|
Post by timmy on Apr 6, 2019 12:32:44 GMT -5
Haha, I started watching it on Youtube and in order to explain the premise of the show, Penn shows a clip from "Amazing Colossal Man" and then an extended clip from the episode. So I guess it would require some clip swapping...
(It is Produced by Comedy Central, yes.)
would that come under fair use (since its a clip with in the show about the making of the show) (for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright)
|
|
|
Post by GarrettCRW on Apr 6, 2019 12:42:55 GMT -5
Haha, I started watching it on Youtube and in order to explain the premise of the show, Penn shows a clip from "Amazing Colossal Man" and then an extended clip from the episode. So I guess it would require some clip swapping... (It is Produced by Comedy Central, yes.)
would that come under fair use (since its a clip with in the show about the making of the show) (for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright) The thing is, Susan Hart's view of "fair use" involves her getting an impossibly large dump truck filled with money for each frame used.
|
|
|
Post by Diet Kolos on Apr 6, 2019 14:44:49 GMT -5
Coincidentally, I just posted a taped copy of This is MST3K to YouTube with the commercials for a new series of broadcast version episodes. See it here.In any case, it's copyright 1992 by Comedy Partners, the legal entity that ran CC that was co-owned 50-50 by Viacom/MTV and HBO. Viacom bought out HBO's share in the late 90s/early 00s so the special is probably owned by them.
|
|
|
Post by jocksinclair on Apr 6, 2019 18:39:52 GMT -5
would that come under fair use (since its a clip with in the show about the making of the show) (for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright) I am not a lawyer, but I would think that it is questionable whether they would be able claim "fair use" for the clip from their own show, because the clip itself doesn't need to be that episode to make the point that it is making. (Compare that to stills from "Rocketship X-M" and "Eye Creatures" used in the host segments, which were very specific and just still frames and apparently considered fair use by the Shout lawyers.) They could substitute and episode they do have the rights to and make the same point, which I believe would count against them in such a claim. I think they would have a harder claim on the un-MSTed clip that they show, because Penn Jillette is introduces it with a very scathing description, basically indicating that it is representative of the worst possible films (which maybe would be viewed as "criticism" -- except they don't even mention the film by name, so it's not specifically directed at the film as criticism but instead using the film as a representation of all films they might use...) ...
I don't know, the point is, I think they might have a legitimate claim, but it's the sort of claim they'd likely have to make in court, which would presumably be prohibitively expensive for a throwaway bonus. Honestly, if they included the special but just swapped out the clips they couldn't clear, I wouldn't mind, the interesting part was the interviews and behind the scenes stuff, the actual clips they showed never got any momentum going.
|
|
|
Post by jocksinclair on Apr 7, 2019 11:53:20 GMT -5
I was thinking about it, and I predict vol 40 will include the three Olive titles, and a fourth disc with the host segments from the KTMA episodes. I think that if they were going to get "Delta Knights", they would've gotten it already, where the three Olive titles seem like a relatively simple package. It would be nice to be wrong, I like "Delta Knights", Pearl in the theater is a good sequence even though I normally am not a big Pearl fan.
|
|
|
Post by travis on Apr 8, 2019 5:42:09 GMT -5
would that come under fair use (since its a clip with in the show about the making of the show) (for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright) The thing is, Susan Hart's view of "fair use" involves her getting an impossibly large dump truck filled with money for each frame used. Yep. I'm happy we got the Summer Blockbuster Specials on DVD (which I never thought would happen), so I don't feel like we're missing out by not getting 'This Is MST3k.'
|
|
|
Post by ProjectedPaul on Apr 20, 2019 13:41:01 GMT -5
I got Shout Factory's re-issue of Volume X.2 last month. I forgot to post the licensing info for that:
The only film licensing info is for The Giant Spider Invasion:
The Giant Spider Invasion under license from Bill Rebane on behalf of The MacDonald Trust.
