- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- doctorwho
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- doctorwho
cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/4478496
Veteran film collector John Franklin believes the answer is for the BBC to announce an immediate general amnesty on missing film footage.
This would reassure British amateur collectors that their private archives will not be confiscated if they come forward and that they will be safe from prosecution for having stored stolen BBC property, something several fear.
“Some of these collectors are terrified,” said Franklin, who knows the location of the two missing Doctor Who episodes, along with several other newly discovered TV treasures, including an episode of the The Basil Brush Show, the second to be unearthed this autumn. “We now need to catalogue and save the significant television shows that are out there. If we are not careful they will eventually be dumped again in house clearances, because a lot of the owners of these important collections are now in their 80s and are very wary,” he added.
Discarded TV film was secretly salvaged from bins and skips by staff and contractors who worked at the BBC between 1967 and 1978, when the corporation had a policy of throwing out old reels. And Hartnell’s Doctor Who episodes were far from the only ones to go. Many popular shows were lost and other Doctor Who adventures starring Patrick Troughton and Jon Pertwee were either jettisoned or erased. A missing early episode of the long-running sitcom Sykes, starring Eric Sykes and Hattie Jacques, has also been rediscovered in private hands in the last few weeks.
…
The BBC said it was ready to talk to anyone with lost episodes. “We welcome members of the public contacting us regarding programmes they believe are lost archive recordings, and are happy to work with them to restore lost or missing programmes to the BBC archives,” it said.
Whether this will be enough to prompt nervous collectors to come forward is doubtful. While collectors are in no real danger, the infamous arrest of comedian Bob Monkhouse in 1978 has not been forgotten, Franklin suspects: “Monkhouse was a private collector and was accused of pirating videos. He even had some of his archive seized. Sadly people still believe they could have their films confiscated.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Sounds like these 80 year olds need some friendly data hoarders to help them to digitise their collections. (Or for the BBC to promise to return the film, undamaged, once they’ve digitised them.)
Or for the BBC to promise to return the film, undamaged, once they’ve digitised them.
“Yeah, so…, we lost them it seems. But not to worry, here’s a £10 voucher to McDonald’s.”
Why would the BBC want old film, once they had the footage? They’ve already thrown them away once! It’s only of value to collectors at this point, and the Beeb can’t sell it if they’re claiming it’s lost.
Convincing them should be easy enough as long as it’s someone trustworthy
The media is going to be degrading every day that it’s not digitized
Unfortunately as soon as it’s posted everyone involved would be subjected to investigation, would come back to them.
Probably why no one has done it yet.
But they weren’t stolen, they were legally thrown away, and legally (?) scavenged. Surely picking something out of a bin or landfill isn’t a crime…
Edit: I looked it up and according to this page, there’s legal precedent that says it’s ok:
If someone honestly thinks that it’s okay to take something, even if it belongs to someone else, they might not be guilty. Theft has to include an element of dishonesty.
If the person who threw away the goods intended to throw them away and wanted to claim no further ownership, this would be classed as abandonment. If goods are abandoned, they legally have no owner and anyone who takes them would not be guilty of theft.
An investigation would happen regardless if it was legal or not, that’s what the investigation would be to determine……
The Swedish and Danish don’t give a flying fuck about the bbc and would gladly digitize the content and watch England fume.
Than where are the people lining up to do it…?
Usually you’d need to ask for something like that given that the owners aren’t known … That’s the whole point.
Right, so the owners aren’t known, they don’t want to present themselves, hence why a digitizer would have to present themselves, or lining up.
Where is this happening to screw over the BBC? Maybe because there is potential legal ramifications….? It’s so weird that no one has done this yet if it’s not illegal and people would love to screw someone over… why isn’t it being done…
Right because it’s likely illegal, great we figured that out! Do you even know what you’re talking about here? Or did you just see a cheap chance to knock the BBC that falls apart when questioned with the slightest rebuttal?
Nope, giving away the digitizer opens then to vexatious litigation that wont do anything but will cost them. What they need is an organization to come forward and offer to arrange the service without actually handling anything from either party.
There are, just not in Sweden or Denmark.
No, it is illegal… In England. It isn’t however illegal to capture television signal and record it in some countries. The argument would be there isn’t particularly a way for the bbc to prove it wasn’t a very very good televised capture given they have nothing to compare it to.
Even that company would be subject to investigation, it just makes another hurdle, but it doesn’t suddenly make both sides anonymous.
Why would they? Prosecution hasn’t happened with prior recovered lost episodes before.
It seems more likely that the Collectors might be concerned about not getting it back, or the possibility of it being lost/damaged in transit/recording.
This. There’s a very high probability that the film would be seized given the value of it today. They’d never get it back because - suits.
Even with legal amnesty I’d still send the original film to an independent film conservation company in another country with a copy of the amnesty paperwork and get a transfer done and just give the BBC a copy of the raw digital file.
No way I’d give them the original back.
Did I say prosecution…?
And did you read the same article where they mentioned the potential illegalities…?
If they want it so much why don’t they pay him? Sounds like if it weren’t for him (and the others he seems to allude to) we wouldn’t have this opportunity.
Would you pay someone who stole something from you?
I would’ve.
I would pay someone who rummaged through my trash and decades later I realized I shouldn’t have thrown it away.
Trash is public domain anyways isnt it?
Big. I wanna see them! I don’t even really watch the really old stuff, but lost stuff sounds interesting!
I WANNA SEE IT I WANNA SEE IT I WANNA SEE IT!!!
Sounds like it’s up to the BBC to adopt a policy that will leave people safe to come forward.
But, I thought an amnesty was already in place?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But the Observer has learned that the owners of the rare, rediscovered footage are not prepared to hand it over to the BBC, even as the clock ticks down to the 60th anniversary of the show’s launch this month.
This would reassure British amateur collectors that their private archives will not be confiscated if they come forward and that they will be safe from prosecution for having stored stolen BBC property, something several fear.
Discarded TV film was secretly salvaged from bins and skips by staff and contractors who worked at the BBC between 1967 and 1978, when the corporation had a policy of throwing out old reels.
Franklin’s plea was supported by Mark Stuckey, a film and projector restorer who appears as an electronics expert on the BBC’s The Repair Shop.
“BBC Studios, the corporation’s separate, commercial arm, have already spent money animating some lost Hartnell episodes, so surely they could spend a little more on restoring the originals and perhaps pay something to these elderly collectors, a few of whom are now unwell, or caring for others.”
After all, as Phil Collinson, executive producer of the new colourised episode has attested, the Hartnell adventures are “a masterpiece of 1960s drama” and “literally the foundation stone of all that Doctor Who has become.”
The original article contains 924 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Can the BBC even really give amnesty here? Strictly speaking the prosecution of crimes is up to the courts.
