"Gulliver's Travels" Question

[musicradio77]

Has anybody seen that movie "Gulliver's Travels". I have a copy of that movie that I copied off of AMC about five years ago and it was great. It was the first animated feature film made Max and Dave Flesicher. It has a Republic title at the beginning minus the Paramount titles. The TV print of "Gulliver's Travels" are so hard to find back in those days has either NTA or UM&M at the beginning and end of the movie. I don't see it since it was first came out on VHS for years. The movie was still in PD. Has anybody remember this?

[frizfrelengfan]

I recently downloaded it from archive.org. It's a fairy tale in the Disney vein. My copy has original Paramount titles and is in pretty good shape.

[Ray Pointer]

For 30 years, it has been "assumed" that GULLIVER'S TRAVELS was in the Public Domain. But recent court cases involving the Music Rights and the International
Copyright have turned up in Paramount's favor. Although the domestic motion picture registration was allowed to expired when the television rights were leased to NTA, Paramount retained all other rights which sustain the copyright status.

So the question is why are there so many versions of GULLIVER circulating around the bargain PD sources and elswhere? Since Paramount (Viacom) is such a large company, they have many other issues taking priority. This does not suggest that is it permitable to prirate such films under the assumption that they will not pay attention to smaller entities violating their priorities. But in some cases, they have sued, but may not see it in their interest to pursue every "alleged" violator.

[corey3rd]

forget the small time flybynight PD companies that will go broke when the first cease and desist order lands on their doorstep, will Paramount go after Wal-Mart for carrying illegal DVDs? That's where the money is.

[musicradio77]

For 30 years, it has been "assumed" that GULLIVER'S TRAVELS was in the Public Domain. But recent court cases involving the Music Rights and the International
Copyright have turned up in Paramount's favor. Although the domestic motion picture registration was allowed to expired when the television rights were leased to NTA, Paramount retained all other rights which sustain the copyright status.

I know that. If you like to see "Gulliver's Travels", keep in mind the UM&M and NTA TV prints are so hard to find. There is a section on UM&M and NTA is located on the Argus Sventon's Cartoon Distributors Site.

History of UM&M and NTA (http://www.geocities.com/argussventon/cartoondistributors/nta/ummnta.html)

[frizfrelengfan]

Archive.org is a large web site with prestigious backers including the Library of Congress. One would think that their lawyers would be familiar with copyright law before posting anything that might or might not be public domain.

And where does this leave companies like VCI Entertainment, which restored and released Paramount material on DVD's that are not cheap (either in quality or price)?

[Ray Pointer]

Archive.org is a large web site with prestigious backers including the Library of Congress. One would think that their lawyers would be familiar with copyright law before posting anything that might or might not be public domain. And where does this leave companies like VCI Entertainment, which restored and released Paramount material on DVD's that are not cheap (either in quality or price)?

The same technicality regarding the music rights applies here. I believe that VCI operated on the PD understanding. There has been a common assumption about this for 30 years. But the fact remains that much of the music was either "deriviative" of other Paramout features, or was published by Famous Music, as in the case of the song, I'M JUST A POOR CINDERELLA, which means that Paramount continues to own those contents on the soundtracks. And as long as these elements are still under valid copyrights, the films are not in the Public Domain. Again, the degree to which Paramount pursues copyright violations on these issues seems subject to their list of priorities and just how important it is to them financially. This does not suggest, nor does it give license to "knowingly" pirate films of this nature thinking that a large company such as Paramount/Viacom will not bother with small operators. Therefore, it is becoming increasingly important to consult the advice of a qualified attorney practicing in the area of Intellectual Property, Copyrights, and Motion Picture law.

As for the "restoration," this was not an expensive process compared to actual restorations which involve the physical workings with the film elements and reprinting them as does UCLA and to a lesser degree, The Library of Congress. What VCI did was the same as I have done in my packages.
They did electronic enhancements on some of the color, and "restored" the Paramount trademark footage through video insert editing. This is less expensive than film printing, and more practical for a final product going to video and DVD.

[Chow Hound]

But doesn't Paramount have to actively defend their copyright or lose it (I thought I once read about a case like that)? If that's so, I'd say they lost the copyright long ago by not prosecuting the PD companies (I'm not a lawyer or anything).

[Ray Pointer]

But doesn't Paramount have to actively defend their copyright or lose it (I thought I once read about a case like that)? If that's so, I'd say they lost the copyright long ago by not prosecuting the PD companies (I'm not a lawyer or anything).

This is not true. This reasoning suggests that anyone can actively pirate a film in the hopes that they will not be sued for copyright vioation, expecting the copyright to be revoked. It this were the case, practically every film ever made whould have fallen in the Public Domain due to "backdoor duping" going on in the film collector's underground. So it's not that easy. As long as the copyright is in effect, this is stealing.

Likewise, whether or not Paramount defends the copyright violation on GULLIVER has nothing to do with loosing the copyright. They have in some cases sued and won over copyright infingements as recent as 1997.