Dpp1978

Mielr said:

lordjedi said:

Second, isn't it illegal to actually own a 35mm print of a copyrighted movie?  I thought there was discussion around here a while ago about that.  Didn't somebody get fined or arrested for having 35mm prints of copyrighted movies?

 

No, it's not automatically illegal to own a 35mm print. 

Roddy McDowell had his 35mm collection confiscated, but it was more about how the films were obtained than about the fact that they were 35mm.

It is probably illegal to hold them, unless you have stolen it when it definitely is; but it is certainly unlawful. It is a horribly pedantic distinction, but generally illegal means there will be criminal sanctions imposed, while unlawful means there will be civil ones.

 Roddy McDowell had a huge colection of prints and videos, and he had no licence to own any of them as the studios didn't grant them to individuals at that time. The FBI was investigating movie piracy, and investigated him. He was forced to give up his collection, but wasn't charged with a criminal offence. This is likely because he cooperated fully.

 These days the studios are obviously happy to have people own facsimiles of their films at home, but they are if anything more rabid about piracy. As the film (as in 35mm etc) collecting fraternity is small, insular and fairly hardcore, (not to mention elitist; some of them have a violent hatred of anything video) the studios leave them well enough alone. They sometimes even go to the collectors for better materials during restorations. Some of the best prints of old films are in private hands and targetting the collectors would likely send them underground and the studios would lose a valuable resource.

 The hardcore fans of anything usually know more about their chosen area than the studios, and it is not uncommon to approach them for advice; unless you are George Lucas that is. If you guys were involved the release would make the Blade Runner 5 disc look like the GOUT.

 If the studios wanted to assert their property rights they may be able to assert the collector was handling stolen goods, but that would be like using a sledgehammer to break a walnut. It would be far simpler to ask a judge for a court order, forcing the collector to hand the print back. As no licence was granted, he doesn't own it, and the court will enforce a legitimate property right over a lesser one (except in complex situations dealing with equitable rights which thankfully we don't have to go into.) Not complying is in itself a criminal offence. All of this implies the studio knew the collector owned the specific print, and wasn't on a general witch hunt.

 However what is being proposed here, if discovered would likely stir up a hornets' nest. Lucasfilm is very jealous of its property rights, and has shown it is willing to enforce them if necessary. To be fair to them they are far more relaxed towards fans using their copyrighted materials than many companies, (look at how they treat the 501st legion, most of whom have unlicenced kit) but will pounce if they are being commercially exploited without licence. the recent Stormtrooper armour case is an example of this, even if they lost.

 This endeavour is very probably on the dark side of the shaky line where Lucasfilm decides whether to pursue or not; and negative 1 is certainly prudent to be concerned with secrecy.

 I'm certainly impressed with what he has acheived thus far, and surprised he has found someone who has expressed willingness to do the transfer. I was one of those who doubted he would.

 I'm interested to see where this goes, and wish I had the equipment or the knowhow to help.

 If you do in fact drop off the radar, I wish you luck; and even if i never see the results for myself, I will be a little happier to know there is a good copy of the original Star Wars, as it should be, away from Lucasfilms influence.