|
Post by Pete Morris on Jul 4, 2015 5:05:08 GMT
If any future ME's turn up on eBay or similar, could Kaleidoscope buy them at even £1000, make a copy, then relist the episode, and get most of the money back? Just an idea.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Jul 4, 2015 13:30:08 GMT
If any future ME's turn up on eBay or similar, could Kaleidoscope buy them at even £1000, make a copy, then relist the episode, and get most of the money back? Just an idea. Hi, The problem with making copies is one of 'distribution'. If you purchase, make a copy and then resell, you're in breach of the copyright holders rights. That is the whole point of copyright. The price of the film was bid up in the first place and frankly that won't put off a dedicated collector such as the guy who ultimately outbid Kal. It's a buyers market and there's no point in complaining about it. He thinks he's bought an asset from which he can profit. I've sold films to him myself and he isn't interested in the content. The guy isn't hiding the film away and if someone really wants it, they'll pay what he wants. My suggestion is to not touch it; the prices for archive TV film have been inflated recently by consortia bidding up the price way beyond what most collectors can afford. It was inevitable that we would get to this stage eventually. Don't forget, these films have been doing the rounds of film auctions and collectors fairs for years and have been going for reasonable prices until recently. Paul
|
|
|
Post by George D on Jul 4, 2015 14:02:55 GMT
Hopefully the potential higher prices bring some doctor who out of the closets.
If someone has a power of the daleks 1 for 2000 i think we could all chip in and get it in circulation.
Softly softly, while a great show, the only one who would pay that price is a DVD manufacturer. At least we know where it is and that it exists.
What would have been interesting is if the original seller would lend it to Kal first to make a copy.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Jul 4, 2015 14:21:17 GMT
Hopefully the potential higher prices bring some doctor who out of the closets. If someone has a power of the daleks 1 for 2000 i think we could all chip in and get it in circulation. Softly softly, while a great show, the only one who would pay that price is a DVD manufacturer. At least we know where it is and that it exists. What would have been interesting is if the original seller would lend it to Kal first to make a copy. I can tell you now that no DVD manufacturer would pay that kind of money just for a copy. Paul
|
|
|
Post by Pete Morris on Jul 4, 2015 16:02:59 GMT
If any future ME's turn up on eBay or similar, could Kaleidoscope buy them at even £1000, make a copy, then relist the episode, and get most of the money back? Just an idea. Hi, The problem with making copies is one of 'distribution'. If you purchase, make a copy and then resell, you're in breach of the copyright holders rights. That is the whole point of copyright. I don't think so. I believe that copyright only applies to the content, not the physical medium. The collector owns the reel of film, and can resell it. If he should make a copy, and give it to the copyright holders, then that's fine. Perhaps I should have said "loan it to the copyright holders to make a copy."The reel of film remains his own property, and he can resell. Isn't this what happened with the various rediscoveries at the BFI?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Morris on Jul 4, 2015 17:11:53 GMT
BTW, why has the thread title changed? I loved the original.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Jul 4, 2015 17:48:45 GMT
Hi, The problem with making copies is one of 'distribution'. If you purchase, make a copy and then resell, you're in breach of the copyright holders rights. That is the whole point of copyright. I don't think so. I believe that copyright only applies to the content, not the physical medium. The collector owns the reel of film, and can resell it. If he should make a copy, and give it to the copyright holders, then that's fine. Perhaps I should have said "loan it to the copyright holders to make a copy."The reel of film remains his own property, and he can resell. Isn't this what happened with the various rediscoveries at the BFI? No Pete. What I said is correct. If you make a copy and give it to the copyright holder and keep the film, or sell it then you're in breach. You would need the permission of the copyright holder for a copy to be made (and I would get it in writing). It is entirely correct that the physical film is the property of the holder and that he can sell it on, but if he makes copies for third parties, or even himself, he would be in breach and may be liable to forfeit the film (although that would take an order from a court). If you are a film collector and you make copies of a film in your possession without the permission of the copyright holder, it would be reasonable for the copyright holder to reason that your intention is to profit from the illegal distribution of 'copies' and they could take action against you. If you buy a film on DVD you can sell it when you get bored with it. But you can't make a copy to keep for yourself and then sell on the original. Paul
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Jul 4, 2015 18:49:15 GMT
BTW, why has the thread title changed? I loved the original. Thanks,Pete.It's to do with the vexed question of "What is a recovery?".Recovery the episode is safe somewhere,but it's not in an archive.It's problematic,to say the least,that it'll be part of the ongoing DVD releases any time soon.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,863
|
Post by RWels on Jul 4, 2015 19:01:39 GMT
