Welcome to BigScreenBiz.com

But that pertains directly to trailers downloaded from a website and has NOTHING to do with what we are debating we are debating your statement that "it is illegal initself to own a 35mm release print" Which is disproved by the fact that directors like Martin Scorcese are allowed to purchase them or are given them. therfore it is not illegal in itself to own a 35mm print" If you steal one then yes it is illegal but owning one in itself does not mean it is stolen. this is so silly why can't you just admit that you made a mistake? Everyone makes mistakes even me, and I will admit that the common perception is that it is illegal to own one, you made a common mistake like every other human being. Please let's stop this it isnt really helpful and it is just making you look silly, and unwilling to admit when you are wrong.

there are other people that posted that also agree with my position ...Just go back a few posts.

So your saying we are all wrong ..


That does apply to film first dvd second.

go back to the post at 6pm today also a comment from ct oct 2007.

I don't know about the legal aspects but anyone who thinks that 35mm prints are not bought and sold every day is wrong. Trailers: ditto: look on ebay.

Other than: keep it nice: even when disagreeing.

I have to drive 340 miles in the AM to look at one of my le=ss than nearby theatres!

---

Michael Hurley
Impresario

Because film collecting on celluloid was an expensive hobby. For example, a 20 minute film, such as a Laurel and Hardy short subject, cost over $40 on 16mm in 1971, when I first started collecting. A full-length feature film could easily cost $250.00 — in black and white. Color films (color film stock was a lot more expensive in those days) could run $500 or more. A Technicolor® print of a classic such as The Wizard of Oz could easily cost $2500, depending on its condition. And, if you did find such a gem, it technically wasn't even legal to own! Obviously, a good collection could run into thousands of dollars

Hundreds of news items on the web about illegal to own prints ..as well as studio telling me....

You did say HARVARD ?????

Goodbye Slapintheface like my colleague I feel I have proved my case and will not submit to your immature attacks. I guess we learned one thing owning your own theatre does not in itself mean someone is a mature person. Good Night! This is my last post on the subject... The offer is still open to email your adress to the email in my profile and I will send you a letter on studio stationary from my office stating the facts. Beyond that I have nothing more to contribute. Goodnight.

your second post(was today) so not sure how you have a "colleague"

Hundreds of posts on the web if you would look.

The lawyer that knows the client is guilty still enters a plea of not guilty.Hmmmmm

I am done-- just wanted to see how long this ignorance could go on.

http://cinematreasures.org/news/17212_0_1_0_C/

WOW!

I have a few more logs to throw on the fire.

How many one-sheets, standees, and trailers go into circulation every year and are not returned to their studios?

Do the people who may "collect" or maintain possession of those items actually own them?

Take into consideration two well known 35mm print collectors such as Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese, both prominent filmmakers and collectors. Do they really "own" their collections? Could they, if they so choose, duplicate their prints and run them at theatres for an admission fee, without permission from the copyright holders? If not, then how can they legally "own" that 35mm print, regardless of how they came into its possession?

I propose that the legal status of 35mm film collectors falls into a gray area, where each collector and each print exist under unique and individual circumstances of legality, and the copyright holders in many cases do not care, or they don't see any harm in private individuals possessing 35mm prints, so long as the collectors do not exploit their library for a profit.

In any case, I doubt that a legal 35mm print of Raiders of the Lost Ark is in the possession of very many collectors.

Rick

How about those Horton numbers!

You cannot publicly show a DVD either as you do not own the license. Do you own your dvd's? You can own something for your own personal use but not own the copywrite or license to show it. It's like a book I own a lot of books but I do not have the right to photocopy them and distribute those copies. You are infact allowed to make a copy of a recording as a back-up for your own personal use. You can burn a copy of a CD incase you scratch the origional but you are not allowed to give it out or sell it. If someone wanted to take a VHS or DVD copy of a film and transfer it to 35mm film for their own personal use it would be legal to do so.

