Night of the Living Dead': How a 42-year-old zombie movie refuses to die

[DubiousComforts]

New article in Entertainment Weekly:
Night of the Living Dead: How a 42-year-old zombie movie refuses to die (http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/10/28/walking-dead-zombies-night-of-the-living-dead/)

[MoonSylver]

Nice read that gives a good overview to the uninitiated of the films history & impact. And breaks my heart over the legal status of the film all over again. :(

[Wyldwraith]

True,
But as Romero himself said, the movie might not have caught on fast enough not to just get swamped/overlooked among the host of black-and-white 50-60s monster movies if people couldn't show it at will. Yea, it sucks they didn't get fairly compensated for Night, but as Romero said "We made our careers on it, so it all worked out."

[MoonSylver]

True,
But as Romero himself said, the movie might not have caught on fast enough not to just get swamped/overlooked among the host of black-and-white 50-60s monster movies if people couldn't show it at will. Yea, it sucks they didn't get fairly compensated for Night, but as Romero said "We made our careers on it, so it all worked out."

Yeah, that's a very true point that I noticed in the article. But it still doesn't lessen the cosmic injustice of it all. It's just one of those things that has always made me sad for all involved.

[Philly_SWAT]

The articles says that...

In fact, as far as the U.S. Copyright Office was concerned, the movie had always been in the public domain. This was the fault of the Walter Reade Organization, who neglected to put a copyright notice on the title card of the movie after the name change to Night of the Living Dead.
Seems like I had always heard that someone invoved with the production was the one to accidentally leave the notice off. If it was in fact the Walter Reade org. as stated, why wouldnt that be a cut and dry case of neglegance? Even if it was customary to put the notice at the end and not the beginning, it certainly wasnt a "law" that it be so positioned, therefore when a third party removed it, cosing tens of millions of dollars...they can just take a "whoops" attitude? And where does common sense enter into things here. Is the idea that legal arbitors think it sounds reasonable that people would spend their own money in an effort to make make profit, and the PURPOSELY leave the copywrite notice off? For what purpose? You think if someone outside of James Cameron's control removed the copywrite notice from Avatar prior to its first showing that he wouldnt still end up with all the rights he should have?

[DubiousComforts]

News flash for everyone: Image Ten was a small company. They were bound to be ripped off whether there was a copyright notice on the film or not.

[AcesandEights]

Didn't get a chance to follow up and thank you for the link to the article, DC. A solid read.

[DubiousComforts]

Don't mention it. The article was actually brought to my attention by John Scoleri on Facebook.

[Philly_SWAT]

News flash for everyone: Image Ten was a small company. They were bound to be ripped off whether there was a copyright notice on the film or not.

My understanding of the legal system (which I understand is not always perfect) is that everyone is afforded equal protection under the law, big or small. While realizing that Image Ten was small, it is hard to imagine that they didnt at least TRY for some type of legal remedy. If they did try, I have never heard of such an effort. I would think it would be more accurate to say that they were bound to have others attempt to take advantage of them, rather than bound to be ripped off. That implies that the entirety of the American system is corrupt and flawed.

[C5NOTLD]

My understanding of the legal system (which I understand is not always perfect) is that everyone is afforded equal protection under the law, big or small. While realizing that Image Ten was small, it is hard to imagine that they didnt at least TRY for some type of legal remedy. If they did try, I have never heard of such an effort. I would think it would be more accurate to say that they were bound to have others attempt to take advantage of them, rather than bound to be ripped off. That implies that the entirety of the American system is corrupt and flawed.

Corrpupt and flawed? Part of it is. Equal protection - yes. But that doesn't mean you will have your day in court. Independent filmmakers to this day still have problems with distributors that are not easily remedied in the legal system because of the legal system.

Latent Image did try to pursue it legally in the courts several years after the original release. I even have some of the vintage hand written notes from the meetings with their attorney(s) where they are writing down who they plan on calling into court as witnesses. I would love to see them eventually regain ownership of it.

[Philly_SWAT]

Corrpupt and flawed? Part of it is. Equal protection - yes. But that doesn't mean you will have your day in court. Independent filmmakers to this day still have problems with distributors that are not easily remedied in the legal system because of the legal system.

Latent Image did try to pursue it legally in the courts several years after the original release. I even have some of the vintage hand written notes from the meetings with their attorney(s) where they are writing down who they plan on calling into court as witnesses. I would love to see them eventually regain ownership of it.
Yeah, but unfotunately, the "profit ship" has already sailed on that one....

[DubiousComforts]

You're joking. Image Ten did sue Continental/Walter Reade and the case slogged through the system for nearly a decade until Walter Reade declared bankruptcy.

Part of Continental's marketing campaign in the late 60s showed how much money Night of the Living Dead was pulling in in various markets. Variety posted a year-end box office tally for 1969 which noted the film grossing $1 million. Image Ten was never paid even the smallest fraction of this amount. They were ripped off by the film industry and surely weren't
the first nor will be the last.

A substantial amount of material from our copyrighted NOTLD documentary, Autopsy of the Dead, was blatantly lifted for a recently-published book. Don't be surprised, people will steal anything.


My understanding of the legal system (which I understand is not always perfect) is that everyone is afforded equal protection under the law, big or small. While realizing that Image Ten was small, it is hard to imagine that they didnt at least TRY for some type of legal remedy. If they did try, I have never heard of such an effort. I would think it would be more accurate to say that they were bound to have others attempt to take advantage of them, rather than bound to be ripped off. That implies that the entirety of the American system is corrupt and flawed.