Why Hollywood didn't fight for copyright extension in 2019

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Sure. But there's a difference between entertaining and having commercial value.

Off the top of my head, I think the oldest films that still have significant commercial value would be Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) or The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind (1939). I'd bet Wizard and Gone are more commercially significant than Snow White.

King Kong (1933)?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

King Kong (1933)?

Good catch.

I was thinking of Dracula and Frankenstein (1931), but I doubt the studios make much off of those films anymore.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Good catch.

I was thinking of Dracula and Frankenstein (1931), but I doubt the studios make much off of those films anymore.

And the Three Stooges shorts started in 1934.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Sure. But there's a difference between entertaining and having commercial value.

Off the top of my head, I think the oldest films that still have significant commercial value would be Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) or The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind (1939). I'd bet Wizard and Gone are more commercially significant than Snow White.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say, though you hit the point better than I. There are a lot of movies of interest to a small group of fans. Heck, I like an obscure movie called Get Crazy. I loved the movie, but I suspect I am very much in the minority. I suspect that Snow White has significant commercial value, but certainly The Wizard of Oz has a lot more.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And the Three Stooges shorts started in 1934.

I wonder how many people younger than 40 can name the Stoogies without using google (hint, there were actually six different actors used in the group at various times). Larell (sp?) and Hardy as well as Abbot and Costello are some other big comedy acts who were huge in their time, but are possibly becoming forgotten.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I wonder how many people younger than 40 can name the Stoogies without using google (hint, there were actually six different actors used in the group at various times). Larell (sp?) and Hardy as well as Abbot and Costello are some other big comedy acts who were huge in their time, but are possibly becoming forgotten.

I've heard of the Three Stooges, but I suspect their appeal may have been less international than either Laurel and Hardy or Abbott & Costello. Certainly here in Aotearoa/NZ that is the case among people my (50ish) age group and up. "Who's on first?" is a classic for all time, I think.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by stuartjmz

I've heard of the Three Stooges, but I suspect their appeal may have been less international than either Laurel and Hardy or Abbott & Costello. Certainly here in Aotearoa/NZ that is the case among people my (50ish) age group and up. "Who's on first?" is a classic for all time, I think.

I teach kids karate as a hobby. I finally had a kid recognize the old Sargent Carter "I can't hear you" reference that I like to use when I want the kids to yell louder. She was the first one in almost 20 years. My eye poke defense (from a Three Stoogies movie) goes right over their heads.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I teach kids karate as a hobby. I finally had a kid recognize the old Sargent Carter "I can't hear you" reference that I like to use when I want the kids to yell louder. She was the first one in almost 20 years. My eye poke defense (from a Three Stoogies movie) goes right over their heads.

It's A Wonderful Life was languishing in obscurity until it fell into US public domain. After it fell into PD and started being shown every Christmas, it became very popular. (To the point of the original copyright owner finding an excuse to pull it back out of PD.)

How many other obscure movies/acts might have the same thing happen to them?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stuartjmz

I've heard of the Three Stooges, but I suspect their appeal may have been less international than either Laurel and Hardy or Abbott & Costello. Certainly here in Aotearoa/NZ that is the case among people my (50ish) age group and up. "Who's on first?" is a classic for all time, I think.

A little something for the "theatre of your mind". (PD by me.)

An Addendum to "Who's on First?"

C: "Forget about the infield for a minute."
A: "Fine."

C: "You've got an outfield, right?"
A: "Do we have an outfield! The best in the League!"

C: "They have names, don't they?"
A: "Certainly."

C: "Let's start with the Left Fielder."
A: "That's Nobody."

C: "Nobody's in left?"
A: "Of course. Great fielder."

C: "How can Nobody be a fielder? The ball will never be caught!"
A; "Nobody catches lots of balls."

C: Getting agitated. "How can anybody catch a ball when Nobody's in left field!"
A: "Nobody can catch his own balls. There's no need for Anybody to catch them for him."

C: "But there's nobody in left to catch the ball!"
A: "Of course! He's the left fielder."

C: Extremely agitiated..."Isn't <somebody> going to catch a ball hit to left field?"
A: "Of course not. Why would he be over in left field?"

C: Befuddled..."I just thought somebody would want to catch the ball."
A: "Only when he's playing his position. There he catches lots of balls."

