8mm Forum: Derann Issued Techno?

This is topic Derann Issued Techno? in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=009188

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on May 26, 2014, 06:16 AM:

I have "Ballot Box Bunny" in a Derann box but the intro has the Techno logo, also the titling is all in English with no Foreign titles as is normal with these Techno releases.

Was this a second-hand film which Derann put in one of their boxes, or as they had the rights to Warner titles, did they issue this from Techno negatives?"

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on May 26, 2014, 09:16 AM:

It is a Derann's release. http://derannlists.co.uk/derann/8e.php

Posted by Maurizio Di Cintio (Member # 144) on May 26, 2014, 09:23 AM:

Maurice, in the second case you mentioned, your copy should be in poly stock: Techno Film used to print on acetate. Also whilst most "genuine" Technofilm releases have now faded, yours should have held up very well if is a Derann release.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on May 26, 2014, 09:25 AM:

Thank you, Dominique, it therefore seems that Derann used Techno master material, but why did they retain the Techno logo.
Anybody from the Derann side know the answer?
Yes, Maurizio, it's on LPP, the colour is very good.

Posted by Barry Attwood (Member # 100) on May 26, 2014, 11:49 PM:

Maurice,

The simple answer, money! Derek picked up the masters, sound as well as picture, it would have been easy to take out the Techno logo, but it would have meant re-cutting the soundtrack to fit the new running time, and the second real point is this, Derek could get away with saying he was just selling newly found Techno prints if anyone from W,B.'s asked, so no need for any royalties to be paid in any way.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on May 27, 2014, 10:45 AM:

Thank you, Barry, for the answer.
Unfortunately most the Techno WB have now suffered differing shades of fade but Derek's are still great colour.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on May 27, 2014, 11:58 AM:

Maurice, I'm sure Derek wrote an article many years back about visiting the Techno warehouse to rescue as many negatives as he could.
I'll dig it out and send it to you.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on May 27, 2014, 12:06 PM:

How many Derann prints are there that end with "A Walton Super-8 Release"?

Then again I can think of at least one Derann printed DCR film that has the very nice "Derann" logo spliced in at the head.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 27, 2014, 12:53 PM:

My "Dumb Patrol" is one of those re-issued Techno/Derann releases and as commented on earlier, it's LPP and beautiful color!

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on June 01, 2014, 08:07 AM:

It's a surprise to me that Derann added a logo to any negatives they obtained from another distributor - I'd be interested to know the title of any such release. So far, their only re-release that I'm aware of featured any cutting from them of any type is 'To the Devil a Daughter' which they offered as a 600' as opposed to Iver's 2 x 400', which had no more than 300' on each spool.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on June 01, 2014, 08:37 AM:

The one I am sure of is "Terrier to Wooton" (about 250 Ft.) from the "Island and It's Railways" series.

This and "Piccadilly Line to Shanklin" (also from this series) were both DCRs. My Piccadilly was bought used and it showed up in DCR packaging.

"Terrier" was actually the very last brand new Derann print I ever bought and it showed up with the Derann logo right at the beginning.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on June 01, 2014, 10:56 AM:

Since my original posting I have had a chance to speak to an ex Derann employee. He said that many of Derek's early releases were "pirate" prints and whilst he did not know the particular title of which I spoke he said that the Techno logo was probably put at the start just to foil any snoopers from Warners.

This would explain why my print does not have the two lots of foreign titles which most Techno WB releases have.

Posted by Clive Carmock (Member # 347) on June 01, 2014, 05:26 PM:

I guess there was an element of official releases and then some unofficial ones. I remember sending Derek a whole load of daysets on 35mm and similar shorts which he put together and issued as a dayset reel.

Also he said had he known I had a Hammer feature in IB tech 35mm he said a few years earlier he'd have asked to borrow it to put out on S8, but the market wasn't there any more.

[ June 11, 2014, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Clive Carmock ]

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on June 01, 2014, 08:22 PM:

I miss Derann. Boy did they put out some exceptional stuff. Do they still sell any film products or is it all digital?

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on June 01, 2014, 08:30 PM:

They are completely out of business.

I don't think that film sales kept them in business or put them out of business either: they just couldn't make enough money from either films sales or audio/video retail to turn a profit anymore.