The MPPA will look into problems dealing with 35mm prints. If you look at some end credits from features there is a line that states That this print is not for sale and owned by the studio. I've had a few collectors have their 35mm collections taken by the MPPA and returned to the said studios.
posted by William on Oct 5, 2007 am31 8:36am

Thank you for posting your source and who William is and what his qualifications are to make those statements... I have never disputed that people do illegally have 35mm prints and that the majority of them are not obtained legally, what I am disputing is your claim that "ANY 35mm PRINT IN PRIVATE HANDS IS ILLEGALLY OBTAINED" Which is just not true, Again, Even if one studio gave one print to one director 20 years ago then that means there is one print in private hands that was obtained legally. I think I have done a good job proving that some prints are owned by individuals and were obtained legally. I know the technician who installed Martin Scorcese's 35mm screening room in the Berkshire's in Massachusetts about 2 years ago, why would he spend all of that money on a screening room with the best equipment available if he didn't have any prints to play on it? It is like you just ignore any evidence that contrdicts what you say, and you are unwilling to admit that there is even a slight chance that you might be wrong. The only reason I have even said anything is that according to the article I posted on the 1st page from DVDTalk.com some films have been restored due to privater collectors who legitametly owned prints turning over missing footage, If someone who inherited a 35mm print of a classic read what you said and got scared and destroyed the print then a classic could be lost to us forever. There are unknown consequences to things that we post in a public forum. I think we should be responsible and not make blanket statements without making sure that they are 100% true. That's all and that is my only motivation. Slap, I do not know you and have no personal need to argue with you or prove you wrong, and I have tried to just stop responding and ignore it but I think it is unfair to people who may be new to the industry and not know any better. Yes, 99% of prints are obtained illegally but there are some a small number that are legally owned by people and that's all I am saying. There is no law that sais "It is illegal to own a movie on 35mm". I really do not want to keep arguing about this, and at this point I realize that no amount of reason or evidence is going to make you admit that you were wrong so I will just leave it to people to judge for themselves.

Quote: Richard Haines eFilmForum http://www.efilmforum.com/archive/index.php/t-5611.html

"35mm reels of feature films were sold to editors for 'sound fill' until the eighties when people started editing movies on video and later via computer.
Thus, they were legally sold to industry people (and I saved my receipts).
I remember my assistant editors piecing together a complete copy of "Rambo" and watching it on the Steenbeck editing machine before we chopped it up for soundtrack use when cutting "Space Avenger".

In other words, a reel of a used theatrical release print in 35mm would be threaded on a sound dubber and then when a sound effect occured, that effect would be spliced into the reel on 35mm magnetic film. Each feature film had around 8 to 10 reels of soundtrack elements which were bits of magnetic stock intercut with used feature film reels. They were all be mixed onto 35mm fullcoat stock and then an optical track negative in both 35mm and 16mm was derived from it.

That's how all movies were mixed from the early fifties through the eighties.
A lot of sound fill was porns of course since distributors for that product were shady and didn't pay their lab bills. The labs would sell the left over reels to editors to recoup some of their expenses. I did on occasion get
some IB reels for sound fill from the west coast but most of it was Eastmancolor (quick fade) stock. Studios and distributors were certainly aware that used release prints in 35mm were being sold for sound fill since they used it for their mixes too.

There were also 'states rights' distributors (mostly indies like AIP) in the fifties and sixties who sold prints outright to theaters for exhibition. The way this type of distribution worked was that a theater owner or chain or drive in would pay a flat fee for the right to exhibit the movie in their state plus the cost of the print and keep whatever profit they could derive from it without paying additional royalties to the owner. The producers made their profits on the flat rentals for these movies rather than a percentage of ticket sales from each screening. It could be quite lucrative if the movie was inexpensive to make and you had the states rights distribution lined up in advance.

These prints were thus the property of the theater owner who could either save them, junk them or sell them for salvage or any other use other than paid theatrical exhibition in their state. Thus, collectors could have acquired prints from theaters that were distributed in this manner."