|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Feb 8, 2011 12:25:30 GMT
Maybe the question is: how much would it hit sales of the book if the listings were fully available online? My guess is quite a bit. Aah. OK. That I hadn't considered. But that said, the book is one thing, the list of titles another. Anyone who expects to either make money from publishing a list or keep a monopoly on what is in fact information (which doesn't inherently retain anything copyrightable) is an idiot. But I'm sure that's not the intention of Kaleidoscope. There's nothing to stop anyone reproducing a list of titles on this site or any other regardless of where the information has come from. I don't think it would impact on book sales. Firstly, it's quite a niche market in the great scheme of things. Secondly, even though I have an interest, it doesn't go so far as to want to know what drove Bob to make his recordings; it's been quite well documented over the years why he did it and how. Bob used to contribute to various What Video articles about his collection and his pal Jim Griffin whose offices were here in Birmingham used to maintain his equipment. I even chatted to Jim myself about Bob and Doctor Who in 1986. A book has to be about something so people with an interest in Bob and archive TV will want to read the book. Everyone else will either have no interest or be like me and just want to know which gaps have been filled. There's plenty of room for both. Going back to the post from Philip Hindley and the response from Chris, Chris could equally have just provided the information "No, he didn't record Quatermass" and then plugged the Kal book. But he just plugged the book. So I guess we know where Kal stands on the subject. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Feb 8, 2011 13:06:54 GMT
If I may raise a parallel situation with you, I wouldn't ask you - and don't expect you - to put up comparable information from projects you may work on, such as listing the Ed Doolan collection or all the Pebble Mills you rescued when Pebble Mill closed at the Mailbox, because I know that much of that information is sensitive information and the BBC or Ed may not want it online for reading. Just read your post. Actually, although it may be a parallel situation, my attitude and that of the BBC is one of a little more openess. I am happy to put here any information about material that has recently been discovered as soon as is possible. Certainly, if someone asked me a specific question about whether something was in Ed's collection, I wouldn't refer them to the book I was about to publish about it. I would just tell them. Also, in case you're wondering, I am not writing a book about Ed Doolans tapes! In the case of his collection, I have made extensive posts about what the content is although it's difficult to provide a full list as his collection has not been fully catalogued. There doesn't seem to me to be any point in keeping a monopoly on a list! Perfectly. Well, you've already said the book is on sale and people can buy it. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether the list of titles is publicly available. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that if someone wants to know if an individual title is part of the collection that they have to buy a book to find out. If all the book amounts to is a list, it can't be a very good book. I'm sorry. That argument doesn't hold water. Lots of collections around the world are online and it's only due to allocation of resources that prevents a definitive list of every holding to be reproduced by the BBC. Both the BFi and the BBC have regularly made information available in the past (such as the public INFAX trial) and the BBC intends there to be a single page for every programme eventually which includes Radio Times listings details. That is a mammoth task and it is being worked on, but years away. You don't have to apologise. It's clear what your position is. But as I mentioned in a previous post, there is no copyright on a list. When information is published it's out there. If there's an interest, for example a Bob Monkhouse fansite, there would be nothing to prevent them from reproducing the information (i.e. a list of titles) that has previously appeared in your book. Of course, reproducing the book itself would breach copyright. Would you agree that is a fair summation of the reality? My view, (and you probably don't agree, but others may) is that if this site is about anything, it's recovering lost programmes and ensuring we all know what has been found. It should widen our perspective about the subject of our lost Radio and TV heritage. Everyone here signs up to that by taking part in the forums and sharing information. Otherwise, what is the point in actually bothering to find anything? If we have a list of what has been recovered and in what quality, when and by whom, it would make the task much easier. I don't see anything wrong in that. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Hindley on Feb 8, 2011 13:40:14 GMT
Thanks for the replies yes basically I wondered if Bob taped anything of the first Quatermass serial, or any other lost sci- fi serials its a long shot I know. Yeah would love to know what that music was at the end credits where the camera pans over Bobs collection etc; thanks for the help.
|
|
|
|
Post by cperry on Feb 8, 2011 14:37:35 GMT
Re your final comment Paul,
"If we have a list of what has been recovered and in what quality, when and by whom, it would make the task much easier. I don't see anything wrong in that."
The Raiders of the Lost Archives list has been published openly and freely by us for the last three years on this site and elsewhere. It lists what has been recovered and in what quality, and by whom. It's locked at the top of these pages. All the missing Bob M stuff is on it and always has been.
I will make no further comment on the matter. We are never going to agree. Nuff said.
c
|
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Feb 8, 2011 17:17:46 GMT
A bit off the point, but...
If anyone can identify any of the music used within the programme, or has a source - please say!
