Lapas attēli

of them.

The agreements would likely not touch the home video


It would seen there would always be some available forum

for these films.

Perhaps most important, any restrictions on the

airing of these films, once created, would appear much like censorship. Even if, due to their private nature, these agreements were not illegal, such a scheme would seem like an unduly restrictive and paternalistic abridgment of the rights of the viewing public.

Perhaps the strongest argument made by opponents of

colorization is not for the preservation of artistic integrity,

but rather for the preservation of our cultural heritage.


made in the black-and-white era, whether knowingly or not, capture and record the heritage and culture of a time now passed.

To present altered versions of these films, it is argued, is akin

to presenting an altered version of our history. Instead of educating the young as to the worth of these original films and their era, they instead present a faddish and distorted view of history.

Ironically, most film archivists actually view colorization

as a boon to the preservation of these original films. Not only does the process not alter or deface the original work, 148 but it requires the making of a pristine black-and-white print of the original film, and a new negative if the original was degradable nitrate film. 149 Thus, after the process is performed, our cultural heritage is actually better preserved,


even if only in the archivists' vaults.

While this may be less

than perfect, it cannot be said that, before colorization, the viewing public was breaking down the archive doors to see most of

these original black-and-white films.



are left primarily with artistic, rather than

legal, objections to the colorization process. While th se artistic concerns are certainly very real, the question becomes

whether we should fundamentally alter our basic scheme of

protection for creative works in order to specifically address

these concerns.

The worst thing we could do is allow existing

law in the intellectual property law area be twisted beyond recognition, simply to vindicate these artistic concerns. 150 If the process is to be regulated or prevented altogether, it should be by specific legislation at the national level.151 So far, and

probably with justification, Congress has not viewed colorization

a sufficiently compelling problem to address in this


manner. 152

Perhaps the best thing to do is leave the merits of

colorization in the hands of the viewing public.

As with all

creative works protected under copyright, it is the public alone which must judge the ultimate worth of colorized films. 153 So

far, and to the chagrin of opponents of the process, the public has shown a tremendous interest in colorization. 154 This

interest, however, may eventually prove to be fleeting in nature. 155

Already, at least one New York theatre house has

[blocks in formation]

disinterested in colorized films, this in itself will effectively spell the end of the colorization process. It would indeed be a shame if before this time have destroyed our law of Films, New York Times, Dec. 21, 1986, Section 2, at 15, col. 3;


intellectual property to vindicate artistic interests.

While it

may indeed be painful for a director to see colorized showings of

his films, this may be the price he has to pay until the public

Until then, the artists among us may have to

shares his view.

turn down the color knobs on

our television sets and ride this

one out.





At least on film critic has refused to use the term

"colorization", instead preferring to describe the process as the

"coloring" of films.

See Color the Bottom Line Greenish, Los

Angeles Times, Nov. 1, 1986, Part 6, at 6, col. 4, where arts

editor Charles Champlin states:

I feel about the word

colorize as E.B. White felt about the word personalize.

He once

wrote that he would


soon Simonize his grandmother as

personalize his writing.

Colorizing a film seems to me in a

league with rinsizing your clothes or ironizing your pants..."


Champlin's objection notwithstanding, this article will use

the term "colorized" to describe this new generation of color

films, in order to clearly differentiate them from legitimate,

[blocks in formation]

Art Laws Don't Protect Films From Alteration, New York Times,

Dec. 11, 1986, Section A, at 34, col. 4; Through a Tinted Glass,

Darkly, New York Times, Nov. 30, 1986, Section 2, at 19, col. 1;

"Colorizing" Black and White Movies, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 29,

1986, Part 2, at 2, col. 1; "NO" Votes Win in "Color Wars", Los

Angeles Times, Nov. 26, 1986, Part 6, at 1, col. 1; The Well

Trashed Art, New York Times, Nov. 26, 1986, Section A, at 27,

col. 5; Ted Turner is Showing His True Colors, Los Angeles Times,

Nov. 19, 1986, Part 3, at 1, col. 1; Tainted, Tinted Movies, New

York Times, Nov. 16, 1986, Section 4, at 22, col. 1; War Against

Colorizing Joined by John Huston, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 14,

1986, Part 6, at 1, col. 2; John Huston Protests "Maltese Falcon"

Coloring, New York Times, Nov. 14, 1986, Section c, at 36, col.

1; Council Against Color, NEA Advisory Group Condemns Film Trend,

Washington Post, Nov. 4, 1986, Section D, at 9; Arts Council Hits

Colorizing, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 4, 1986, Part 6, at 1, col.

4; Council Opposes Coloring old Films, New York Times, Nov. 4,

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »