research in the copyright office and Richard Finer lawsuits, I found no
chain of title to Hallmark, which would explain why they refused to
provide me with a simple chain of title and tell me I OWN THIS
PROPERTY, NOW STOP SELLING IT OR I WILL PURSUE FURTHER LEGAL ACTION,
but they never did that!
As for Richard Finer he bulled Roach out of the silent films in the
same sorta of manner, he had a contract with Roach to distribute the
films and found a loophole (and a good attorney) to claim ownership
using a license contract to distrube them
Jeremy
Nostalgia Family Video
Jim Reid
part of the distribution contract with Roach. He then purchased the
films back from MGM in the early '40s. Everybody knows that. I'm sure
you tried really hard to find a paper trail. The only reason you are
getting away with this is Hallmark probably thinks it's more trouble
than it's worth. You've just reinforced their opinion that they
shouldn't bother releasing them. I guess that's the way it works, you
just keep breaking the law till someone tells you to stop. Richard
Feiner paid Roach for the rights to the silents for a compilation film.
Whoever did the deal for Roach screwed up and actually sold him the
rights, or made it unclear enough for Feiner to make his case.
My neighbor has a lawn mower he hasn't used in a while, I guess I can
just go over to his house and take it.
NFV
films back from MGM in the early '40s. Everybody knows that.>
if everybody knows that, then please provide me with paper work to
prove this (which I know you can't) that is only the first hoop you
have to jump, then I need every tranfer of title all the way up until
Hallmark!
Before you go stealing your neighbors lawn mower, you better make sure
he doesn't have his receipt of purchase to prove he owns
it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jeremy
James Neibaur
> My neighbor has a lawn mower he hasn't used in a while, I guess I can
> just go over to his house and take it.
Only if he has the only lawn mower in the neighborhood, and everyone's grass
is getting really, really long and he doesn't care.
JN
Jim Reid
hope they don't care about this or you'll be living in a much smaller
trailer.
NFV
Hallmark is well aware of me and Laurel & Hardy, and so is Richard
Finer. I have talked to them and their attorneys more then once.
Since you now have lowered yourself to calling me trailer trash, I
think this conversation is over
I'm out like your neighbors stolen lawn mower :)
greg o r y
grass
> is getting really, really long and he doesn't care.
and the owner's mower has a rusty blade. he has easy access to a brand new
one but he's too damn lazy to install it.
Kimba W. Lion
>It takes a smaller specialty company like Kino or David Shepard.
Or NFV?
Jim Reid
Only if they get the rights. But deciding that "if they don't send me
all the paperwork, then they must be PD" just doesn't quite cut it.
That's stealing. Try that with Disney and see how far you get.
Everybody (me included) is after Hallmark for not having an official
release. They know that NFV has been selling the films illegally for a
while so that's one more reason for them not to take a chance on an
offiicial release.
Kimba W. Lion
>Not always. Hallmark is obviously under the impression that a full
>blown release of the L&H films is an iffy proposition.
Then what service are they providing to their stockholders by retaining
possession of a non-valuable property? I mean, if we're going to go the
"wisdom of the big corporation" route here, we might as well take it to
it's logical (?) conclusion.
>If they know,
>which obviously they do since they threatened NFV, that anyone who
>wanted the films probably already have them, they will not release the
>films.
It's the followthrough that's far more telling than the threat. Threats
are meaningless. The Disney Company once filed suit on a small business
over "copyright violation" for a property Disney NEVER owned, and
threatened a film festival with a suit over the showing of a film that, in
DisneyCo's own words, had nothing to do with any Disney property.
>I'm no fan of Hallmark, but to me, stealing is stealing.
Well, it's nice to see there's no shortage of advocates for big
corporations and their atrocities against our national heritage.
Contrary to the Big Lies we've all been fed about "piracy" and such,
people have an obligation to preserve our cultural past. It has been
proven over and over again that the supposed rights holders are not always
to be trusted with this.
