I know WB wasn't interested in distributing SOTT theatrically and therefore missed the home video release, but I really don't understand how it's possible that they allowed Polygram (one of their biggest competitors) to put their hands on Double Live, Romance 1600 Live and Lovesexy Live. Warner Home Video existed back then so they could have released these themselves, and though I could maybe understand them passing on a Sheila E. concert, I don't see how they could think that live concerts by one of their 2 biggest acts could not be profitible in the decade of the videocassette boom. Anyone knows the true story behind that???

databank said:

I know WB wasn't interested in distributing SOTT theatrically and therefore missed the home video release, but I really don't understand how it's possible that they allowed Polygram (one of their biggest competitors) to put their hands on Double Live, Romance 1600 Live and Lovesexy Live. Warner Home Video existed back then so they could have released these themselves, and though I could maybe understand them passing on a Sheila E. concert, I don't see how they could think that live concerts by one of their 2 biggest acts could not be profitible in the decade of the videocassette boom. Anyone knows the true story behind that???

No, I don't know nthe story behind it, but it seems interesting. How do you get the idea that all these videos are/were Polygram controlled?

databank said:

I know WB wasn't interested in distributing SOTT theatrically and therefore missed the home video release, but I really don't understand how it's possible that they allowed Polygram (one of their biggest competitors) to put their hands on Double Live, Romance 1600 Live and Lovesexy Live. Warner Home Video existed back then so they could have released these themselves, and though I could maybe understand them passing on a Sheila E. concert, I don't see how they could think that live concerts by one of their 2 biggest acts could not be profitible in the decade of the videocassette boom. Anyone knows the true story behind that???

AFAIK PolyGram did only the European release -- most likely because (I assume) Warners did not have a European music video distribution arm. Don't forget that video in Europe is PAL vs NTSC in the US, so Warners would have needed to set up a specialized firm for their Euro video releases. (Whereas vinyl and CDs and tapes work the same all over the world.) Perhaps they found this would not be profitable, and were happy to outsource this to another company for the right amount of money?

Also know that PolyGram attempted to merge with WB in 1983, so they weren't "enemies".

^ Very interesting Bart, thx

IDK by 1985 but by 1989 when Lovesexy Live was released I can tell u that WB definitely had a European arm and were already releasing both music and movies, but maybe they had a special arrangement for some artists that needed a coupla years to be ended before they could handle them themselves, which they did in 1991 when the Gett Off music video want out?

So in the US these cassettes were released by WB? U're affirmative about that?

Tremolina said:

databank said:

I know WB wasn't interested in distributing SOTT theatrically and therefore missed the home video release, but I really don't understand how it's possible that they allowed Polygram (one of their biggest competitors) to put their hands on Double Live, Romance 1600 Live and Lovesexy Live. Warner Home Video existed back then so they could have released these themselves, and though I could maybe understand them passing on a Sheila E. concert, I don't see how they could think that live concerts by one of their 2 biggest acts could not be profitible in the decade of the videocassette boom. Anyone knows the true story behind that???

No, I don't know nthe story behind it, but it seems interesting. How do you get the idea that all these videos are/were Polygram controlled?

I used to own them

databank said:

Tremolina said:

No, I don't know nthe story behind it, but it seems interesting. How do you get the idea that all these videos are/were Polygram controlled?

I used to own them

US or European copies?

I never had Romance 1600. I am assuming that "Double Live" is the live Purple Rain concert? In which case, I still have teh VHS, and it was released by Warner Brothers here in the states. So was Sign O' The Times, for that matter. Livesexy was never released in the US, which is such a shame because that remains one of my favorites, and the first time I saw it was in 1998 or something ridiculous like that.

The only other VHS tapes I can think of (aside from "Under the Cherry Moon" and "Purple Rain," obviously) were "3 Chains O' Gold," "Sexy MF" and the "Hits" compilation, all of which were either released by Paisley Park or Warners (or both) in the US.

Tremolina said:

databank said:

I used to own them

US or European copies?

I'm French.

theblueangel said:

I never had Romance 1600. I am assuming that "Double Live" is the live Purple Rain concert? In which case, I still have teh VHS, and it was released by Warner Brothers here in the states. So was Sign O' The Times, for that matter. Livesexy was never released in the US, which is such a shame because that remains one of my favorites, and the first time I saw it was in 1998 or something ridiculous like that.

