Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!) — Page 135

none said:

zombie84 in avsforum wrote: The SE, unfortunately, shares the same copyright, because they chose not to file an additional copyright but instead filed it under the original one.

I don't think this is the case.  Here are the LoC SE records:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Save-Star-Wars-Dot-Com/post/461093/#TopicPost461093

 

Here are the Special Edition Library of Congress records:

 

1997 - Star Wars A New Hope Special Edition
http://lccn.loc.gov/97510343

Acquisition Source:    Received: 4-1-1997; viewing print; copyright deposit--RNR; Copyright Collection.

 

1997 - Empire Strikes Back Special Edition
http://lccn.loc.gov/98502262

Acquisition Source:    Received: 3/17/97; ref print; copyright deposit--RNR; Copyright Collection.

 

1997 - Return of the Jedi Special Edition
http://lccn.loc.gov/2006642053

Acquisition Source:    Received: 5/23/1997; viewing print; copyright deposit--RNR; Copyright Collection.

and in those records is the statement:

Notes Copyright: Lucasfilm, Ltd. NM: new visual effects, sound and new footage throughout. DCR 1997; PUB 11Feb97; REG 18Feb97; PA784-125.
Summary taken from Baseline document.
Sources used: copyright data sheet; copyright data base; Baseline data base.

Not sure what NM means.  New Medium, maybe.  So these record shows that it's a new copyright claim, but built off a previously filed one.

 When you see the films, the copyright is 1977. It's 1977 in the onscreen credits, the box, the poster and all other official references, even ones from FOX. So, the new filing was merged into the existing one it seems. Whether it was a separate filing or whatever, it still shares the same copyright foundation of the 1977 original.

mthr 1977:

Flunk SE broadcast:

2004 DVD:

German HD Broadcast:

2006 DVD:

Hmm, so you are right. The 2004 DVD credits may have been a holdover from the 1997 release, since they updated the credits to included individuals who worked on the 1997 version (although not the 2004 version I think, which is maybe why they left the 1997 theatrical credits as is). The other materials though, clearly state 1977 only, so I don't know what is up with that. It may have to do with a loophole regarding derivative works, that promotional and descriptive materials use the earliest copyright/release-date. Otherwise, they would technically have to have had a 1981 copyright date in there too, at some point, right?

That's weird. My first thought was that actually supports the kooky Marcia Lucas theory, (since she'd be entitled to half of "STAR WARS-1977" but not "Star Wars Episode IV A NEW HOPE -1997".) But maybe there actually is something to that? It sounds similar to what happened with Blade Runner, in that from 1992 to 2006-ish, Jerry Perenchio's contention was that Warner could release the '92 version (for which they worked out a deal for its theatrical release) but not any previous or future versions without them undergoing a separate deal.

zombie84 wrote: Otherwise, they would technically have to have had a 1981 copyright date in there too, at some point, right?

They should have. (according to me, myself and I)  A Change is a Change.  The Crawl change we all around here would consider to be 'Significant' but for the LoC of 81 it might have been considered minor, and flew under the radar.  But it's not the LoC's job to check these things, they are there to collect and protect.  They don't have the resources to check these things, and it's not their job.  It's the honor system.  Which is why in the few contacts we've had with them they've set out the challenge (of sorts) for us to come on down and verify what they've received. 

The SE upside for LFL is that it allowed them to modify where the newly received funds went.  Partly for the benefit of those who helped create the upgrade but also as you wrote, to modify old agreements which didn't fare the tests of time.

Probably some class action lawsuit for the 81 copyright...  Should we use 'Lump Sum Cash Now' JG Wentworth or one of the asbestos law firms...

Harmy wrote: The covers of the 2004 DVDs do say 2004 on the back. It even says 2004 on the bottom of the box set.

I would say those copyrights are for the presentation.  the box art etc.

Here's an old VHS, they list the overall package and individual movies:

But the thing is, just because a new 1997 or 2004 copyright is registered, the old ones don't go away--otherwise, Star Wars would revert back to Fox or become public domain and you'd have video re-issues of it in any case. So the new copyrights exist alongside the original copyrights, or they become merged into one. I'm seriously contemplating asking an entertainment lawyer about how this actually works.

The Marcia Lucas thing may have some truth to it in the sense that she probably received a portion of Lucas' gross points for SW but only for the 1977 version, but I can guarantee you that has absolutely nothing with why Lucas made the SE, it just might be an added bonus (if true).

xhonzi said:

none said:

Probably some class action lawsuit for the 81 copyright...  Should we use 'Lump Sum Cash Now' JG Wentworth or one of the asbestos law firms...

 IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

Oh great, now I can't get "877-OOT-NOW" out of my head.

zombie84 wrote: But the thing is, just because a new 1997 or 2004 copyright is registered, the old ones doesn't go away--

Right they don't go away because they have nothing to do with each other, in the eyes of copyright law.  Like every sperm every copyright is sacred and independent.  The Special Editions weren't second republishings of a novel, they were registered as distinct new works.  (the LoC is not there to agree or disagree with this idea) 

From another thread, the changes to the Hobbit book post LotR, might make for a parallel.  Don't know off hand if they have different copyright publishing dates.  *poking around*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit  (See Revisions)

Lucas might have used this as a guide.  Hobbit 37 is the original.  In 51 changes are made which equal the 81 SW, but no new copyright.  Then to gain new market dominance, in 1966 'the Hobbit' becomes 'The Hobbit : The Authorized Edition'.  It is maybe note worthy that my 80s copy mentions 37, 38 & 66, while SWSE became something new entirely.  Old trick new spin.

Baronlando wrote: My first thought was that actually supports the kooky Marcia Lucas theory, (since she'd be entitled to half of "STAR WARS-1977" but not "Star Wars Episode IV A NEW HOPE -1997".)

"How did the Special Editions affect your existence?"  Is a semi-benign way of asking the 'how much money did you make' question...

timdiggerm wrote: This is actually really common practice in the world of books.

Got any possibilities of something Lucas might have been familiar with or read.  Does Dune have a similar history?  Has the 'Hero with a Thousand Faces' have multiple copyright dates...

Boy, those home theater guys are worse than the hardcore warsies. If you purport to care about film and a quality product you really should know better.

adywan said:

I reposted Zombie's post from AVS over at Blu-ray.com and it's now been deleted, along with most of the posts i have made since i joined the other day. That forum is very one sided. It seems that anyone that has valid points about the original unaltered versions vs the constantly changing special editions will just get their posts deleted, but ones that are attacking the people who want the OUT or are typical Lucas gushers don't have their posts removed. I guess the mods their are either SE fans or too afraid of upsetting George.

And NONE of kenkraly's posts have been deleted, It's almost as if he has copied and pasted all the things he has said here and on other sites. Makes me wonder if their all clones of Kenkraly over there ;)

 Blu-ray.com is great when you just deal with a select group of people.  They claim to not be affiliated with anyone but I think that's bullshit.

SilverWook said:

I often suspect that site is more for guys who wonder what the funny black bars are on some of their movies that won't go away on their widescreen sets.

They also haven't had anyone to taunt since the HD-DVD format died. ;)

Home Theater Forum is probably the last sane place besides here for intelligent discussion of these issues.

 I'm much more a fan of AVS than blu-ray.com.  AVS is much more informative whereas blu-ray.com is a bunch of blind fanboys.