Case in point: On my own I restored a variant version of an episode of a
60s TV show that has been ignored by the company that previously made the
series available on home video. (This version--an entirely different
soundtrack than what became known as the official version and--to those
who released the show on video--the only version, was broadcast for years
in reruns but --due to the nature of TV film distribution in the 60s--
only in a few cities. It is considered by fans to be far superior to
what's been out on video.) The only way I could make this available was to
sell a DVD of it myself. I have received copious praise from fans of the
show for bringing back this version and for the quality of my DVD, but I
have not sold anywhere near enough to recoup what I spent to restore the
episode. Now, a new licensee has emerged and _because_ I made that DVD
available it will be included in the new box set that is being prepared.
If I had cowered in the corner and said, ooh, certainly the video company
knows what they're doing and have made everything the way it should be
thanks to their good and glorious wisdom, this flim would never have seen
the light of day again, because the new people, who want to do their new
DVD release right, would not have known about it and/or would not have had
the materials to do it.
See also "orphan works".
Jim Reid
Jim Reid
higher than it probably should be. They, unfortunately are using it as
corporate assets to raise the value of their company. If they release
the films on home video and don't make the kind of money on it that
they want, it would be hard to keep the high value on that asset. I
don't like it, but I understand it. Since UCLA now have all the 35mm
elements I'm not sure I would consider this a "corporate atrocity".
Would wee all like to see these films released, yes. The only hope I
think we have is if Hallmark ends up selling the rights or liscensing
them to another company. I'm glad you were able to reconstruct that tv
episode and I doubt that one guy selling a dvd of a program that the
rights holder is not selling is going to get above the radar. This NFV
is an entirely different thing. It's an actual company, releasing and
marketing these copyrighted films without a liscense. It's the old "it
fell off the back of the truck" excuse. Even if I'm not using it, it's
still mine.
Miss Glamour
here on this matter are really tired and annoying.
Kiss kiss
Miss Glamour
Kimba W. Lion
> If they release
>the films on home video and don't make the kind of money on it that
>they want, it would be hard to keep the high value on that asset.
Gee, releasing crappy versions of what they have wouldn't have anything to
do with it, would it?
Hold their feet to the fire. If a little company can do a better job,
alert Hallmark's stockholders.
Mister Levity
multi-region DVD players and all the beautufully pristine restored
Laurel and hardy shorts and features from Kinowelt, Universal Benelux
and Universal UK?
Screw Hellmark. They can go to hell with their crappy third rate lousy
DVD releases.
Mister Levity
Jim Reid
here on this matter are really tired and annoying.<<
Like I care? Why don't you go away.
Derek Gee
news:1122801781....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Doubtful. You've read all the stuff posted here - Hallmark doesn't care.
If the Wal-Mart buyer hadn't forced them to put out the Volume 1 of their
DVD's, we probably wouldn't have anything they control for Region 1. I
don't encourage piracy - that's why I've said here to buy what Artisan is
putting out to encourage them to do more. At $10 a disc or so (preorder or
sale price), I can afford to do that.
Then again, there can be one positive side to piracy. Piracy has forced
other movie studios and record companies to make material available that
would never have been released, or sooner than they wanted it released. Mr.
Lucas moved up the release of the Star Wars Trilogy on DVD because he felt
if he waited there may not be any market left. Pirates from Asia were
producing high quality pressed DVD's mastered from the LaserDiscs of his
titles.
(No, I didn't buy any of them - I already owned the legit LaserDiscs. Two
sets of 'em!) Look at how fast an Star Wars Episode 3 DVD is being released
(November) after somebody at Lucasfilm leaked a high quality copy to the
Internet before the film was even released.
Derek
Miss Glamour
here on this matter are really tired and annoying.
Kiss kiss
Miss Glamour
mla...@yahoo.com
would think the "fans" already have their merchandise. NFV couldn't
possibly be a threat to Hallmark's profits.
I am glad, however, to hear that NFV did challenge the big H on the
copyrights, though. For, we do know that the Roach catalogue is vast.