The only other VHS tapes I can think of (aside from "Under the Cherry Moon" and "Purple Rain," obviously) were "3 Chains O' Gold," "Sexy MF" and the "Hits" compilation, all of which were either released by Paisley Park or Warners (or both) in the US.

Aaaah that's very interesting! Yeah Doucle Live is the original official title for Syracuse. OK, so the thing is here in Europe Double Live, Romance 1600 Live and Lovesexy Live were definitely Polygram releases and I can't remember which company handled SOTT but it definitely was yet another one (I think maybe Gaumont related or something).

I had no bloody idea that Lovesexy Live hadn't been released in the USA, what a shame!!!

My guess is that Bart's guess is correct. I remember that in France WB didn't really develop their home video catalogue (for movies, cartoonas and music things alike) before 1987, because the market was quite late here by comparison to the USA: VCR were quite expensive and weren't that common before maybe 1988.

MOVIES had been there at least for rental for quite a while, though: Purple Rain and Under The Cherry Moon were definitely WB releases in Europe, from the beginning.

So it's very likely that they indeed made a deal with Polygram for music videos, which wasn't as big a market as movies. Polygram got Double Live and Romance 1600 Live, then when WB declined to release Lovesexy Live in the US they somehow managed to have Prince release it "through them" in Europe, i.e. through their deal with Polygram. And since they didn't really own SOTT because they hadn't released it in theatres I guess they negociated the US market with P and let him do whatever he pleased with Europe.

Then, in the early 90's home video went thru an unprecedented boom in Europe and WB obviously felt it was more than time to terminate their deal with Polygram and handle things themselves. By mid-1991 it was a done deal since they released Gett Off themselves.

It is to be noted, though, that it seems that they DON'T own the copyright to these things: on the Polygram (and the SOTT) releases, the copyright went directly to Paisley Park Productions or something like that (i.e. Prince himself).

databank said:

Tremolina said:

US or European copies?

I'm French.

That probably explains the Polygram notice.

I think what Bart said and theblueangel implied is probably the case, or something like that. I looked some things up; Warner music group and Polygram used to do business together with regards to the distribution of video products. Warner would distribute videos inside the US, Polygram outside the US:

The complaint alleges that in 1997, Warner Music Group and PolyGram Music Group agreed to collaborate in the distribution of audio and video products derived from the next Three Tenors World Cup concert, scheduled for Paris on July 10, 1998. The parties agreed that Warner Music Group would distribute the 1998 releases in the United States; that PolyGram Music Group would distribute the 1998 releases outside of the United States; and that the firms would share all costs, profits, and losses on a 50/50 basis. The complaint does not challenge the formation or basic structure of the Warner/PolyGram joint venture.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/200...alysis.htm

Also: they tried to merge in 1983 but without succes. However Polygram did succesfully sell its Chappel Intersong publishing to Warner in 1984. After that, Polygram, as a record company, also became really big in France.

PolyGram was the name of the major label recording company started by Philips as a holding company for its music interests in 1945. In 1999 it was sold to Seagram and merged into Universal Music Group.

..

After an attempted 1983 merger with Warner Music failed, Philips bought 40% of PolyGram from Siemens, acquiring the remaining 10% in 1987.

..

the CD increased PolyGram's profit margin from 4-6% in the mid-1980s to 7-9% by the early 1990s. As well, videos were distributed by PolyGram Video.

...

But by 1983, PolyGram was losing $300,000 a day, and had lost more than $200 million since 1977. Siemens wanted out of the joint venture. That year, Warner Communications and PolyGram began discussing a merger of their record businesses. The proposed merger was opposed by both the German Cartel Office and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission for its potential in reducing competition, and the merger was finally denied.

In 1984, PolyGram sold its music publishing house, Chapell-Intersong, to Warner for a price reported by Russell and David Sanjek to be in the $100 billion range. That same year, Alain M. Lévy moved from CBS Disques in France to become chief executive officer of PolyGram France. Over the next five years, he built the PolyGram subsidiary into France's largest recorded music company, holding over a third of the market share.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolyGram

[Edited 10/22/13 12:25pm]

databank said:

It is to be noted, though, that it seems that they DON'T own the copyright to these things: on the Polygram (and the SOTT) releases, the copyright went directly to Paisley Park Productions or something like that (i.e. Prince himself).

or something like that??

