OLD Movies on DVD?

[ralph124c]

I just bought a couple of very old (1930’s) Bela Lugosi movies on DVD-dirt cheap I paid $1.99. I noticed quite a few of such very old obscure flicks are coming out on DVD…are these movies being pirated? Or is the Lugosi estate getting something out of this?

[garygnu]

My best guess is that they’re now in public domain. And/Or nobody would pay more than that.

[Doug_Bowe]

Lugosi was paid for his work by the studio at the time he did it. The studio owned the film.

One of Lugosi’s old studios is still around, Universal. I’m going to hazard a guess that your DVD’s come from a long gone studio…Monogram/Allied Artists.
Old, dead studios don’t renew copywrites. I second garygnu’s vote on public domain.

[lissener]

Nope. Lugosi’s Dracula was known as one of the Universal monsters, along with Frankenstein and the Wolf Man.

All those buck CDs you see out there are in the public domain.

[Walloon]

Numerous Lugosi films from the 1920s through the 1950s are now out of copyright and in the public domain. Not the pictures he made for the major studios (Universal, MGM, etc.), but the ones he did for the minors (Monogram, etc.) and never-weres (Ed Wood’s pics).

[RealityChuck]

Films in the 30s are in the public domain if their copyright was never renewed. The term of copyright was 28 years after 1831. Also, anything under copyright on January 1, 1978 was automatically renewed and didn’t come into PD. So, ultimately, any film copyright prior to 1950 has a chance of going PD is no one thought to renew it.

Many films were not renewed. Either the production company was out of business, or the renewal date was overlooked, or the film was a flop, or people just didn’t think the old films were worth the time and bother (remember, at least 90% of all films prior to TV’s rise in the 1950s were shown for a week or two and never seen again).

There are quite a few films from the 30s, and some from the 40s, that fell into PD. I have a DVD of 8 of them: three Bulldog Drummond films and a Mr. Moto among them (the only PD Mr. Moto; the rest were renewed). I’ve also seen PD versions of things like Beat the Devil (a so-so John Huston film starring Humphrey Bogart, Peter Lorre, and Robert Morley, with a Truman Capote script), The Angle and the Badman (John Wayne), the original DOA, Gulliver’s Travels, all of W.C. Field’s movie short subjects, plus many silent films (many of which are PD simply because of their age).

So the movies are not likely pirated. And nobody – not the stars, not the production company – gets any money from it; it all goes directly to whoever manufactured the DVDs.

[Walloon]

Actually, works under their first term of U.S. copyright before January 1, 1964, did not get an automatic copyright renewal. I quote from the U.S. Copyright Office:

The Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 amended section 304 by substituting a new subsection (a) and by making a conforming amendment in the matter preceding paragraph (1) of subsection ©. Pub. L. No. 102-307, 106 Stat. 264. The Act, as amended by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, states that the renewal and extension of a copyright for a further term of 67 years “shall have the same effect with respect to any grant, before the effective date of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act [October 27, 1998], of a transfer or license of the further term as did the renewal of a copyright before the effective date of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act [October 27, 1998] under the law in effect at the time of such grant.” The Act also states that the 1992 amendments “shall apply only to those copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. Copyrights secured before January 1, 1964, shall be governed by the provisions of section 304(a) of title 17, United States Code, as in effect on the day before . . . [enactment on June 26, 1992], except each reference to forty-seven years in such provisions shall be deemed to be 67 years.”

Which is why there are so many public domain movies and television episodes before 1964, and almost none after.

[AuntiePam]

OP answered nicely, so this is just a warning that a lot of these DVDs are going to be crappy and unwatchable. Think copy of a copy of a bad copy of a bad print. $1.99’s not much money to waste, but it’ll still buy a cup of coffee in some areas.

[GIGObuster]

A recommended version is the especial edition Classic Monsters Collection:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000035Z3K/ref=ase_dvdmg/002-7069949-6168035?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130&tagActionCode=dvdmg

http://dvdmg.com/dracula.shtml

Dracula (The Restored Version):
Although there have been numerous screen versions of Bram Stoker’s classic tale, none is more enduring than the 1931 original. The ominous portrayal of Count Dracula by Bela Lugosi, combined with horror specialist director Tod Browning, help to create the film’s eerie mood. Dracula remains a masterpiece not only of the genre, but for all time.

Dracula Featuring New Music by Philip Glass:
The original version of Dracula starring Bela Lugosi has been remastered to feature a specially-composed musical score by world-renowned composer Philip Glass and performed by Kronos Quartet. Glass’ music lends greater depth to an already timeless classic!

Original Spanish Version of Dracula:
Filmed simultaneously with the English language version the Spanish version of Dracula is a completely different, yet equally ominous vision of the horror classic. Utilizing the same sets and identical script, cinematographer George Robinson and a vibrant cast including Carlos Villarias and Lupita Tovar deliver this chilling and evocative tale.

