Talk:Lost film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to filmmaking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Star Wars "tampered with"? 2 Three and a Half? 3 List of important lost films 4 Copyright 5 MST3k 6 Peter Sellers 7 A couple of things

[edit] Star Wars "tampered with"?

Since George Lucas was the one in charge of making the changes to the original Star Wars films for the digital VHS and DVD releases and they are his intellectual property, is it really proper to describe such changes as "tampering" regardless of how they are received in the fan community? --65.113.254.220 02:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps tampering is too strong a word but the idea behind it is correct. Nobody denies that George Lucas has the right to do what he is doing but there is a very strong argument that he is taking a cultural relic from the 1970s, altering it and attempting to remove the original from circulation (although I see he's decided to release the originals on DVD finally this year).--80.193.22.182 18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three and a Half?

How can it be 3 and a half films surviving? I was under the impression that movies had to be all or none to be counted.

Films are usually split into reels. It's often the case that some of these reels survive while others don't and often it's down to pure chance. So, if half the reels for a film are missing, should that in your view be counted as a whole film or no film? Clearly, it's neither. If half the film is lost, we can't watch the full film but what we have is still a valuable document. So, I guess we can count that film as half surviving (or half lost, depending on your viewpoint :-) --80.193.22.182 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of important lost films

Shouldn't it be chronological? Jonathan F 23:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Both could be useful. I vote to either keep it as it is or have both. --80.193.22.182 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

I have removed this paragraph:

Copyright status may often be a factor in bringing lost films forward for preservation. The incentives for an owner of a lost film to bring it forward for preservation are reduced if that film is still protected by copyright. The film owner could not readily benefit from any commercial distribution of the film, as he would have to obtain permission from the copyright holder. Under U.S. copyright law all films and other publications originally published before 1923 are now in the public domain. Prior to 1998 works published with corporate authorship, such as films, became public domain 75 years after publication. However, in 1998 the U.S. Congress passed the Copyright Term Extension Act which increased the length of this copyright to 90 years. This was pejoratively referred to as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act by detractors arguing that the extension was only benefiting large companies that controlled commercially viable publications from the 1920s. This came at the expense of effectively prohibiting the distribution of the thousands and thousands of contemporary publications that have long been out-of-print, including numerous silent films. Consequently, a Lon Chaney film released prior to 1923, such as Shadows (1922) is now in the public domain, whereas a film released in 1923 such as The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923 film) will not enter the public domain until 2013, assuming U.S. copyright law is not changed prior to that date. Under the current system, London After Midnight will enter the public domain in 2018.

This is argument is not well thought out legally. Assuming that a film collector had a rare copy of a film that was out of copyright and in the public domain, he still would not have an economic incentive to restore the film and make it available on the market: because the film is in the public domain, any other distributor could then copy his release and sell it too. (Adding original titles or intertitles wouldn't help, either. Public domain distributors can easily replace those with their own.) Copyright protection actually helps a film collector with a unique copy of a film. He can usually negotiate a profit-sharing deal with the copyright owner for the use of his material in an authorized release of the film, a release that would be protected financially from copyright infringement by others.

Also, the 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame is a bad example: Universal did not renew its copyright in 1951, and it has been in the public domain since then. — Walloon 15:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I should also add that the classic "collector with the last print" scenario rarely, if ever, happens. Few film collectors don't want to share their films (you're just storing them if you're not sharing them) and even fewer collect nitrate films, for obvious reasons. I've never met a film collector who DOESN'T brag about their "finds"! — The Photoplayer 20:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MST3k

I've deleted the first few KTMA episodes of MST3k off the list because they are in existence, just not in collector hands. If we applied the standard of "someone, but not all has it," this list could be VERY long. -The Photoplayer 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Sellers

I heard that Peter Sellers directed a film but never released it, and it remains in a vault somewhere. — 71.219.94.229 01:03, 25 November 2006) (UTC)

[edit] A couple of things

I have added Andy Milligan to the 'later lost films section'. Also, I noticed this bit of the 'almost lost films' section...

"Many, many important silent-era films, and films which involve important actors, directors, and creative talent, exist in single prints in museums, archives, and private collections — single prints which have not been copied, digitized, or preserved in any way. The possibility of losing these films forever is very real, unless they are preserved."

This is unreferenced, does anyone have any backup for this, and any examples of such films? 218.101.106.252 12:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Duncan