Kubrick's first feature

[Actor]

I'm rather surprised, and pleased, to see on the TV Guide web site that Turner Classic Movies will show Fear and Desire tonight at 8:00 p.m. EST. This was Stanley Kubrick's first feature, filmed in the hills near Los Angeles El Mariachi style with a silent camera, dialog later dubbed, and minimal budget. In his later life Kubrick tried to suppress the film but prints remain in the hands of some collectors and museums. I wonder if the Kubrick estate approves of tonight's showing.

I plan to watch. Be aware that this is definitely not up to Kubrick's later quality. It's a sort of student film from a guy who never went to film school. But you can definitely catch elements of the Kubrick touch. Worth seeing.

[beamascope]

thanks for the heads up

[woods01]

One of the few times I wish I had cable! Interesting to hear that they are broadcasting it as I had heard
that only a few film prints were around. I also wonder whether the estate approves. It was produced
independently so the copyright may reside with the estate or possibly with Kubrick's investors (which
IIRC was some of his well-to-do extended family).

[beamascope]

I'd like my 1 hour 15 minutes back. That was truly awful but you could see hints of what was to come. Reading about it on IMDB is actually more interesting.

[Actor]

One of the few times I wish I had cable! Interesting to hear that they are broadcasting it as I had heard
that only a few film prints were around. I also wonder whether the estate approves. It was produced
independently so the copyright may reside with the estate or possibly with Kubrick's investors (which
IIRC was some of his well-to-do extended family).

I have no way to confirm this but I understand that the copyright has expired. Copyright was only 28 years back then and you could renew it once. The copyright would have expired in 1981 and if Kubrick did not take action to renew then its public domain.

[grainy]

This turned up last year, for some reason, on some news site on the internet and I watched a few minutes. It was like a bad home movie. Kubrick never talks about it and supressed it until his death, my guess is that his estate leaked it for interest's sake. There's nothing about it that suggests the filmmaker he'd become. The Killer's Kiss and the Killing (his next two) are both taut, professional, and interesting, so he must've retreated and learned the craft AND gotten a feel for how he'd approach the craft once he'd learned it.
I can see why he'd keep it locked up. He probably should've buried it.

[Will2]

The rep from the George Eastman House said they received the print a couple years after it's release (1955ish) and kept it in their vault until 1989 when they restored it. Kubrick politely asked them not to share it so they just kept it in their library and made it available to anyone who came to them but did not let it leave the facility.

I'd like to learn more about their restoration philosophy because the print they showed still had noticeable issues like a line and poor contrast. I'm sure it could have been easily fixed with today's tech so maybe in 1989 they just did photochemical duplication and nothing digitally.

[aj]

I have no way to confirm this but I understand that the copyright has expired. Copyright was only 28 years back then and you could renew it once. The copyright would have expired in 1981 and if Kubrick did not take action to renew then its public domain.

The rights remain with the estate for 70 years after the death of the creator. Not from the creation of the piece.

[Will2]

The rights remain with the estate for 70 years after the death of the creator. Not from the creation of the piece.

Actually, not true in the U.S. for works published between 1923 and 1963. Copyright protection lasted 28 years and could be renewed for an additional 67 years for a total of 95 years. If not renewed, it is now in public domain.

[aj]

The rights remain with the estate for 70 years after the death of the creator. Not from the creation of the piece.

Actually, not true in the U.S. for works published between 1923 and 1963. Copyright protection lasted 28 years and could be renewed for an additional 67 years for a total of 95 years. If not renewed, it is now in public domain.

So, Ansel Adams' photos are in public domain and Walt Disney's creations too?

Give it a try and see where you wind up. Probably broke and or in jail

[grainy]

The rights remain with the estate for 70 years after the death of the creator. Not from the creation of the piece.

Actually, not true in the U.S. for works published between 1923 and 1963. Copyright protection lasted 28 years and could be renewed for an additional 67 years for a total of 95 years. If not renewed, it is now in public domain.

So, Ansel Adams' photos are in public domain and Walt Disney's creations too?

Give it a try and see where you wind up. Probably broke and or in jail

Nah - the year 1923 was written in specifically to protect Disney by Sonny Bono (R- california). It represents the year Mickey debuted. Otherwise they probably would've eyeballed it "silent era".
Not sure how the Adams photos work, but the big boys have ways around copywrite laws. In the music biz, Sony owns almost everything in the "public domain" due to a chain of loopholes.
Anyone who wants to know the real dope on whether something's in public domain or not needs to have the library of congress research it. They charge $75 bucks or so per title. Alternately, Elias Savada will do it by the hour, which is about 1/2 the LOC rate. Worked very well for me on one of my projects.
G

[Actor]

The rights remain with the estate for 70 years after the death of the creator. Not from the creation of the piece.

Actually, not true in the U.S. for works published between 1923 and 1963. Copyright protection lasted 28 years and could be renewed for an additional 67 years for a total of 95 years. If not renewed, it is now in public domain.

So, Ansel Adams' photos are in public domain and Walt Disney's creations too?

Give it a try and see where you wind up. Probably broke and or in jail

Back then the copyright holder had to take action to renew or else the copyright expired. The copyright for Fear and Desire would have come up for renewal in 1980-81 and if Kubrick neglected to take action he lost it.

A famous case of lapse of copyright is the 1963 John Wayne move McClintock. Representatives of the Duke's estate slipped up and neglected to renew.

Disney has always been meticulous about guarding their copyrights. They probably still hold the rights to everything they ever created.

Mickey debuted in 1928, not 1923. When the Bono law was passed everything pre-1923 had already passed into PD and the Bono law did not restore copyright. This was probably a good idea since a law restoring copyright would certainly have been challenged in court as violating the "ex post facto" provisions of the constitution. Suppose you made a movie based on a novel published in 1920. If congress suddenly restores the copyright you are suddenly a criminal and can be sued. It doesn't work that way. Congress cannot make something illegal after the fact.

Copyrights will again start expiring in 2013 unless congress acts.