Classic Marvel Movies
doomisdead
Posts: 6
Hello Everyone,
I've discovered some of the older Marvel movies and I figured some of you might get some enjoyment out of them. Here you go!
The Fantastic Four (1994)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbK6CUB4MJs
Spider-Man: The Dragon's Challenge (1979)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXrZrUmmsp8
The Amazing Spider-Man (1977)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uRLgeEepzg
The Punisher (1989)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xeWlZHsbG8
Dr. Strange (1978)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNu6RVLXAR8
Spider-Man Strikes Back (1978)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRzpRTJn-o
I've discovered some of the older Marvel movies and I figured some of you might get some enjoyment out of them. Here you go!
The Fantastic Four (1994)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbK6CUB4MJsSpider-Man: The Dragon's Challenge (1979)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXrZrUmmsp8The Amazing Spider-Man (1977)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uRLgeEepzgThe Punisher (1989)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xeWlZHsbG8Dr. Strange (1978)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNu6RVLXAR8Spider-Man Strikes Back (1978)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRzpRTJn-o
Comments
Thank you for these sir! Allow me to add another goody to the mix.
Generation X
Dracula, Sovereign of the Damned
But Noooooooo... full obscure, out of print movies are ok??
???
Frankly, I don't know how YouTube managed to avoid being shut down years ago. I realize that now the production studios have developed a sort of sybiotic relationship with YouTube, but how YouTube was able to fanagle their way into that position is astounding.
Since your specialty is comic books and mine is video, you may not be aware that in a major victory for Google in its battle with media companies, a federal judge in New York on threw out a $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit brought against Google’s YouTube by Viacom. The judge granted Google’s motion for summary judgment, saying the company was shielded from Viacom’s copyright claims by “safe harbor” provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Those provisions generally protect a Web site from liability for copyrighted material uploaded by its users as long as the operator of the site takes down the material when notified by its rightful owner that it was uploaded without permission.
If the copyright holders object to the entire movie being available on YouTube in whole or in fragments, they have recourses to have it removed (and that's YouTube's responsibility, not this message board). None of these links were presented as a "how to download the movie (illegal)" but simply posted for anyone that wanted to to watch the clips. The default assumption is that anything on YouTube is up there legally and is okay to link to. One needn't go to unusual trouble to ascertain this status.
Finally, one could argue that posting links to available comic book movies online would constitute some "fair use", especially when we get to mock some of these ripe targets :) Generally speaking you won't get into trouble for posting a link to something like this but everyone should probably use some care in what they link to.
I do know Fair Use law though—I deal with it every day in one form or another—and this does not qualify as fair use in any way, either here or on YouTube.
I've got more to say on this subject, particularly in regards to a couple of things you just mentioned, but I don't have time to do so at the moment. I will say that I produced two DVD documentaries several years back. They were illegally posted to YouTube last year, and were there for several months before a friend told me they were there and I asked them to be taken down. I don't know what kind of algorithms YouTube has to keep piracy at bay (see what I did there?), but I guarantee you that stuff slips through all the time.
And while it may be a stretch, the fair use argument would be that this is a comic book message board for enthusiasts, and not a "for profit" website, where the main purpose is reviewing, critiquing, and joking about the comics medium. How many times has a link turned up broken on say, BleedingCool? Were they liable? Also, I don't think it is CGS's responsibility to fight Youtube's or Google's battles. The posters of these clips may actually have permission to do so, and we as internet users can safely assume that such clips are legal until further notice.
Not claiming this makes me an expert:my IMDB entry
I will also hastily note that I am also not a lawyer, and I base my above observations on material that I have read on copyrights and copyright law; the real test in any case would be determined in court.
I will post it again...
The Youtube TOS states that each user of the Service grants a non-exclusive license to access the Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. Youtube TOS part 6C
This clearly states that the uploader/owner of the video grants a limited license to embed the video simply by leaving the embed option turned on (which is part of the functionality of the Youtube Service).
It is highly improbable that anyone would come after CGS in this case because it would make more sense to either issue a take-down request to Youtube or simply go after the original uploader of the YouTube video first. Youtube obviously bears the responsibility for the use of any video that they make available to the public, not the ultimate user of their service. Once Youtube takes the video down, all errant links are immediately broken. Happens all the time over at BleedingCool.
Also from YouTube TOS:(6.B.)You shall be solely responsible for your own Content and the consequences of submitting and publishing your Content on the Service. You affirm, represent, and warrant that you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to publish Content you submit; and you license to YouTube all patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to such Content for publication on the Service pursuant to these Terms of Service.
If an uploader has uploaded a video, they have accepted these TOS, so you can assume that they have obtained rights to do so. Next:(part of 6.C.) You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service.
So, the uploader has granted each user of the Service a license to reproduce, distribute, display and perform a video as permitted through the functionality of the Service. That's, obviously, embedding.
And to further enforce copyrights:(6.D.)You further agree that Content you submit to the Service will not contain third party copyrighted material, or material that is subject to other third party proprietary rights, unless you have permission from the rightful owner of the material or you are otherwise legally entitled to post the material and to grant YouTube all of the license rights granted herein.
Anyone can embed legally any YouTube video on their site that has the option to embed because they have been granted license to do so by the uploader, YouTube TOS states that. And the end user cannot bet held liable for any copyright infringements even if the video itself is illegal, as that's a breach of YouTube TOS and the person using the YouTube embed feature is not responsible for that.
Worst case scenario would be that CGS receives a take-down notice and has to take down the offending link without haste. See take-down notice
So basically it comes down to a moral position. Because I would be highly surprised if any of those posts linked to above were posted on YouTube with the copyright holders’ permission. Perhaps they were, but I sincerely doubt it. It may very well be that the holders aren’t actively defending their copyrights on those particular works, but apathy or oversight on the part of the holders does not make the posting of those works legal.