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Belford on Feb 8, 2011 19:43:16 GMT
Frankly this kind of thing makes my blood boil. I used to earn my living as a freelance editorial photographer and I am still self employed. On a number of occasions I have been approached by people from the BBC who ask to use my photography or written articles for free. Which I find appalling.
When you are a paid member of staff it's easy to suggest that others should work for free and give away everything. The BBC has something like £4.6bn to spend every year. For the rest of us real life is rather different!
On the subject of listings, there have always been commercial books of listings. On my shelf I have Halliwell's Television Companion and a book called Movies On TV which are both exactly that.
As for copyright, it depends where and how those details originate and what if anything is added by the author. The details of continuity and ads seem to be an example of wholly original research and work which I very much doubt appears anywhere else.
Even if nothing was added to the individual programme descriptions and they were copied word for word from original publicity, I am sure there is copyright in the way everything is combined and presented? But in fact there do seem to be original comments added throughout the book. That is the result of knowledge, experience and research.
This idea that everything should be put online for free and nothing funded on the dubious grounds of being open and everything being available is dangerous and destructive.
Anyone who thinks it is a good idea should put their money where their mouth is, consider giving up their job and working for free for a year. Can't afford to? Join the club.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Feb 8, 2011 20:07:04 GMT
Even if nothing was added to the individual programme descriptions and they were copied word for word from original publicity, I am sure there is copyright in the way everything is combined and presented? But in fact there do seem to be original comments added throughout the book. That is the result of knowledge, experience and research. This idea that everything should be put online for free and nothing funded on the dubious grounds of being open and everything being available is dangerous and destructive. Yes, I agree with you completely. The point I'm making to Chris is that we do not in fact know what has been returned via the Bob Monkhouse collection. Although technically it hasn't been returned, it just resides in another collection and is no longer regarded as 'missing'. Copyright does not reside in a list. Creative writing though is thankfully a different matter, as is photography which is also my hobby; I wouldn't give my hard earned work away for nothing either. Chris has though clarified that he has included the information in the 'Raiders of the Lost Archives' thread. For your information, this is what I think he's referring to: ******** tx: 31.03.77 with David Dundas, Lynsey de Paul, Mike Moran, The Stylistics, Bonnie Tyler, David Soul, Legs & Co and Berni Flint. The Bob Monkhouse Collection - see separate book, 'Bob's Full House' Till Death Us Do Part Three 16mm telerecordings returned by Graham Walker via Kaleidoscope; transferred by BBC to HDCam. tx: 26.12.66 - Peace and Goodwill (missing sequence). tx: 13.02.67 - In Sickness and in Health tx: 20.02.67 - State Visit ******** A distinct lack of information. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Norton on Feb 8, 2011 20:25:02 GMT
Currentley watching a programme about Bob monkhouse, and it appears his Daughter is sitting on a goldmine of archive material, big Question is, will she make it avaiable to us, make a fortune by the sounds of it, very rare Audio recordings of Hancock, would be very Lucritive, i would have thought When I was working on the BBC Audio 'Hancock's Half Hour' CDs in 2009/2010, I spoke to Monkhouse's agent about the Hancock material. We were very keen to include it on one of the Hancock CDs we were making. Sadly, I was unable to reach an agreement and the idea had to be dropped. I understand, that there was some worry about a conflict with the BBC4 documentary (also in production at the same time). There aren't any more Hancock CDs in production at the moment. However, if there ever are any more, I'm sure that another attempt will be made to release the material. Now we know that it exists, it's mostly just a matter of waiting for the next opportunity to come along. |
|
|
|
Post by cperry on Feb 8, 2011 20:46:21 GMT
Well first off Paul, I think your cutting and pasting skills are awful lol. What on earth is the tx:31.3.1977 and Till Death references doing there?  Secondly, you clearly have trouble reading aswell lol. I found the following information also in the locked threads above: Mad Movies – entire three seasons. 16mm film The Golden Shot – 30.1.72 (ex-16mm t/r) , 19.1.75, 26.1.75, 2.2.75, 9.2.75, 16.2.75, 23.2.75, 2.3.75, 9.3.75, 16.3.75, 23.3.75, 13.4.75 (ex-Betamax which themselves were dubbed from Bob Monkhouse’s older formats, mainly U-matic) My Pal Bob – 28.1.58 & The Letter. 