I thought it might be a beginning of the end for my film collecting days, but one way or another it's kept going just fine.

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on June 02, 2014, 02:29 AM:

The Techno article was in the first three issues of Film For The Collector I think.

There's no such thing as a pirate print. They are "ARCHIVE" copies in case they loose their master copy [Smile]

Clive. Upset me now and tell me what the Hammer films was. Guessing at 'The Brides Of Dracula'?

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on June 02, 2014, 07:50 AM:

I was told by one of the staff that they closed partly because they had several floors to the building but were by then only using two. However they had to pay full business rates for the floors they were not using and the turnover could not support it.

I later read that Dudley was in the top 3 towns for most empty shops on the High Street. Their shop is still unoccupied.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on June 02, 2014, 10:36 AM:

quote:
There's no such thing as a pirate print

The Oxford Dictionary defines PIRATE as:

1.1 A person who appropriates or reproduces the work of another for profit without permission, usually in contravention of patent or copyright.

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on June 02, 2014, 10:59 AM:

No they are archive prints distributed to people who will take care of them, unlike the original owners who don't care about them.

We collectors are doing a service for the future generations, when all the digital stuff won't play any more.

Pirates are "Yo Ho Ho and a bottle of rum"

Shiver me reels.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on June 02, 2014, 11:06 AM:

I strongly disagree with your thoughts, Derann were making money from using prints to which they appear not to have the legal right to, and as such they were pirate prints.

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on June 02, 2014, 11:41 AM:

So that means you should destroy any you have bought and know were NOT legitimately licensed products.

As far as know all prints I bought, not only from Derann, but all the others companies were legitimately licensed products.

I also recall one of the reasons they closed was the business rates, also the high cost of all the utilities bills.

Posted by Clive Carmock (Member # 347) on June 11, 2014, 07:07 PM:

David the Hammer film on 35mm I referred to in my post was Blood from the Mummy's Tomb.

Had it been earlier Derek said he'd have borrowed the 35mm print to produce a S8 Master from.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 12, 2014, 12:33 PM:

At least when it came to the Techno cartoon prints ...

Derann had full permission to go down there and gather those negatives for the original Techno prints.

Now, whether Techno had the right to then give over permission to Derann from Warner's to release them from another source, (Derann) is another whole argument.

But the idea that Derann was a bunch of pirates, I certainly don't agree with. I respectfully disagree.

In fact Derann should be applauded for having truly rescued from assorted sources, (Kempski, Red Fox, Techno ect) the negatives, (which I doubt that they got for free, they no doubt paid for them), for assorted releases, as many of us would be quite limited on the amount of great prints available for a mountain of titles!

[Big Grin]

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on June 12, 2014, 05:28 PM:

I also remember that the reason gave for Derann to close down was the increase of local taxes.

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on June 13, 2014, 06:45 AM:

I remember talking to Derek about Hammer titles and one I mentioned 'The Brides Of Dracula' was one he would have liked to release, has it was a favourite of his.

Back when Derann were doing the Hammer film complete I think if they could have got good pre-print it would have sold well.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 13, 2014, 12:38 PM:

I remember that too, Dominique, though I don't remember the exact particulars.

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on June 13, 2014, 02:15 PM:

In the UK businesses have to pay rates on their buildings. Residential have council tax/poll tax/rates.

The council's are that stupid to charge for a floor you don't use rather than use common sense and check that the business is not using the floor. They just charge the full amount. Said business then closes.

The Derann building looks like it was three floors,so rather than take a third less they now lose 100%.

If you look on google street cam with my tongue firmly in my cheek the top floor has the windows bricked up. They used to do that in UK a few hundred years ago due to the window tax.

I still miss Derann.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on June 13, 2014, 06:05 PM:

There was also something about windows in Belgium. Before the vote was like today, one man, ne vote, some people had two or three votes. One of the reason you could have an additionnal vote was the number of windows. So when the law changed, many people bricked up the (now) useless windows. You can still see buildings like that.

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 549) on June 14, 2014, 11:59 PM:

Interesting conversation. I loved the old Techno prints and have many of the warners cartoons. I was a frequent Derann buyer and often bought a film from their used list, that turned out to be a brand new print. They can't have had that many extras or perfect un-run used prints. I came to belive that they were new prints of titles which they held the neg for but not necessarily the rights.