PP Records was a 51% WB controlled joint venture, I believe.

PP Productions*; PRN Productions and Paisley Park Entertainment. Which is it

Then again, the idea that the copyright to the movies was/is owned by Prince ultimately; I doubt it.

But who knows???

*I stand corrected: PP Productions also existed.

[Edited 10/22/13 12:27pm]

PAISLEY PARK ENTERPRISES v. UPTOWN PRODUCTIONS

NO. 99 CIV. 1439(LAK).

54 F.Supp.2d 347 (1999)

PAISLEY PARK ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
UPTOWN PRODUCTIONS d/b/a Uptown, et ano., Defendants.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

June 29, 1999.

Michael Elkin, Teena Kim, Thelen Reid & Priest LLP, New York City, for plaintiffs.

David Lee Evans, C. Alex Hahn, Hanify & King, Syracuse, NY, for defendants.

[Edited 10/22/13 12:18pm]

Tremolina said:

PAISLEY PARK ENTERPRISES v. UPTOWN PRODUCTIONS

NO. 99 CIV. 1439(LAK).

54 F.Supp.2d 347 (1999)

PAISLEY PARK ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
UPTOWN PRODUCTIONS d/b/a Uptown, et ano., Defendants.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

June 29, 1999.

Michael Elkin, Teena Kim, Thelen Reid & Priest LLP, New York City, for plaintiffs.

David Lee Evans, C. Alex Hahn, Hanify & King, Syracuse, NY, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KAPLAN, District Judge.

This matter now presents the question whether the Court should permit defendants to videotape the deposition of one of the plaintiffs, Prince Rogers Nelson, better known to music fans as Prince or The Artist Formerly Known As Prince, and, if so, on what terms. The parties have presented the matter to the Court by letters and argued it via telephone conference call. They have agreed to submit the matter for binding decision by the Court without a more elaborate record and to abide by the result without seeking any appellate remedies.

FACTS

Nelson, the parties contend, is a well known entertainer and celebrity who, among other things, associates his persona with a symbol for which he claims to have registered copyright. In addition to his more immediate entertainment activities, Nelson or those associated with him operate a web site. Defendants publish Uptown, an unofficial "fan" magazine, and operate a web site, both devoted to Nelson. Without getting into detail unnecessary to resolution of the issue now before the Court, plaintiffs here sue defendants for copyright and trademark infringement andon other theories, the gist of the case being that the defendants are improperly making unauthorized use of Nelson's name, likeness, photographs and other intellectual property. More broadly, plaintiffs contend that defendants have "created an entire business based on exploiting [Nelson]'s image and persona to their own economic benefit." Defendants have counterclaimed for abuse of process and declaratory relief. On or about May 21, 1999, defendants noticed Nelson's deposition. The notice provided that the examination would be recorded on videotape and audiotape.

Plaintiffs acknowledge that defendants are entitled to a live deposition of Nelson. They resist only its videotaping, arguing that defendants' real motive for videotaping Nelson's testimony is to generate more content for their conventional and web publishing activities, more publicity for themselves, and greater economic returns. In short, they apprehend that any videotape of the deposition will be used "to usurp from the public figure [Nelson] the very business opportunities that give rise to the interest [that would be] reported about." In other words, they contend that a videotape would serve no legitimate litigation purpose, that the effort to create such a record of the deposition is commercially motivated, and that the creation and dissemination of such a tape would undermine plaintiffs' own commercial interests — interests for which they seek the Court's protection.

There is a substantial factual basis for plaintiffs' concerns. Attachment A to plaintiffs' letter to the Court demonstrates that this lawsuit is a principal focus of the defendants' web site. The pleadings, defendants' notice of Nelson's deposition, and press releases concerning the case all are on line. Moreover, when asked during the conference call whether defendants would agree that they would not disseminate or make other non-litigation use of a videotape of the deposition, defendants' counsel responded that he was not authorized to do so. Thus, there is every reason to believe that defendants' motive in seeking to videotape the deposition is at least in part to generate notoriety for themselves and their business ventures by making non-litigation use of the videotape, although the Court to be sure has no basis for questioning their counsel's representation that he believes that the videotape would be useful at trial as well.

from the lawsuits between Prince and Uptown.

[Edited 10/22/13 12:18pm]

Fantastic! Thank u!

^ You are welcome!


Now, let's make things possibly a little bit more confusing and complex, and perhabs more interesting also, shall we?


I own 2 copies of the Prince Sign of the Times concert video on DVD. I purchased them in 2004 and a bit after, in a legitimate Dutch record store, believing they were totally legite copies.


So, because of this discussion I inspected my purchases on what is stated as for the copyright.

The copyright notice on the cover of both purchases states: © Alliance Atlantis Package and design, and © 2004 Video Film Express BV. It also refers to a website www.videofilmexpress.nl
The copyright notice on the disc itself only states © Videofilm Express BV. So according to this notice (which is not necessarily correct) "Alliance Atlantis" owns the copyright to the package and design, and "Video Film Express BV" owns the copyright to the film itself.

The "BV" and the ".nl" show that the company distributing this DVD, and claiming copyright to it, "Video Film Express BV" is a company based in the Netherlands. For this 2004 DVD release in Holland at least.

Now the apparantly strange thing is: this company doesn't seem to have ANYthing to do with Paisley Park Records, Entertainment, Enterprises, Studios or whatever other Paisley Park companies there were/are, nor with Prince himself, nor any other of his companies. There is also no notice whatsoever of Paisley Park, or NPG, or PRN Productions, or whatever Princely involvement, except for his name, face and likeness on the cover, with the famous concert poster picture, and of course the maginificent and timeless concert video itself.

NOR any mention of Polygram (Dutch based also) or Warner (or does it?).


So what's up with that?

Let's investigate further....


.

[Edited 10/23/13 14:53pm]

OK, the website videofilmexpress.nl is not online anymore.

My copies look the same. The promotional line states: "If you go to only one concert this year, the Prince movie is the one!".

I think that could possibly be the Dutch/European based tagline only, because there were also other releases with different lines to promote it.


Such as:

and a promo copy

After googling a bit more, I found this on http://www.entertainmentbusiness.nl/nieuws/2002-W40/warner-universal-en-videofilm-express-voeren-dvd-campagne



It's a dutch written article/opinion/blog and I am not sure how legit this really is, but it seems to allign "Video Film Express" to Warner and Universal (thus also partly formerly Polygram) with regards to a music dvd campaign.


Based on this (tho' it remains sketchy for sure) it seems Warner/Universal, based on former Polygram divisions purchases, own/control the copyright to SOTT the concert movie, and they distribute it on DVD through smaller subsidaries or distribution partners, such as Video Film Express BV in Holland.

