|
Post by Gnorn on Feb 26, 2005 20:24:25 GMT
Guys, I do think you need to wake up and smell the coffee - it's been so widely publicised that Pendragon have no film rights in UK and Europe so the film clearly won't come out there. In the US and Asia, where I think it is now in the public hands, there is no way any major distributor would put a film out to compete with Paramount, Spielberg and Cruise [and even if they did it wouldn't help us here in the UK!] It's sad, but it's FACT! If it is so widely published, I'm sure you can point us to a source to your statements? -Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by ulla123 on Feb 26, 2005 20:32:39 GMT
The quickest one to point to is HG Wells Society own website: www.hgwellsusa.50megs.com/UK/hgwcopy.htmland in the US and everywhere else it's public domain, you can bet your bottom dollar that no distributor will compete with Spielberg's film, or he'd never work with them again.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 26, 2005 20:34:59 GMT
Guys, I do think you need to wake up and smell the coffee - it's been so widely publicised that Pendragon have no film rights in UK and Europe so the film clearly won't come out there. In the US and Asia, where I think it is now in the public hands, there is no way any major distributor would put a film out to compete with Paramount, Spielberg and Cruise [and even if they did it wouldn't help us here in the UK!] It's sad, but it's FACT! Actualy I dont think it will be fact until after March 30th but until then its just unlikely to reach the cinemas based on a lack of publicity on PP's part which leads me to believe its will be a DVD release.
|
|
|
Post by ulla123 on Feb 26, 2005 20:36:28 GMT
OK, point taken tm but it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY. As I say I'd love to see the Hines film but it's just so unlikely that I have given up hope. Instead I am saving my pennies and hopes for Tom Cruise and Jeff Wayne.
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Feb 26, 2005 20:46:20 GMT
The quickest one to point to is HG Wells Society own website: www.hgwellsusa.50megs.com/UK/hgwcopy.htmland in the US and everywhere else it's public domain, you can bet your bottom dollar that no distributor will compete with Spielberg's film, or he'd never work with them again. From the interview Mr. Hines did with Stuffo: What's the legal copyright status of the right to make movies from the book? "It's one of the most complicated copyright issue problems out there. I can only say it like this. Parts of it are in the public domain, parts of it have really strange rights optioned in very strange ways to people for various different concerns. It's available in some territories and not available in other territories for some people and that possibly is why Tom Cruise was so stalled out. It was just a daunting experience. When we set out to make it we spent easily right at the very beginning $12,000 in just copyright research alone. Just to find out what all of the different various aspects of the copyright concerns were. So what I can say to you is that it boiled down to essentially a head to head between us and Paramount and ultimately they wrote us a letter conceding that we had a right to do a version of 'The War of the Worlds.'"-Gnorn
|
|
syrtismajor
Full Member
Heat rays are for wimps, all hail the egg whisk!
Posts: 87
|
Post by syrtismajor on Feb 26, 2005 20:51:17 GMT
From the interview Mr. Hines did with Stuffo: What's the legal copyright status of the right to make movies from the book? "It's one of the most complicated copyright issue problems out there. I can only say it like this. Parts of it are in the public domain, parts of it have really strange rights optioned in very strange ways to people for various different concerns. It's available in some territories and not available in other territories for some people and that possibly is why Tom Cruise was so stalled out. It was just a daunting experience. When we set out to make it we spent easily right at the very beginning $12,000 in just copyright research alone. Just to find out what all of the different various aspects of the copyright concerns were. So what I can say to you is that it boiled down to essentially a head to head between us and Paramount and ultimately they wrote us a letter conceding that we had a right to do a version of 'The War of the Worlds.'"-Gnorn Amen! To the pub now? It is only a film,
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Feb 26, 2005 20:53:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ulla123 on Feb 26, 2005 21:00:48 GMT
I'll see you in the pub. But Mr Hines' suggestion that Paramount conceded anything is UTTER nonsense...! They are the MIGHTY PARAMOUNT. It's nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Feb 26, 2005 21:04:01 GMT
This doesn't mean Pendragon can't show the film in Europe. It does indicate they'd have to get permission from the copyright holder. If Pendragon was only interested in releasing the movie in the USA, they wouldn't have bothered to spend all that time and money researching the copyright.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 26, 2005 21:07:36 GMT
They did concede that PP could make "A" version, the only version in the public domain is the authentic version and Paramount own the rights to a modern adaptation and Wayne owns the rights to the musical so Paramount did concede they could make a version but if Spielberg wanted to make it the mighty paramount would have the rights to that too.