And this leads to what I wanted to talk about yesterday. Unless you’re talking about a large corporation with the funds to have staff devoted to it (and I’m talking not just about videos, but music, writing, artwork, etc., as well), creators just don’t have the time to scour the Internet looking for illegal postings of their work. So the people who post such things, whether their motives are innocent or not, rarely get called out for their wrongdoing. And this has led to a general lack of concern for how this content is made and for the people who make it, which I for one find troubling.
Does anyone else here feel this way?
I am trying to figure out who you are protecting here. Is it CGS or the creators of Spider-Man Strikes Back (1978)? If so, we could simply try to reach out to Charles Fries Productions to see if they're okay with their 35 year old film being available to view by a few comic book nerds for free via Youtube. And while it vaguely appears that Charles Fries Productions may actually have some new film production going on currently, they haven't actually produced anything in almost 30 years (1985) so they probably aren't that concerned.
Furthermore, by looking at IMDB, Ebay, and Amazon, the film doesn't appear to be available in any form other than some memorabilia in the form of old movie posters. Seems to me if embedding a Youtube link of a movie that is unavailable in any other medium isn't exactly tapping into anyone's income stream.
No one is trying to distribute illegal materials. This is a comic book enthusiast forum and someone has posted Youtube links to obscure 35+ year old movies that are no longer available to purchase elsewhere. The videos are not high quality and no one is instructing anyone how to download, burn copies, or monetize them. The original uploader takes the heat if any ever arises.
For most of these being linked here, I think it is safe to assume that no one is trying to harm the copyright owner and the videos are easily removed if a take down notification is ever issued. If the creator / owner follows standard procedure, it will be Youtube that takes the video down from their site and the link will be broken.
An example of this is the Incredible Hulk movie link from earlier in this thread. It is no longer a viable link probably for that very reason. The Hulk TV film is currently available on Netflix and in DVD form. You might be compelled to compare posting these links to sneaking into the new Captain America film without paying and recording it on your iPhone while I would compare it more to finding an old VHS recording of an ancient Marvel movie and inviting some friends over to watch it for fun. You could argue that either of those scenarios are illegal, and you may be win that debate, but neither is as harmless as posting a Youtube link to 70's tv movies in this forum. I suppose you could go directly to Youtube and flag every one of these movies instead of waiting on the creators to do it, but when someone posts a link on CGS to the next X-Men or Avengers movie, I'll be the first to flag it. I'm betting Youtube will do the job before we get to it.
Here’s a scenario I’ve seen play out several times in various forms: Someone sees an image they like online, they put it on a T-shirt and sell it, and they don't bother to ask the artist’s permission, or even bother to find out who the artist is. And it isn’t usually malicious, the guy just sees a drawing and thinks, “That’s awesome! I should put that on a shirt.” Because it’s on the Internet, he doesn’t think about where that image came from. Either that or he just doesn’t care.
Meanwhile, the artist can't afford to hire a lawyer, and even if he could, he knows he won't be able to get any money out of the guy, because the guy is just some random guy trying to make ends meet. All he can do is ask the guy to stop selling the shirt. If that doesn’t work, maybe he can shame the guy on the social media outlets. Maybe that garners enough pressure to get the guy to stop selling the T-shirt. And if the guy is truly sorry, maybe he gives the artist a few bucks. Meanwhile the artist has wasted a bunch of time on this guy that he needed to have spent working. The artist loses on both ends.
That’s the world we live in now, and part of the reason people think this way is because of the way YouTube and Reddit and Tumblr, etc., operate. And if I'm going to defend the rights of those artists, I should also respect the copyrights of the production companies who created the movies linked to above. Just because it isn’t tapping into anyone’s income stream now doesn’t mean it won’t be in the future (and that goes for out-of-print books, music, etc.). There’s a Dr. Strange movie coming out from Marvel in a couple of years. Seems to me like that would be an ideal time to put out a cheap DVD release of the Dr. Strange TV movie. If people have already seen it for free on YouTube, they’re not as likely to go out and buy the DVD. Now, you can say that the production company should have had them take it down from YouTube, but why they should be forced to constantly monitor YouTube (and Tumblr and Reddit, etc.)? Why is the onus on the creator of the content?
You compared these posts to watching a VHS tape with your buddies. I compare them to driving five miles per hour over the speed limit. Pretty much everyone does it; I do it. Rarely is it going to hurt anyone. The cops won't pull you over for it; it's not worth their time. But it’s still illegal. Just because we don’t get pulled over, it doesn’t mean we aren’t breaking the law. And if we aren't paying attention, we might start creeping up to seven mph over the limit, then ten, all because we take that five mph for granted.
I just want people to pay attention and not take these things for granted.
Just because corporations are amoral doesn't mean we have a free pass to act unethically when dealing with their property.
I can't drive 55. 60, yes, but not 55.
And the freelancer who's on his own certainly doesn’t have the time to do that. Like I said, if someone hadn’t told me my documentaries had been posted on YouTube, who knows how long they would have been up there? They had been up for over three months, so obviously YouTube wasn’t going to be taking them down on their own.
My point is, while the system as it is now might be a pain for the corporations, it's nothing they can't handle. But for the smaller companies and individual freelancers, it can be a nightmare. And if they choose to deal with it, it takes away from the time and effort that they could be using to create more stuff for us to enjoy and them to make money on. And when people form the attitude that, “Hey, it's a multi-million dollar corporation. It’s no skin off their nose,” it can lead to a blanket attitude that anything they find on YouTube (or Facebook, etc.) is okay, and they neglect the fact that other people’s livelihoods are being affected as well.
Spoiler alert!!