Warner, Universal en Video/Film Express voeren dvd-campagne

dinsdag 01 oktober 2002 - 13:26

Warner Music, Universal Music en Video/Film Express gaan hun muziek-dvd’s ondersteunen met een gezamenlijke tv-campagne. Centraal in de actie, DVDayz getiteld, staat de dvd-sampler Live On Stage. Deze is gedurende de voornotering te bestellen voor een ppd van €4,50 en kent een adviesverkoopprijs van €7,99. Na 10 oktober bedraagt de ppd €5,-.
Op de sampler staan 13 tracks, die alle DTS gemasterd zijn. Een van de 13 nummers is de bonustrack I’m Not So Tough van Ilse DeLange. Dit is een voorloper van de complete live-dvd van de zangeres, die in de loop van 2003 moet verschijnen. Daarnaast bevat de sampler voordeelcheques voor 30 dvd’s, waaronder Santana’s Supernatural Live, Drowned World Tour van Madonna en Roxy Musics Live At The Apollo. Deze dvd’s kan de consument aanschaffen met kortingen van €5,-, €7,50 en €10,-. De korting zal met stickers op de dvd’s worden aangegeven. De bonnen zijn inwisselbaar tot 31 januari 2003. Voor de winkeliers zijn tot diezelfde datum speciale condities van toepassing op de geselecteerde dvd’s. De dvd Live On Stage is te bestellen bij Warner Music, de campagnetitels bij de betreffende maatschappijen.
DVDayz wordt van 17 oktober tot eind november ondersteund door een tv-campagne die wordt toegespitst op de commerciële zenders. De tweede fase zal in december plaatsvinden. Ter ondersteuning op de winkelvloer is een opvallende display ontwikkeld, die ruimte biedt aan 30 sampler-dvd’s en drie stuks van elk voordeelcheque-item. In de tv-spots wordt ook naar deze display verwezen.
Gevraagd naar de ontstaansgeschiedenis van deze gezamenlijke campagne zegt Eric Stellwag, Warners director strategic marketing and new media: “Warner deed al samen met Universal de Classic Albums-campagne en het Klassiek Kado. Hoewel dat geen structureel samenwerkingsverband is, heb ik – kijkend naar de catalogi en marktaandelen – toch weer contact met ze gezocht voor deze dvd-campagne. En aangezien Video/Film Express met haar muziek-dvd’s flink aan de weg timmert was het logisch ook hen te benaderen. Vorig jaar hebben we meegedaan aan de dvd-campagne van de CPG, maar we hadden het gevoel dat dat beter en meer gelikt kon. Onze actie is meer gefocust. We hebben ons binnen dvd alleen op muziek-dvd gericht en daarbinnen weer specifiek op het pop/rocksegment. Dat sluit volgens ons het best aan op de doelgroep. We hopen uiteindelijk 100.000 stuks van de sampler te verkopen. Over de cheque-items durf ik nog geen uitspraken te doen, maar er zit een aantal zeer sterke titels tussen.”

[Edited 10/23/13 15:21pm]

Anybody wants to go deeper still?



This is from the US Copyright office online records (thus only valid for the US) :

Type of Work:	Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date:	PA0000373586 / 1988-06-23
Title:	Sign [o’] the times / produced by Robert Cavallo, Joseph Ruffalo, Steven Fargnoli ; co-produced by Simon Fields ; directed by Prince.
Description:	5 film reels : sd., col. ; 35 mm.
Performer:	The word "o’" represented by peace symbol in title.
Copyright Claimant:	Cineplex Odeon Films, Inc.
Date of Creation:	1987
Date of Publication:	1987-11-06
Authorship on Application:	Purple Films Company, employer for hire.
Basis of Claim:	New Matter: motion picture consisting of concert performances of preexisting musical compositions.
Names:	Cavallo, Robert
	Ruffalo, Joseph
	Fargnoli, Steven
	Fields, Simon
	Prince
	Cineplex Odeon Films, Inc.
	Purple Films Company

OK...

Purple films company, hmmm...

as authorship claimant and as employer for hire, ahhhh...

but, the copyright claimant: Cineplex Odeon Films inc., okay....



How about that.

Here are the other registrations by "Purple Films Company"

Type of Work:	Recorded Document
Document Number:	V2037P945
Date of Recordation:	1984-05-15
Entire Copyright Document:	V2037P945-948
Date of Execution:	22Dec83
Title:	Purple rain; motion picture / Based on the screenplay, Dreams, by William Blinn, & the rev. screenplay, Purple rain, by Albert Magnoli.
Notes:	Mortgage and assignment of copyright. Exhibit D recorded at request of sender.
	Purple rain & 1 other title.
Party 1:	Purple Films Company.
Party 2:	City National Bank.
Variant title:	Dreams
Names:	Purple Films Company.
	City National Bank.

________________________________________

Type of Work:	Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date:	PA0000227976 / 1984-10-04
Title:	Purple rain / produced by Robert Cavallo, Joseph Ruffalo, Steven Fargnoli ; directed by Albert Magnoli.
Imprint:	[Burbank, Calif.] : Distributed by Warner Bros., 1984.
Description:	6 film reels (104 min.) : sd., col. ; 35 mm.
Cast:	Prince, Apollonia Kotero, Morris Day et al.
Credits:	Written by Albert Magnoli, William Blinn; music score: Michel Colombier; director of photography: Donald L. Thorin; film editor: Albert Magnoli.
Copyright Claimant:	Purple Films Company & Warner Brothers, Inc.
Date of Creation:	1984
Date of Publication:	1984-07-27
Authorship on Application:	Purple Films Company, employer for hire.
Previous Registration:	Preexisting material: musical compositions & sound recordings.
Basis of Claim:	New Matter: "motion picture, including original script, music score, audio, visual & cinematographic material."
Names:	Cavallo, Robert
	Ruffalo, Joseph
	Fargnoli, Steven
	Magnoli, Albert
	Purple Films Company
	Warner Brothers, Inc.

