it's a shame that after 70 years, the legal issues on this film are still holding it back from being seen by the public. I wonder when the original play will ever pass into the public domain since that is probably when this film will come out of the vaults.
share
I would think after 70 years, no one would be around to care if this movie was released.
Maybe they could put it on DVD and not really sell it, just charge S&H or package it as a "free gift" along with another of Joans movies.
Im usually not into lost movies, but a lost Joan Crawford movie is something else :-D
I would think after 70 years, no one would be around to care if this movie was released.The play is still under copyright, and the copyright will not expire until 2025. But I am surprised that MGM and the play's copyright holders did not reach a settlement back in the 1930s that would have allowed the movie to be distributed. Both parties would have gained.
Maybe they could put it on DVD and not really sell it, just charge S&H or package it as a "free gift" along with another of Joans movies.That would still be copyright infringement, whether or not they charged anything for the copies. share
I doubt that the movie will ever be released on DVD or sold as anything. But I do think it is weird that MGM couldn't settle the copyright. Does anyone know if the movie was a big hit in 1932?
shareI believe it was a hit, and the dress with the big sleeves causes a fashion riot, and knock-offs appeared in stores across the country. Plus, when the main star was Joan Crawford, you could hardly go wrong!
shareThe play is still under copyright, and the copyright will not expire until 2025.
Mark Vieira writes in a book called "Hollywood Dreams Made Real -- Irving Thalberg and the Rise of M-G-M,"
"...a plagiarism suit was filed against M-G-M for the popular Joan Crawford film Letty Lynton. The playwrights of Dishonored Lady claimed that Thalberg had appropriated their story of the "Edinburgh poisoner." M-G-M had to pay a settlement and permanently withdraw Letty Lynton."
That makes it sound as though the settlement agreement prevents the release of the film even when the play enters public domain in 2025, but I'm no lawyer. Is there a copyright or intellectual property lawyer who wants to weigh in on this? Even if the film's release is prevented permanently, perhaps the studio could return to court in 2025 and petition for the agreement to be modified at that time. Like everyone else in this discussion, I'd love to see the film in its unadulterated form.
There's some background on the legal decision at
http://books.google.com/books?id=sGjSY0rRC_wC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&ots=rPCMfgpJZE&dq=%22Dishonored+Lady%22+%22Letty+Lynton%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html
I'm no copyright law expert, but it does seem like MGM or whoever would petition the court to go back, in the public interest (film fan public, at least), and make an adjustment to the ruling allowing the descendants of the aggrieved playwrights to be compensated in some manner if the film could be publicly shown. After all, who does it really benefit to lock this film away at this date? The potential audience is not of blockbuster proportions, like for the latest Harry Potter film, and "Dishonored Lady" is not exactly a theatrical chestnut produced over and over. Release it on dvd and let everyone benefit in some reasonable manner, please!
shareThey can't "just release" a film that has been kept out of the public arena by court order anymore than they can give away handguns as a free gift with a purchase of the DVD.
And why would they spend the money on a court battle (that they may not even win) to release a film that will not even recoup those costs?
It will be in the public domain in 2025, so why would they launch a years long, expensive legal battle over this when it will be public domain a few years after????!!!
Whomever said that it can't be released even after the copyright expires, has no idea what they are talking about! Once it is in the public domian, anyone can release it, and Warners would not have to honor such an agreement even if it did exist (which I doubt it ever did!).
M-G-M had to pay a settlement and permanently withdraw Letty Lynton.
[deleted]