The copyright ownership is highly complicated, and just because they
bought the catalogue does not mean everything is actually still under
copyright. I wouldn't expect Hallmark to be announcing that any of
their films have slipped into PD. They're going to hope everybody
assumes they still own each and every film, because they bought the
"catalogue."
I don't think this is as cut and dry as priating Star Wars or
something. Films like Be Big, that were copyrighted under a different
name have been sometimes considered PD. There are several Our Gang
shorts that show up on DVD that use different reissue prints and, thus,
might be considered PD in that sense, too. Furthermore, NFV has
withdrawn most of the Roach L & H that would be considered Hallmark
property except for Pardon Us and Pack Up Your Troubles, so I gather
they must have reached a compromise on that.
And, what about the Region 2 releases? Is it illegal for us to buy
them in North America? What would happen if NFV put out their DVDs in
a region 2 format? Whose copyright would they be violating then?
That's a goofy scenario, I know, but it does illustrate how complex
this is.
Our copyright laws have been tampered with so many times that it has
been said that absolutely nothing will become PD for the next 10 years
or so. That's not how it's supposed to work. Copyrights were designed
to allow a "creator" to profit from his or her efforts for a specified
and limited period of time. It wasn't intended to help a mega
corporation mortgage their new cable channel.
thebobster
end of this month.
Derek Gee
news:1122992582.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
> And, what about the Region 2 releases? Is it illegal for us to buy
> them in North America? What would happen if NFV put out their DVDs in
> a region 2 format? Whose copyright would they be violating then?
> That's a goofy scenario, I know, but it does illustrate how complex
> this is.
As far as I can tell, it's perfectly legal to own Region 2 releases in the
US. It's simply part of the DVD specification that makes it difficult for
you to play those releases on a non-hacked player.
If NFV licensed *non-PD* L & H product from BetaFilm, then they could
legally put out that material as a Region 2 DVD. I doubt their contract
would allow them to legally sell their DVD's in Region 1, as BetaFilm
couldn't legally give them the rights to sell it there.
They could sell their hypothetical licensed DVD's in Region 2, and users in
the US could import them from distributors in Europe, but it would be a huge
hassle. Why bother?
Just buy the current Region 2 DVD's if you want them!
Derek
mla...@yahoo.com
users in
> the US could import them from distributors in Europe, but it would be a huge
> hassle. Why bother?
> Just buy the current Region 2 DVD's if you want them!"
So, that makes sense. I already have a Euro set, so this was just out
of plain curiosity. NFV, or anyone else, would still have to sell them
out of Europe, even though they were Region 2.
Mister Levity
and BRATS that contain the orginal music and sold them on NTSC disks.
How can the US rights holder claim copyright on those titles if their
version have no music tracks?
Mister Levity
Jim Reid
You might be right, but by the time you win, you've paid a hundred
thousand in legal fees.
Derek Gee
news:1123080877.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
That won't work either. Neither of those films are public domain in the US,
and even though you changed out the music tracks (which Hallmark may or may
not have the right to), you are still violating their copyright in the US.
Derek
mla...@yahoo.com
lot of films that had been considered PD in the past have been
withdrawn. Even though the film's actual copyright expired, other
original sources, like the novel the film was based on, or songs
included within, may still be copyrighted, and those copyight owners
have cited the films as "derivative" works, thus preventing them from
being PD.
This would also most likely apply to Bogus Bandits, Heroes of the
Regiment, Pick a Star, and some of the others that were re-edited or
retitled. I don't know how those Our Gang reissued shorts have ended
up on PD labels, though. The companies might just be seeing how much
they can get away with.
In some ways, I can understand this "derivative" argument, but I also
think it is being used unfairly, and keeps too many films out of
circulation for no good reason.
Jim Reid
stand up in court, but the amount of legal fees you would spend means
that it's doubtful that anyone will chalenge them.
Of course with this "business friendly" atmosphere that exists in the
present administration, anything is possible. They may extend copyright
indefinately and re-copyright everything that's expired and make it
Disney property.