Okay, NOW this is getting interesting. Here we have both Warner Brothers Inc and Purple Films Company claiming the copyright to Purple Rain the movie!

And the City National Bank is involved with a mortgage and assignment of copyright!

Oh, and the variant title is "Dreams"(!)



..

[Edited 10/23/13 15:54pm]

So who/what is Cineplex Odeon Films Inc.?

Cineplex Odeon Films (also known as Cineplex Odeon Pictures and Cineplex-Odeon Films) was the film distribution unit of the Canadian cinema chain Cineplex Odeon Corporation.

The company began in 1978 as Pan-Canadian Film Distributors, a partnership between film producer Garth Drabinsky and inventor Nat Taylor,^[1] based in Toronto, Ontario.^[2]At the time of its establishment in the United States, the Cineplex Odeon theatre chain and the tie-in studio were owned by the MCA entertainment group, also the then-owners of Universal Pictures.^{[verification needed]} On August 27, 1986, Pan-Canadian renamed itself as Cineplex Odeon Films,^[3] and began operations at Los Angeles, California in November 1986;^[4] Garth Drabinsky became its chief officer.^[5] By 1990, it was Canada's largest independent film distribution company.^[6] Later in the 1990s, it changed its name to Odeon Films on account of its historic significance, before releasing one of their final films—the science-fiction film Cube (released in American markets under Trimark Pictures' banner).

In early 1998, Cineplex Odeon itself was forced to scrap its distribution arm, provided Canadian law forbids foreign companies from owning domestic distributors. 75% of the remaining studio folded into Alliance Atlantis Communications; the rest was donated to a foundation representing Canada's film schools. As of 2013, the company is still locally active in Canada under the Odeon Films banner.

The theatre chain of the same name, meanwhile, merged with the Japanese electronics giant Sony; this resulted in the formation of Loews Cineplex Entertainment later on.

Notable films from Cineplex Odeon's early days include The Glass Menagerie, The Last Temptation of Christ, The Grifters, Mr. and Mrs. Bridge, Madame Sousatzka, Jacknife, the Prince concert film Sign 'o' the Times,

The Decline of the American Empire, Oliver Stone's Talk Radio, and The Care Bears Adventure in Wonderland.

There was also a home video division that started in 1986, and was originally known as Pan-Canadian Video Presentations in the early 80s. The home video division lasted until 1998, when it was absorbed into Alliance Atlantis along with its film distribution counterpart.

The company also had an international division, Cineplex Odeon Films International, meant for distributing their films outside of North America.

[Edited 10/23/13 15:58pm]

theblueangel said:

Mindflux said:

theblueangel said:

I never had Romance 1600. I am assuming that "Double Live" is the live Purple Rain concert? In which case, I still have teh VHS, and it was released by Warner Brothers here in the states. So was Sign O' The Times, for that matter. Livesexy was never released in the US, which is such a shame because that remains one of my favorites, and the first time I saw it was in 1998 or something ridiculous like that.

The only other VHS tapes I can think of (aside from "Under the Cherry Moon" and "Purple Rain," obviously) were "3 Chains O' Gold," "Sexy MF" and the "Hits" compilation, all of which were either released by Paisley Park or Warners (or both) in the US.

You have forgotten a few other VHS releases.... The Undertaker The Sacrifice of Victor and I'm sure I had a Diamonds & Pearls VHS too. Sadly, they were all stolen when my house was burgled years ago and I've never replaced them So can't check who they were released by etc

Which part of "everything released after 1991 was released by WB" didn't you understand?

Tremolina said:

So who/what is Cineplex Odeon Films Inc.?

Cineplex Odeon Films (also known as Cineplex Odeon Pictures and Cineplex-Odeon Films) was the film distribution unit of the Canadian cinema chain Cineplex Odeon Corporation.