C: "His position?"
A: "Yes. He's our right fielder. You can't have an outfield without a right fielder."

C: "But you have an outfield with nobody in left!"
A: "Why not? He's a great fielder."

C: "Why don't you have somebody in both left and right fields?"
A; "One man can't play both positions, that's impossible!"

C: (Pulling himself together.) "Is there a center fielder?"
A: "One of the best! Anybody."

C: "Anybody can play center field?"
A: "He could play center field on any team!"

C: "How did he get on your team?"
A: "We traded six players to get him."

C: "Your team was willing to trade 6 players for anybody?"
A: "In a heartbeat. We suckered the other team!"

C: “Can anybody hit a home run?”
A: “Lots of them. Nobody has a higher batting average, though.”

C: “What kind of outfield do you have when everybody’s batting average is below nobody’s?”
A: “You’ve been looking at our bench roster. . . “

(PD by the author, RSE.)

[crich70]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Sure. But there's a difference between entertaining and having commercial value.

Off the top of my head, I think the oldest films that still have significant commercial value would be Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) or The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind (1939). I'd bet Wizard and Gone are more commercially significant than Snow White.

Ah Snow White was the 1st full length animated feature film so I would think that that alone would make it more significant than the other two.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

It's A Wonderful Life was languishing in obscurity until it fell into US public domain. After it fell into PD and started being shown every Christmas, it became very popular. (To the point of the original copyright owner finding an excuse to pull it back out of PD.)

How many other obscure movies/acts might have the same thing happen to them?

Sure, a lot of the reason that I've seen so many of those films is because they appeared regularly in syndication on TV. Syndication was the driving business model behind older movies before DVD's and streaming.

It will be interesting to see how things shake out. Logically, I think that many of these movies will end up in streaming movie services. However, so many movie companies look at their catalogue as a gold mine and try to extract every last penny they can out of it, pricing themselves out of the market of what people are willing to pay to access such a service. Customers have to know that they want to watch a particular movie before they will buy it. Much of the time that requires seeing it on something they already are paying for.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by crich70

Ah Snow White was the 1st full length animated feature film so I would think that that alone would make it more significant than the other two.

Again, you are confusing cultural significance with commercial value. They aren't the same thing. The Transformers movies have tremendous commercial value and no cultural significance.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I suspect that Snow White has significant commercial value, but certainly The Wizard of Oz has a lot more.

I don't think Snow White in and of itself has such tremendous commercial value, except that it's lumped in with the other Disney Princess movies. The movie is just too old and too different from the later Disney movies.

I can say my nieces have watched Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella and The Little Mermaid movies ad nauseum. Snow White, if they know her at all, they know because she's on the merchandise with the rest. I have no kids, yet in my family, I'm the only one that actually owns a copy of Snow White.

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

It's A Wonderful Life was languishing in obscurity until it fell into US public domain. After it fell into PD and started being shown every Christmas, it became very popular. (To the point of the original copyright owner finding an excuse to pull it back out of PD.)

How many other obscure movies/acts might have the same thing happen to them?

A few years ago, I ran into a seminary professor, who was surprised at how many students were citing 18th, 19th, and early 20th century books, rather than "current" works. The students were running to Google Books, and the Internet Archive, looking for references to support their position.

I don't remember the title of the 18th century book that is utterly despised by most professors of theology, that is one of the five most cited works, in papers written by undergraduate theology students.

The reason it is cited so much, is that it is on either Google Books or Internet Archive, and "looks like it is theologically reliable".

Amber

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Fiat_Lux

A few years ago, I ran into a seminary professor, who was surprised at how many students were citing 18th, 19th, and early 20th century books, rather than "current" works. The students were running to Google Books, and the Internet Archive, looking for references to support their position.

I don't remember the title of the 18th century book that is utterly despised by most professors of theology, that is one of the five most cited works, in papers written by undergraduate theology students.

The reason it is cited so much, is that it is on either Google Books or Internet Archive, and "looks like it is theologically reliable".

Amber

A good way to tell if someone is a serious student of a subject is by seeing what books they cite. I know a lot of people who talk about the American Civil War, but just cite web sites rather than books. A lot of the original source material from the ACW is in public domain, but most of the top books are not. I've run across this on a number of subjects. If it's not on the web, it doesn't exists for a lot of people.