Re: Silent Film Distributors - Duping, Restoration, Squatters


From:        David P. Hayes
Date:        1997/12/05
Newsgroups:  alt.movies.silent

In article <dsulpy-0412970817400001@ts006d33.pri-nj.concentric.net>,
  dsulpy@concentric.net wrote:
> In article <01bd0067$7d88f100$03502299@whatever>, "David P. Hayes"
> <david_p_hayes@msn.com> wrote:
> > It may seem an outrage that long hours and exorbitant expenditures would
> > not be rewarded by legally-enforceable exclusivity.
> I would be outraged if "legally-enforceable exclusivity" WAS applied. No
> matter how much time and effort you put into an out-of-copyright work, it
> should remain an out-of-copyright work. Otherwise people start getting
> strange ideas - akin to  "squatter's rights" for film (i.e., "I've owned
> the only print of this out-of-copyright film for thirty years, therefore I
> own all the rights!").

> Doug

Your comment points up the desirability of law that would recognize a difference analogous to that between squatters and homesteaders.  Those who genuinely add value to a property ("homesteaders") would be granted rights.  Those who make no efforts or only superficial, unsubstantive ones (properly defined) on an out-of-copyright work (these film-holders being the "squatters") would not be granted legal protection against new prints unauthorized by them.

David Hayes

And now my response to someone else's response to me:
   
From: David P. Hayes
Newsgroups: alt.movies.silent
Date: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 8:26 AM

Michael Gebert <mgmax@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<mgmax-0612971037450001@pool-207-205-139-176.chia.grid.net >…
> In article <881356974.4434@dejanews.com>, david_p_hayes@msn.com wrote:
> > … Those
> > who genuinely add value to a property ("homesteaders") would be granted
> > rights. Those who make no efforts or only superficial, unsubstantive
> > ones (properly defined) on an out-of-copyright work (… the "squatters") would not be granted …

> Sounds great. Unfortunately, I know exactly how it will be used. Whites
> moving into a property would be evidence of improvement. Non-whites would
> be evidence of unsubstantive improvement. (I live in Chicago, where such
> distinctions are drawn all the time.)

In my post, I specifically wrote "…properly defined…" to preclude misapplications such as the one you cite.

--David Hayes

 

Return to Table of Contents

Go to next article