Director: Tod Browning
Cast: Bela Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners, Dwight Frye, Edward Van Sloan, Herbert Bunston
DVD: Standard 1.33:1; audio English DD 5.0 & Digital Mono, Spanish Digital Mono; subtitles English, French; closed-captioned; single side - dual layered; 16 chapters; rated NR; 75 min.; $29.98; street date 12/21/99.
Supplements: “The Road to Dracula” - An Original Documentary; Feature Commentary with Film Historian David J. Skal; New Score by Philip Glass Performed by the Kronos Quartet; >Poster and Photo Montage; Production Notes; Cast and Filmmakers; Theatrical Trailer; Universal Web Link.

…

However, another version of Dracula also appeared in 1931, and it bears an awful lot of similarities to the better-known edition. Cheap rip-off? On the contrary - it’s actually a companion piece made by Universal as well. Back before dubbing into foreign tongues was typical, studios would sometimes make entirely different versions of films that would be shot in another language. This second Dracula used the same sets and essentially the same script, except it featured a different cast and crew and is entirely in Spanish. The English film shot during the day and the Spanish crew took over at night.

Normally one might regard this alternate version of Dracula as nothing more than bizarre curiosity, a cheap thrill that can’t compare to the English edition, especially since the latter is considered such a classic. However, one would be way off base if one thought that way. Not only is the Spanish Dracula a competent piece of film, I think it’s vastly superior to its more famous brother.

Almost everything about the Spanish film tops the English one. The movie runs for almost an extra half of an hour, and director George Melford makes good use of that time. While none of the scenes added to the Spanish edition seem crucial, they nicely flesh out the piece and make it feel more complete. Even before I watched this version I felt that the English Dracula appeared choppy and rushed; seeing a more full film made the pacing of the English edition even more problematic.

Ironically, although the Spanish version is almost 40 percent longer, it seems to go by much more quickly than the English film and actually felt like a shorter movie. I occasionally grew impatient or bored during the English Dracula; as it plodded along, I kept waiting for something to happen that would spark some suspense or excitement, but those instances were pretty rare.

Not the case in the Spanish version, which may feature mostly the same scenarios and sets but seems much better executed. Take two early examples to see what I mean. First, compare our introductions to the Count himself. The English edition abruptly jettisons him from his coffin; we start to see him emerge and there he is! In the Spanish film, however, Drac’s appearance comes about more slowly and eerily; a much greater air of mystery and suspense is maintained.

It seems that in the case of Dracula, universal could not find a good print:

Sharpness seems very inconsistent. At times, the image looks fairly crisp and well-defined, but much of the movie appears excessively soft and vague. No signs of moiré effects or jagged edges were detected. The print used for the transfer is in simply terrible shape. It’s consistently grainy, and scratches, speckles, marks, spots and other defects mar the picture from start to finish; even for a nearly 70-year-old movie, the print appears especially poor.

And it seems that that was one of the reasons why the spanish version was added in this edition:

Remarkably, the Spanish version of Dracula offers a much nicer picture. One would think it’d look terrible, since I’d expect much more money and effort to go behind keeping the famous edition in better shape, but that’s not the case; I guess all those years of obscurity preserved it well.

The Spanish edition of Dracula also appears in its original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.37:1. When the DVD starts, you can choose it from a menu that requires you pick it or the other version.

Sharpness seems consistently quite good, with a little softness at times but generally an image that appears well-defined and accurate. No problems with moiré effects or jagged edges occurred. Black levels are deep and rich, and shadow detail usually seemed clean; a few scenes were overly opaque - particularly exterior shots - but these were exceptions.

As with most films of its vintage, print flaws are the main problem with the picture of the Spanish version of Dracula. They’re not as omnipresent as those on some other movies, but they’re a great distraction. Mainly, white spots and speckles dominate the faulty parts of the image, but other problems arise as well. There are various scratches and marks, and the picture wobbles a bit from time to time. The third reel of the film - which goes from about 19:30 to 29:30 - displays by far the most concerns; apparently it had to be taken from a different source than the rest of the transfer, which accounts for its general disrepair. Despite that one reel, the movie itself looks quite good and far surpasses the weak quality of the English edition.

[RealityChuck]

@Walloon

Actually, works under their first term of U.S. copyright before January 1, 1964, did not get an automatic copyright renewal. I quote from the U.S. Copyright Office

Yes and no. The copyright law of 1976 stated that any work then currently under copyright would automatically be ruled by the terms of the new law. It wasn’t a renewal: it merely meant the terms of the new law applied, so that instead of a work needing a renewal after 28 years, it was automatically covered by life + 50.

The extension you quoted applied to works whose first copyright term had ended prior to the 1976 law. Works that had not been renewed were put back under copyright (note the time frame: 1/1/64 is exactly 14 years prior to the date the 1977 law went into effect, and 14 years was the term of renewal)

So if your copyright expired between 1964 and 1977 and you did not renew, your work would have been PD. The Bono Act gave it copyright protection again by retroactively renewing the copyrights so they’d fall under the 1977 law.

[Walloon]

Nope. See this page of the U.S. Copyright Office website:

Works originally copyrighted between January 1, 1950, and December 31, 1963: Copyrights in their first 28-year term on January 1, 1978, still had to be renewed in order to be protected for the second term. If a valid renewal registration was made at the proper time, the second term will last for 67 years. However, if renewal registration for these works was not made within the statutory time limits, a copyright originally secured between 1950 and 1963 expired on December 31st of its 28th year, and protection was lost permanently.