I don't think so. I believe that copyright only applies to the content, not the physical medium. The collector owns the reel of film, and can resell it. If he should make a copy, and give it to the copyright holders, then that's fine. Perhaps I should have said "loan it to the copyright holders to make a copy."The reel of film remains his own property, and he can resell. Isn't this what happened with the various rediscoveries at the BFI? No Pete. What I said is correct. If you make a copy and give it to the copyright holder and keep the film, or sell it then you're in breach. You would need the permission of the copyright holder for a copy to be made (and I would get it in writing). It is entirely correct that the physical film is the property of the holder and that he can sell it on, but if he makes copies for third parties, or even himself, he would be in breach and may be liable to forfeit the film (although that would take an order from a court). If you are a film collector and you make copies of a film in your possession without the permission of the copyright holder, it would be reasonable for the copyright holder to reason that your intention is to profit from the illegal distribution of 'copies' and they could take action against you. If you buy a film on DVD you can sell it when you get bored with it. But you can't make a copy to keep for yourself and then sell on the original. Paul Well, first of all I am not sure if that is true, Paul. What about copying music to your mp3 player? It depends where you live if a copy for home use / fair use is legal or not. Where I live, it is, as long as it's strictly your own use. I assume you are talking theoretically here. It would be rather ungrateful and counterproductive to take legal action against people who return copies to the BBC/other. Why, technically, all the people who souvenired telerecordings were stealing. But today we are glad that they did. (Similarly, there are hackers who exploit software vulnerabilities, and hackers who report them. The latter do not get sued.) Luckily the BBC(/BFI?) is always happy to borrow the film, take a copy, and return the original film. Which solves the problem I think. About this ebay enterpreneur, well, I hope his strategy backfires.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Morris on Jul 4, 2015 19:04:02 GMT
It is entirely correct that the physical film is the property of the holder and that he can sell it on, but if he makes copies for third parties, or even himself, he would be in breach and may be liable to forfeit the film (although that would take an order from a court). No, no, you misunderstand. I mean make a copy which he then gives back to the copyright holder. Or I probably SHOULD have said loan the film to the copyright holder so they can make a copy. I'm not suggesting keeping a copy, or passing the copy on to a third party. I'm suggesting the following sequence: 1) Kaleidoscope buys a missing episode on eBay. 2) loan it to the BBC (or whoever) 3) The BBC makes a copy. 4) The BBC returns the film. 5) Kaleidoscope sells the film on the collectors market, getting back most of the original expense.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,863
|
Post by RWels on Jul 4, 2015 19:11:56 GMT
It is entirely correct that the physical film is the property of the holder and that he can sell it on, but if he makes copies for third parties, or even himself, he would be in breach and may be liable to forfeit the film (although that would take an order from a court). No, no, you misunderstand. I mean make a copy which he then gives back to the copyright holder. Or I probably SHOULD have said loan the film to the copyright holder so they can make a copy. I'm not suggesting keeping a copy, or passing the copy on to a third party. I'm suggesting the following sequence: 1) Kaleidoscope buys a missing episode on eBay. 2) loan it to the BBC (or whoever) 3) The BBC makes a copy. 4) The BBC returns the film. 5) Kaleidoscope sells the film on the collectors market, getting back most of the original expense. Potentially the official announcement could even be made after the sale. Still, this calls for quite some coordination so I am not sure if this strategy will ever be put into practice. Ah, another upcoming recovery?
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Jul 4, 2015 19:24:02 GMT
It is entirely correct that the physical film is the property of the holder and that he can sell it on, but if he makes copies for third parties, or even himself, he would be in breach and may be liable to forfeit the film (although that would take an order from a court). No, no, you misunderstand. I mean make a copy which he then gives back to the copyright holder. Or I probably SHOULD have said loan the film to the copyright holder so they can make a copy. I'm not suggesting keeping a copy, or passing the copy on to a third party. I'm suggesting the following sequence: 1) Kaleidoscope buys a missing episode on eBay. 2) loan it to the BBC (or whoever) 3) The BBC makes a copy. 4) The BBC returns the film. 5) Kaleidoscope sells the film on the collectors market, getting back most of the original expense. Good points,Paul,and you're right that both Kal and the BBC are keener on getting as good a copy as possible of missing shows,rather than necessarily preserving the original print/tape for future generations. The trouble is,there are probably quite a few people out there who are keen on having and watching the ONLY surviving copy of a show.You don't get that thrill if there are other copies knocking around,possibly on DVD meaning that any pleb and oik can watch it.
|
|
|
Post by George D on Jul 4, 2015 23:43:53 GMT
Maybe the laws are different in uk, but I was under the assumption under fair use one can make a copy for ones own use.
I would have thought however that the original film was made by the bbc and therefore the bbcs property. I'm thinking the bbc could be willing to give the original away in exchange for them having a copy, but I never knew the film was that ownership had officially ceased automatically.
I'm curious what laws this falls under.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Morris on Jul 5, 2015 2:01:37 GMT
IANAL, but I believe the law is that if someone throws away an object, they are assumed to voluntarily give up all title to it. If someone rescues it from the skip, they become the rightful owner.
This only applies to the physical medium, the film itself. Not the contents
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Jul 5, 2015 9:23:04 GMT
I have a feeling that it's established that one owns the contents of one's rubbish bin,so potential A.J.Webermans could be in trouble.
Little Richard apparently threw his gold jewelry into a river following his discovering God.Let's suppose he'd later regretted this,and that divers not in his employ discovered the rings after searching for years.If he's asked for them to be returned,gratis,because they were his own property,we'd think he was a bit of a git.Mind you,he's not a publically-owned corporation....
|
|