No other info for the other films. I remember that the Rhino release of Volume 10.2 listed Krypton International Films for Teenage Strangler, the original producer of the What To Do On a Data short, and actor Don Sullivan's songs in Giant Gila Monster as still being under copyright and recognizing them as legitimate rights holders that they licensed from.
|
|
|
Post by Udvarnoky on Apr 24, 2019 13:06:07 GMT -5
If Shout! did indeed track down Delta Knights, I wonder if they will go the extra mile and release the uncut movie as well. If any film ever needed a Blu-ray, it is the one that revealed staples to have been an invention from classical antiquity.
Although, would an HD version even be possible? While the movie was no doubt shot on film, its direct-to-VHS intentions make it probable that only a standard def master exists. That we may never behold The Magic Cyst Of Archimedes in 1080p is more tragic than the fate of The Magnificent Ambersons, if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by timmy on Apr 24, 2019 14:56:49 GMT -5
If Shout! did indeed track down Delta Knights, I wonder if they will go the extra mile and release the uncut movie as well. If any film ever needed a Blu-ray, it is the one that revealed staples to have been an invention from classical antiquity. Although, would an HD version even be possible? While the movie was no doubt shot on film, its direct-to-VHS intentions make it probable that only a standard def master exists. That we may never behold The Magic Cyst Of Archimedes in 1080p is more tragic than the fate of The Magnificent Ambersons, if you ask me. this is what they had to do to find the rights holder.
|
|
|
Post by gorncaptain on Apr 24, 2019 15:21:12 GMT -5
Going by an unriffed version on youtube, it was definitely finished up on film. No video generated credits. That it got a MPAA rating would seem to indicate it was inflicted on a paying audience somewhere? The film reels or negatives could be lost by now though.
|
|
|
Post by Udvarnoky on Apr 24, 2019 17:40:32 GMT -5
Not that I'm an expert, but I don't think it was unheard for direct-to-video films to obtain an MPAA rating out of sheer convenience. In looking into the subject, I found this LA Times article from 1988 that is kind of interesting.
|
|
|
Post by jocksinclair on Apr 25, 2019 14:10:13 GMT -5
Yeah, a rating would have nothing to do with theatrical release. In the USA, Blockbuster Video was the biggest video rental chain, and they steadfastly refused to carry unrated films, due to a moral position of the founder. "Quest of the Delta Knights" was released on video in 1993 (according to the IMDb), which was right at the start of the height of Blockbuster's power. By then, any film going direct to video would've made sure to get an MPAA rating because otherwise, you'd lose the biggest market for your product. The unrated policy came back and bit them in the ass during the rise of DVDs; they eventually had to remove the restrictions so that Blockbuster could carry unrated versions of comedies, but they were still wary of movies with unrated violence or sex (or drugs; an R-rated version of 'Requiem For A Dream' was created specifically for Blockbuster), and by then the damage was done (it wasn't the killing blow, but it hurt them a lot and made them scramble and make bad decisions).
|
|
|
Post by gorncaptain on Apr 25, 2019 15:47:32 GMT -5
"Direct to video" had a bit of a stigma to it back then though. The perception of some consumers being if it never played in theaters, it must be a real stinker. I read an article in the 1990's(?) about a theater in an out of the way place where such films played for a few days to mostly empty seats, just so a distributor/video label could say it had a theatrical release with a straight face.
|
|
|
Post by christmas on Apr 25, 2019 23:14:39 GMT -5
I remember my childhood video store put all their unrated titles in their own section. It had a strange effect in that innocuous family-friendly tv-movies/direct-to-video stuff went there next to softcore porn. This was the same place that categorized "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" as a Drama. I love video stores as much as the next 80s kid, but good lord when they were plentiful there were some real bad ones.
|
|
|
Post by gorncaptain on Apr 26, 2019 14:03:44 GMT -5
I frequented one that put PG animated fare like "Watership Down" and "Rock and Rule" in the kid's movie section. Both films would be a likely be a hard PG-13 today with the blood, violence, drug use, and sexuality. I can only imagine the irate parents that thought they were renting little Timmy a cute movie with bunnies in it.
|
|