16mm t/r Thirty Minute Theatre – The Flip Side. 16mm t/r Sunday Night at the London Palladium – 5.3.67 and 2.4.67. Ex-Sony V32 VT and on this year's list which was published as a pdf freely available on our website and indeed is also a thread on this site: Recovered by Kaleidoscope from the Bob Monkhouse Collection: My Pal Bob (BBC) tx: 25/02/1958 with Bob Monkhouse, Denis Goodwin, Terence Alexander, Jill Adams. Kenneth Connor, Irene Handl, Willoughby Goddard, Pat Coombs, Johnny Vyvyan, Joseph Behrmann, Hugh Lloyd, Marie Devereux, David Ward, Arthur Mullard, Esmond Knight, John East and Marcel de Villiers. VHS of 16mm telerecording. My Pal Bob (BBC) tx: 11/03/1958 with Bob Monkhouse, Denis Goodwin, Terence Alexander, Jill Adams, Kenneth Connor, Pat Coombs, Horace Sequeira, Malcolm Watson, Shirley Burniston, Joy Webster, Winifred Braemar, Ronald Mayer and David Farrar. VHS of 16mm telerecording. Screaming Lord Sutch – Jack the Ripper pop promo. 16mm colour film. I think the only missing shows were the 1974 Little Big Time and the Family Fortunes which seems to have been missed off all our lists, sorry. There is a lot of missing radio material, of course, but Raiders does not cover that, and at over 100 pages of it, I don't feel I could post it here anyway. That's why it's in a book lol. I come to this site for relaxation and good conversation. There is nothing relaxing about being attacked by you, and you are a moderator so I can't turn to the moderators to ask for moderation lol. I hate getting into public slanging matches, it makes you and I look cheap and childish. I thought we were on the same side?? Trying to help return missing programmes. But you seem determined to paint us as villains, like we are hiding secrets and being unhelpful. I look forward to reading what you have returned from Ed Doolan. I'm sure there is a thread about it on here somewhere but it's not at the top of the page as a locked source of information. How many tapes does Ed have? We don't know. How many have been transferred? We don't know. How are things going searching for missing DW? We don't know. Your various posts today have been hostile and have bordered on offensive. You have been very clever with words to try to ridicule Kal, but using the word 'idiot' in your posts earlier was uncalled for and rude. I don't know why you feel now you have to make a direct attack on Kaleidoscope for its handling of the Bob Monkhouse collection. It has been a sustained attack and you seem to fail to realise that books are how we raise funds to keep going. We get no government grants or donations. We need our book income and are just trying to preserve that income so we can continue to do free events and more research. 22 years odd we have been going now, and we have tried hard to support the online communities and fans of UK TV everywhere. We give our time freely, but you describe us today as idiots. Thanks. I have tried to post reasonable posts but you have dissected them line by line, finding fault at every turn and being pedantic. It has succeeded in annoying me. Well done. That's very constructive and has really helped move forward the debate about finding lost TV. You also insinuate that the Bob Monkhouse archive is in a private collection not accessible by the BBC. Let us not forget that it was offered to the NFTVA who turned down 99.9% of it, we have offered it all to TV companies who have chosen not to take it back, and now most items are on digital formats available for people to access in the industry. Behind the scenes we work tirelessly to try and get material back on air, indeed the BBC4 documentary must show you that we try to get it back on screen if we can??? If you have any issues with Kal or me they would be better directed through private emails. I shall make no more public comment about Kaleidoscope's interests on this site in case I offend you again. I left this site once before because I was attacked, Mark Brown persuaded me to come back, but you are a moderator so I cannot stay here any longer. In future I will use our own web space or Wiped to report findings from our work. Cheers Chris |
|
|
|
Post by markboulton on Feb 8, 2011 21:06:35 GMT
I've watched this 'slanging match' from the sidelines for a while but feel I have to comment now. At first, and indeed now, I felt Chris's attitude very lofty and unnecessary. He could have just answered the one question and followed it with something along the lines of, "but don't make a habit of this mate, we'll end up reproducing the rest of our book if we carry on like this! ;D" But instead, he basically said, "you can't ask any question on this forum anymore where the answer is in my book because I want you to buy my book". Chris should realise it's not just the products of his organisation he needs to sell to make people want to buy, but the attitude to its potential customers aswell.
I'm afraid Chris's continued stubbornness over the issue hasn't left me with a particularly good impression - there's a certain degree of secrecy and caution that naturally develops around those who take great pains to garner very sensitive agreements in order that this sort of information can be made public knowledge at all, and organisations like Kaleidoscope indeed have a lot to be proud of in that regard, and is to be admired. However, if in the end it is painted as an endeavour that was only done to show what a feather in the cap they think it is, rather than thinking about how happy their customer base will be or are in the end product seems like a bit of a slap in the face - like "weren't we so good, being the people who managed to get to do this when you didn't?" Rather than "I'm so glad I managed to find out all this information so many people have wanted to know for so many years. We've done this great book that's got loads of interesting titbits of information, but tell you what, I'll just let you in on a couple of them so you have an idea what else you can find out if you support us by buying the book".