The company began in 1978 as Pan-Canadian Film Distributors, a partnership between film producer Garth Drabinsky and inventor Nat Taylor,^[1] based in Toronto, Ontario.^[2]At the time of its establishment in the United States, the Cineplex Odeon theatre chain and the tie-in studio were owned by the MCA entertainment group, also the then-owners of Universal Pictures.^{[verification needed]} On August 27, 1986, Pan-Canadian renamed itself as Cineplex Odeon Films,^[3] and began operations at Los Angeles, California in November 1986;^[4] Garth Drabinsky became its chief officer.^[5] By 1990, it was Canada's largest independent film distribution company.^[6] Later in the 1990s, it changed its name to Odeon Films on account of its historic significance, before releasing one of their final films—the science-fiction film Cube (released in American markets under Trimark Pictures' banner).

In early 1998, Cineplex Odeon itself was forced to scrap its distribution arm, provided Canadian law forbids foreign companies from owning domestic distributors. 75% of the remaining studio folded into Alliance Atlantis Communications; the rest was donated to a foundation representing Canada's film schools. As of 2013, the company is still locally active in Canada under the Odeon Films banner.

The theatre chain of the same name, meanwhile, merged with the Japanese electronics giant Sony; this resulted in the formation of Loews Cineplex Entertainment later on.

Notable films from Cineplex Odeon's early days include The Glass Menagerie, The Last Temptation of Christ, The Grifters, Mr. and Mrs. Bridge, Madame Sousatzka, Jacknife, the Prince concert film Sign 'o' the Times,

The Decline of the American Empire, Oliver Stone's Talk Radio, and The Care Bears Adventure in Wonderland.

There was also a home video division that started in 1986, and was originally known as Pan-Canadian Video Presentations in the early 80s. The home video division lasted until 1998, when it was absorbed into Alliance Atlantis along with its film distribution counterpart.

The company also had an international division, Cineplex Odeon Films International, meant for distributing their films outside of North America.

[Edited 10/23/13 15:58pm]

Ha ha U guys are becoming SO technical, that's why I love this forum I really can't help further at this point but I'll keep reading with lotsa interest?

Anyone here interested in debating whether the limited December 1993 video release of The Undertaker really exists or not?

databank said:

Mindflux said:

theblueangel said: You have forgotten a few other VHS releases.... The Undertaker The Sacrifice of Victor and I'm sure I had a Diamonds & Pearls VHS too. Sadly, they were all stolen when my house was burgled years ago and I've never replaced them So can't check who they were released by etc

Which part of "everything released after 1991 was released by WB" didn't you understand?

Oops - my apologies. Perhaps that's what comes of trying to read a thread on a mobile phone!

his entire catalog of video/cd/ merchandise is so bizarre that u cant buy anything without going in circles--why cant he sell everything on a website

databank said:

Mindflux said:

theblueangel said: You have forgotten a few other VHS releases.... The Undertaker The Sacrifice of Victor and I'm sure I had a Diamonds & Pearls VHS too. Sadly, they were all stolen when my house was burgled years ago and I've never replaced them So can't check who they were released by etc

Which part of "everything released after 1991 was released by WB" didn't you understand?

Mind you, you could easily have said the same to theblueangel, as the videos listed by him/her are also post 1991

databank, you knew you would get this.

My impression of it all is that the copyrights to Prince's movies are a murky matter. It seems that his (former?) film production company "Purple Films" has a say in all the films/partly owns the copyright. Not sure about that, but I get that impression from what is registered in the US copyright office records.

It also seems that WB wasn't able yet to distribute his movies worldwide on its own during the 80's. WB is a US based company, originally only operating in the US, and that got bigger and bigger during the 80's and 90's, but wasn't able yet in the 80's to self distribute video titles all over the world. They needed other already multinationally operating companies like Polygram and Cineplex Odeon.

The crazy thing is also that the name "Purple Films" is now used by a company from Cleveland. Then again, we are talking the 80's here, so that's 30 years ago!!

>

[Edited 10/25/13 14:35pm]

It seems that US film companies having distribution in other countries is a recent activity. That's why world wide box office is counted more heavily in a movie's gross. You also see more American movies being released in other countries before the US.

On a side note, there was recently a fight from the European film industry to keep cultural products like film, music, and literature off the table in the US-EU trade talks. The US wanted to remove quotas on American cultural products in European markets which would destroy the few markets they still hold.