Derann is to be applauded for their loyalty to us for so long when almost every other company had given up the business. The one thing that I thought they would do was continue with their used listings as a one or two man band. I was always missing out on films so they must have had solid support for that side of the biz. It's something that could have continued from a few spare rooms. Oh well, we still have their films that will live on.

Posted by Panayotis A. Carayannis (Member # 1220) on June 15, 2014, 02:41 AM:

If you really want to be "law abiding" and "legal" you must throw out every rarity you bought as an "import" from second hand lists and immediately destroy all the Chaplin RBC films,wherever you have bought them from! [Wink]

Posted by Maurizio Di Cintio (Member # 144) on June 15, 2014, 11:04 AM:

Interesting the way this thread is being highjacked: Technofilm negs to Derann's copyright issues. I'd like to share my views on this, especially after Panayotis's post which sounds short of heresy [Big Grin]

In my video library (DVDs & BDs) all films are strictly original relases; this should put me in the league of law-abiding people. So much so, every time I had to re-dub a film, being it a digest or a full feature, I have always bought the corresponding DVD. When I was awaiting my full-length print of "Raiders" I bought the DVD. Fact is I'd be happy to pay the rights for all the films I own on film if only the copyright proprieotors could tell me how. But in reality, our world is of no interest to them: the various accounts by Derek Simmonds give us the idea that almost no film distributor/copyright owner was interested in our niche market. And since when I pay copyright royalties what I am paying actually is the creative/intellectual work of the authors thereof, ideally I should be OK by buying the DVD/BD alongside the film print of the same title. Regardless of the media I am using, the work of art is the same! So why should I feel short of an outlaw for possessing my prints??? Or does the fact I am using real film and not some digital format entitle the copyright owner to higher royalties than those usually obtained from the DVD/BD sales? I don't think I am self-righteous... What do you think?

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on June 15, 2014, 11:31 AM:

Maurizio pointed something out : the film market is so small now that the big companies are no longer interested in it as it doesn't bring any (or so few) profits. When the market was there, don't worry for them, they took all the benefits they could on film relases.

Posted by James N. Savage 3 (Member # 83) on June 16, 2014, 09:22 AM:

Maurizio you summed it up quite well.

The irony is that, in small ways, the super 8 hobby has actually contributed a few dollars to the big companies. For instance, I, like Maurizio, have bought DVD's (for the soundtracks). to movies or extracts that I wouldnt have even wanted if not for the super 8 release.

It seems Derann always went the extra mile to release legitimate material (i.e. Derek meeting with executives from Disney, Fox, etc.). So I wouldnt worry too much about the Derann releases.

On a funny sidenote- I always stayed away from the Chaplin releases from Blackhawk in the 70's, JUST BECAUSE of the contract that you had to sign to destroy the prints in a few years [Roll Eyes]

Weird marketing strategy!

James

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on June 16, 2014, 09:36 AM:

I wonder what the legality of those contracts is now?

It was an agreement between the original purchaser of the films and Blackhawk that Blackhawk agreed to initiate in order to get the rights from Chaplin (or his estate.)

Chaplin's estate is still in day to day business I'm sure, but Blackhawk is very defunct and many of these prints are second, third and fourth hand now.

I guess they legally shouldn't exist at all, but then again who is going to go to all the time and expense to enforce it anymore? It's not as if they are being commercially exhibited and making a ton of money.

Lawyers are expensive, so people need to choose their battles wisely.

It's the same as that classic discussion we often have about "What will happen if I show commercial prints in front of my wife's knitting club (or whatever)". Conceivably, you could get hauled into court, but is it really worth it to the holders of the copyright? There's not a lot of money to be won and there's the potential of really bad PR when a great big guy sues a little guy for a technicality.

"Walt Disney Studios Bankrupts Local Sunday School: Film at 11!"

Posted by Panayotis A. Carayannis (Member # 1220) on June 16, 2014, 11:14 AM:

And all of us not living in America,are guilty for every top quality Laurel and Hardy,Charley Chase etc.in our collections!!!

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2