1986, Section C, at 13, col 1; The Color Green, Tinting Old

Movies by Computer: Big Business, Artistic Outrage, Washington

Post, Nov. 2, Section F, at 1; "Colorization" Is Defacing Black

and White Film Classics, New York Times, Nov. 2, 1986, Section 2,

at 1, col. 1; Colorization's Negatives, U.S. News & World Report,

Oct. 20, 1986, at 75; Raiders of the Lost Art, The "Colorizing"

of Old Movies Has Directors Seeing Red, Time, Oct. 20, 1986, at

98;

"Colorizing" Film Classics: A Boon or a Bane?, New York

Times, Aug. 5, 1986, Section A, at 1, col. 3; High-Tech Facelift

for Film Classics, U.S. News World Report, March 31, 1986, at

68; Play it Again, Sam...in Color, Forbes, Feb. 10, 1986, at 117;

Play it Again, This Time in Color, Electronic Magic Touches Up

the Classics of Black-and-White, Time, Oct. 8, 1984.

3. The author in no way attempts to comprehensively study

the entire subject of copyright protection. The topic is simply

too broad and necessarily beyond the scope of this article.

Instead, the author will attempt to pinpoint the rationale and

protections afforded by copyright and other branches of

intellectual property law as they more specifically relate to the

colorization issue. Likewise, models of moral rights protection

as they exist in other countries will discussed by way of example

only, and will by no means be exhaustively described.

4. See infra notes 20-23 and accompanying text.

5. One could imagine the amount of time and effort which

would be needed to successfully colorize even a brief film

montage, such as the famous "shower scene" from Hitchcock's

Psycho.

6. It is doubtful, however, whether this increased market

share reflects an actual viewer preference for colorized versions

of films, or merely reflects a fleeting consumer interest in

simply seeing the still-novel colorized product. A recent non

scientific "Color Wars" poll taken following KTLA-TV's broadcast

of the colorized It's a Wonderful Life revealed 53.5% of viewers

calling in actually purported to prefer the original black-and

white version. See "No" Votes Win in "Color Wars", supra note 2.

Regardless, it will certainly be long-term market share, as

opposed to purported consumer preference, which will ultimately

determine the success or failure of colorization.

now

7. Mr. Preminger died last year and his film company is

run by a management firm. Despite rationalizations by

management, it appears Preminger himself never consented to this

agreement. See "Colorizing" Film Classics: A Boon or a Bane?,

supra note 2, at 21.

8. Colorizers may alter public domain films without the

consent or agreement of anyone. See infra notes 20-23 and

accompanying text.

9.

Yet opposition to colorization in the Hollywood

creative community is not completely unanimous.

Following

Stewart's speech, he was surprised to learn that Joe Walker,

cinematographer of the original Wonderful Life, was himself

involved in the colorization of the same film. See Raiders of

the Lost Art, supra note 2.

77-848 0-88 - 6

10. Other such groups include the Directors Guild of

America, the Screen Actors Guild, the Writers Guild of America

West, the American Society of Cinematographers and Hollywood

locals of the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage

Employees. See Through a Tinted Glass, Darkly, supra note 2.

11.

In England, the Stationers' Company Acts conferred upon

the Royal Stationer until 1694 a complete monopoly in the right

to copy all printed materials. In addition to protecting the

Crown's economic interests, these Acts also served as an

effective form of censorship. In 1709, 'An Act for the

Encouragement of Learning' first granted the author the right to

print and reprint his works. See V. Porter, Film Copyright: Film

Culture, Vol. 19, No. 1 Screen 90, 94-95 (Spring 1978).

12. While the French refer to the author's right as droit

d'auteur, a similar right appears by different names throughout

Europe. For example, Spain has a derecho de autor, Italy a

diritto d'autore, and Germany an Urheberrecht. See Porter, supra

note 11, at 96.

13. Copyright protection is mandated in our country by US

Const. art. 1, 8 8, which provides: "The Congress shall have

Power...to Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by

securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive

Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Id. Both

"Authors" and "Writings" have been broadly construed so

as to

include creators of visual art, literature and music, as well as

all other types of artistic works. For example, the Copyright

Act of 1976 specifically confers protection to motion pictures

and other audiovisual works. See 17 U.S.C. 8 102(6).

15.

17 U.S.C. 8 106(2) provides in relevant part: "...the

owner of copyright...has the exclusive right to...prepare

derivative works based upon the copyrighted work". Id.

16. A copyright owner can, if he wishes, transfer to

another any or all of the exclusive rights granted by copyright,

either with or without compensation. See 17 U.S.c. 8 201(d).