European Film Industry Saved from EU-US Trade Talks

Shelagh M. Rowan-Legg

With talks about to begin on reworking free trade agreements between the European Union and the United States, EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht has apparently removed cultural industries from the table, an article in The Hollywood Reporter states. Prominent filmmakers such as Jean Pierre and Luc Dardenne, Wim Wenders and Pedro Almodóvar, amongst many others, have fought a hard battle to keep the cultural exception.

The cultural exception declares that cultural products, such as film, literature and music, in which each product is unique (as oppose to say a bar of soap or a bottle of wine) and should be protected. Many countries impose quotas on film, dictating that a certain percentage of films shown in theatres should be from the originating country; France has the strongest policies (and has always been the strongest advocate for the cultural exception), and it certainly has helped it to maintain a strong industry. South Korea has also imposed strong quotas, and we can all see the great results, with an incredible renaissance of films from that country.

Sadly, though perhaps not surprisingly, the US is an opponent of the exception (though at a press conference in France, producer/distributor Harvey Weinstein voiced his support for it). If you look at the top 10 films at the box offices of many European nations, 8 - 9 out of 10 are Hollywood films (France had the most non-Hollywood, with 4 of its own films in the top ten last weekend). So you couldn't argue that the US film industry is still making a lot of money from Europe even with the exception. There are some concerns that US trade negotiators could retaliate with their own protection measures, though a quick glance at Box Office Mojo shows that, with the exception of some UK films, European films rarely even break into the top 100 yearly box office. Still, the losing audience would be in the US, with those who do love European films perhaps finding them more difficult to see, at least on the big screen (outside of festivals).

Of course, it is the audiences in Europe that are choosing to see Hollywood films, rather than ones from their own countries. In Brian Clark's recent article on the fil... in Franceobserved that American films often receive preferential treatment, earning ratings that will give them a wider audience, while local films are often treated more harshly. But if higher quotas for local films were imposed across Europe, or ratings systems made more consistent, would that make audiences see more local films? It's hard to fight the juggernaut of Hollywood marketing and the pull power of its stars. Juan Antonio Bayona's film The Impossible broke every box office record in Spain last year; but would it have done as well if it was made in Spanish, with a Spanish cast (as the story on which it is based is that of a Spanish family)? My sources in the Spanish film industry are convinced that it would not have. A movie of that size needs a big budget; a big budget means a world wide release, which necessitates big, English-language stars. This draws in the audience, frequently at the expense of small-to-medium budget local films.

The desire of trade negotiators to keep culture on the trade table was obviously a financial one, but considering that European films cannot match Hollywood for money, they would be the losers. Considering how Hollywood continues to have a majority hold on the European box office, the cultural exception might be the only thing keeping local films from almost completely disappearing. European films rely on government support; that support is protected by the cultural exception, and could have been challenged if cultural industries were included in the trade talks. Even Weinstein understands that, while Hollywood films might appeal to the majority, there is a significant minority who want more diversity in their film selection. At the moment, De Gucht has not completely ruled out bringing culture back to the table, but hopefully continuing pressure will keep it off.

That sidenote is not relevant because all of Prince's movies have been distributed in Europe.

That opiniated article on the "cultural exception" is mainly relevant to France and Spain.

However, the motives behind it do apply to the whole EU, but it's not true that the European public still desires US movies as much as they used to.

In fact, there has been a rise in popularity of European made movies, and a decline of US movies.

Perhabs that has something to do with the general style and main themes in US made movies as opposed to European films, in general.

databank said:

then when WB declined to release Lovesexy Live in the US they somehow managed to have Prince release it "through them" in Europe, i.e. through their deal with Polygram.

I doubt WB owned the home video rights for LL anyway, considering that this started as a TV broadcast for which Granada and RAI paid $2 million. Note how the credits to the video only mention Granada and PRN Productions, not "licensed by WB". http://www.princevault.co...esexy_Live

And since they didn't really own SOTT because they hadn't released it in theatres I guess they negociated the US market with P and let him do whatever he pleased with Europe.

They had been offered SOTT but WB refused it (the story is in one of the books for sure, it had to do with them not thinkign it possible to get the movie finished and in theatres in a very short time period, so they didn't invest in it but allowed Prince to shop it elsewhere IIRC).