That's how I would have gone about it, anyway. And indeed, if the information was available freely on the Raiders website, why on earth did Chris not mention that in the first place, instead saying Phil would have to buy the book instead. He could have suggested both. Quick win and more than likely a few days or weeks later, another customer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2011 21:06:54 GMT
There's no clear right or wrong with this one, is there? One the one hand, I can see it from Chris' point of view that if the money gathered from Kal publications finances the proper archiving of a lot of previously missing TV material (and material that both the TV archives and the BFI seem shamefully uninterested in taking back themselves!) then it's for a worthy cause, I reckon. I don't object to that at all. Whether or not it's with Kal or another archive is irrelevent as long the material is available and safe should anyone wish to use it in future (which is the main point to someone like me who is interested in TV and to whom permanent preservation of the material is of primary importance).
On the other hand, it would be helpful if a bit more basic and freely offered info was supplied to sites such as this, even if it's just a mere "vanilla" listing of all recovered items; we're a bit uncertain as to exactly what has been recovered in certain areas (particularly with regard to the Monkhouse collection), despite the partial listing that has been offered up to post here, which i've done and kept updated where possible. Sharing basic info helps rid us of misinformation spread as "fact".
Anyway, i've said my bit and that's all i'm offering on the subject as I can see both sides on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by markboulton on Feb 8, 2011 21:12:04 GMT
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can tell Philip didn't even ask for a list. He only asked about one particular programme. I don't see giving a "yay" or "nay" about one programme out of hundreds compromises the Unique Selling Point of the book. Or even two or three for that matter. Like I say, if it had become a habit, maybe a 'warning shot across the bows' as C.J. described it to Reggie Perrin, may have been given, or Chris could have been 'firm, but fair' like Mr Mackay. Instead a potential customer was told off like a naughty schoolboy. Bitch slapping is not good salesmanship.
|
|
|
|
Post by cfenwic on Feb 8, 2011 21:53:05 GMT
Whilst this isn't related to the Bob Monkhouse subject as such, the whole feel to Mr Perrys initial response earlier on in the thread has reminded me of a query I made over on The Mausoleum website last March concerning a series called 'Night Voices'. While asking after the series and trying to find someone on the forum who might be able to steer me in the directio of further info about it, I got a couple of respones from Mr Perry that stated that if I wanted this info I'd have to buy one of the Kaleidoscope books to get it. Now while this in itself seems fairly inocuous in itself i couldn't help but feel annoyed. After all why would i want to buy what I found out was a fairly expensive book just for what must have been a tiny amount of info that by his own admission did not even have summaries? If he didn't want to tell me about the series there and then on the forum why did he even respond at all? I'm sorry to say that it all ultimately felt rather clever and knowing although I didn't respond and say as such at the time and this is the feeling I'm getting again from this thread somewhat. Oh and contrary to what Mr Perry said about the series whilst I would agree that 'The Hands of Orlac' episode of the series is indeed poor the adaptation of Robert Aickman's 'The Hospice' is anything but. On the contrary, the statue and the cat parts notwithstanding, I thinks its a much neglected classic of its kind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Feb 8, 2011 23:14:32 GMT
Frankly I dont think its Mr Vanezis's place to criticize or declare what should be free online or what Mr Perry has offered up as replies .The reason being that Mr Vanezis is employed (I
assume) in or around this industry.He has access in his work to certain information so whatever he says here does not affect him, he still gets his salary at the end of the month.
With others its different so when some armchair archivist says "tell me now what I want to know" Its perfectly reasonable for some people like Mr Perry to say "no,go and buy the book"
IMHO.
When you consider the alternative IE getting off your behind, getting on buses and trains and researching the stuff yourself, the cost of a book or download is very reasonable indeed.
|
|
John Wall
Member
Posts: 4,199 
Member is Online
|
Post by John Wall on Feb 9, 2011 0:28:04 GMT
Sometimes it's necessary to step back and remember the fundamentals. Those of us who frequent (haunt ?) this MB do so because we've got a common, shared, interest in archive/missing TV, etc. Some who post here are actively involved in recovering, or working to recover, missing episodes. Names like Paul Vanezis, David Stead, etc belong in a "hall of fame" - should an appropriate one exist. They've been there, done that and have a wardrobe full of T-shirts to prove it - and a review of posts here will show what they've achieved. However, we must also remember that you can't have something for nothing and there's no such thing as a free lunch. I have no idea of the annual running costs of an organisation like Kaleidoscope - but it's not going to be peanuts. Volunteers are, obviously, an important aspect - but films, videos, etc take up space and need appropriate conditions, which costs money. We all need to remember that different people have different concerns/agendas - it's all very well "recovering" stuff but if it can't be properly conserved/preserved/catalogued it almost might as well stay lost.
|
|