|
|
|
Post by ulla123 on Feb 26, 2005 21:17:21 GMT
It's not correct to divide it up that way. I am a copyright lawyer and I can tell you that there is no distinction between the Paramount modern movie and the Pendragon period movie in terms of rights. The film rights remain with Paramount. Jeff Wayne owns everything else and I've asked around and I found out that he did a deal with Paramount in 2004 which is how he CAN release his film. He also gave them certain rights which is why they did the deal. There was a press release by Striker comics a few months ago that I read that spelled out the rights split but I can't find it now... They did concede that PP could make "A" version, the only version in the public domain is the authentic version and Paramount own the rights to a modern adaptation and Wayne owns the rights to the musical so Paramount did concede they could make a version but if Spielberg wanted to make it the mighty paramount would have the rights to that too.
|
|
|
Post by ulla123 on Feb 26, 2005 21:18:51 GMT
I agree - that is correct. But there's no way they got any rights from Paramount who own the copyright in Europe. They wouldn't spend $200m on a film and give away rights. It's inherently illogical. This doesn't mean Pendragon can't show the film in Europe. It does indicate they'd have to get permission from the copyright holder. If Pendragon was only interested in releasing the movie in the USA, they wouldn't have bothered to spend all that time and money researching the copyright.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Feb 26, 2005 22:52:52 GMT
But there's no way they got any rights from Paramount who own the copyright in Europe. They wouldn't spend $200m on a film and give away rights. It's inherently illogical. You're a copyright lawyer, Ulla? Well then perhaps you can explain the situation about copyright and the title. Presuming Paramout holds the copyright to the title "War of the Worlds," is that why Pendragon had to change their title to "H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds" ?
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Feb 26, 2005 23:09:39 GMT
Guys, I do think you need to wake up and smell the coffee - it's been so widely publicised that Pendragon have no film rights in UK and Europe so the film clearly won't come out there. In the US and Asia, where I think it is now in the public hands, there is no way any major distributor would put a film out to compete with Paramount, Spielberg and Cruise [and even if they did it wouldn't help us here in the UK!] It's sad, but it's FACT! ULLA, I have to warn you that as a journalist and a moderator, I have to be careful what I say and how I say it. To state your opinion as a matter of fact could not only open you to be sued, but this entire forum and their admins. Whilst your opinion may hold weight, they must remain that until they have been officially confirmed. Please please, rewrite that statement or plan out furhter statements before they get you or this forum into trouble. Sorry it was not a snipe at you or your opinion, but a legal warning. The written word is a double edge sword, please be wary. Okay back to topic ^-^
|
|
|
Post by David Faltskog on Feb 26, 2005 23:14:31 GMT
Moderator?. Since when. D.F.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 26, 2005 23:19:11 GMT
ULLA, I have to warn you that as a journalist and a moderator, I have to be careful what I say and how I say it. To state your opinion as a matter of fact could not only open you to be sued, but this entire forum and their admins. Whilst your opinion may hold weight, they must remain that until they have been officially confirmed. Please please, rewrite that statement or plan out furhter statements before they get you or this forum into trouble. Sorry it was not a snipe at you or your opinion, but a legal warning. The written word is a double edge sword, please be wary. Okay back to topic ^-^ There is a disclaimer on entering this site that protects the owner and his admins from being sued because of a contrversial post. We the posters can not be sued either as we are just made up names with anonymity. And lastly in saying something is fact you are merely stating your opinion that you think it is fact. Its no reason to go over the top.
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Feb 26, 2005 23:24:57 GMT
Ive found past information which does state that jeff waynes has blocked other hopeful adaptations of WOTW. It seems strange that suddenly he relents and gives all. I find a link I posted some time ago which goes into detail for those who are still in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Feb 26, 2005 23:26:29 GMT
There is a disclaimer on entering this site that protects the owner and his admins from being sued because of a contrversial post. We the posters can not be sued either as we are just made up names with anonymity. And lastly in saying something is fact you are merely stating your opinion that you think it is fact. Its no reason to go over the top. Not directed at any member personally or in regards of anything posted on here, but that disclaimer, and the so called anonimity, do not give a person the rights to post whatever the f**k they want to without any concern of the party or person it is directed against. f**k it, back on topic... -Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Feb 26, 2005 23:29:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 26, 2005 23:42:03 GMT
Not directed at any member personally or in regards of anything posted on here, but that disclaimer, and the so called anonimity, do not give a person the rights to post whatever the f**k they want to without any concern of the party or person it is directed against. f**k it, back on topic... -Gnorn I never said it did Gnorn, I would presume manners and self regulation would automaticaly take care of that. Sometimes however the truth can be an ugly beast. Like I said no reason to go over the top.
|
|