TV Home Forum

Can an ident be abandoned?

(May 2018)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
RI
Richard
Stuart posted:
VMPhil posted:
The 1999 generic unused idents have only appeared in 4:3 but surely they were produced in 16:9, as the footage was still used in the idents that eventually came to screen.

Those particular 1989 idents (Granada, TVS etc) never made it to screen.

Although Yorkshire’s did. It was later regionally re-edited to finish only with the chevron.
TT
ttt
Richard posted:
Stuart posted:
VMPhil posted:
The 1999 generic unused idents have only appeared in 4:3 but surely they were produced in 16:9, as the footage was still used in the idents that eventually came to screen.

Those particular 1989 idents (Granada, TVS etc) never made it to screen.

Although Yorkshire’s did. It was later regionally re-edited to finish only with the chevron.


Most of the ITV companies were unhappy with those idents in one way or another. STV had killed them off in next to no time, YTV had hacked theirs within a year to make their own logo more prominent, Tyne Tees quickly hacked together a new look in early 1991 out of an earlier rejected ident, onto which they grafted the ident's jingle (probably the only part for which there was much enthusiasm around the network), and generally speaking nearly all the companies who took it, were refreshing the graphics set rather quickly to emphasise the regional company logo rather than ITV.
IS
Inspector Sands
Riaz posted:
Nothing specific apart from an emphasis on defunct satellite and cable channels.

So you're asking when a channel/company closes, what happens to it's intellectual property in particular it's idents?

I think that's been answered
RI
Riaz
noggin posted:
I don't think ownership of the name and logo has any relevance to ownership of the artistic works made by the company, unless they were purchased along with the name and the logo (and accompanied by the relevant contractual rights agreements and paperwork that made it possible to pay people to allow them to be rebroadcast or released on other media)


Company E has the rights to the name of company A, its logo, and ONE programme from its back catalogue in a digital format.

Company D has a collection of video tapes with the idents and promos from company A, along with their old premises.

Company C (undergoing liquidation) has no knowledge of the video tapes with the idents and promos from company A, and neither do they have any paperwork about them because none existed to start with as they were created for internal use by company A.

To complicate matters, company D has no knowledge about (the existence of) company E and vice versa.

This is probably a question for a lawyer with experience in the darker corners of copyright legislation.
IS
Inspector Sands
Well for a start, Company D would have thrown the junk that Company A left in their old office into a skip

None of the companies involved would give two hoots about a load of interstitials from a TV channel that has closed and whose owner has been bought

What good are they to anyone except those who put them onto YouTube.... who don't care about copyright in the first place?
RO
rob Founding member
TV Forum User A is getting a headache...
JB
JasonB
Riaz posted:
noggin posted:
I don't think ownership of the name and logo has any relevance to ownership of the artistic works made by the company, unless they were purchased along with the name and the logo (and accompanied by the relevant contractual rights agreements and paperwork that made it possible to pay people to allow them to be rebroadcast or released on other media)


Company E has the rights to the name of company A, its logo, and ONE programme from its back catalogue in a digital format.

Company D has a collection of video tapes with the idents and promos from company A, along with their old premises.

Company C (undergoing liquidation) has no knowledge of the video tapes with the idents and promos from company A, and neither do they have any paperwork about them because none existed to start with as they were created for internal use by company A .

To complicate matters, company D has no knowledge about (the existence of) company E and vice versa.

This is probably a question for a lawyer with experience in the darker corners of copyright legislation.


Are you Tumble Tower?
LL
Larry the Loafer
Can this thread be abandoned?
DO
dosxuk
Riaz posted:
noggin posted:
I don't think ownership of the name and logo has any relevance to ownership of the artistic works made by the company, unless they were purchased along with the name and the logo (and accompanied by the relevant contractual rights agreements and paperwork that made it possible to pay people to allow them to be rebroadcast or released on other media)


Company E has the rights to the name of company A, its logo, and ONE programme from its back catalogue in a digital format.

Company D has a collection of video tapes with the idents and promos from company A, along with their old premises.

Company C (undergoing liquidation) has no knowledge of the video tapes with the idents and promos from company A, and neither do they have any paperwork about them because none existed to start with as they were created for internal use by company A.

To complicate matters, company D has no knowledge about (the existence of) company E and vice versa.

This is probably a question for a lawyer with experience in the darker corners of copyright legislation.


Did Company B deny all knowledge and refused to give permission to appear in this post?
RI
Riaz
1. I'm concluding that asking technical questions that nobody knows the answer to - off the top of their head at least - is not welcome on this forum.

2. If you don't ask, you don't get!
HA
harshy Founding member
I think Company C is having issues with this thread...
IS
Inspector Sands
Riaz posted:
1. I'm concluding that asking technical questions that nobody knows the answer to - off the top of their head at least - is not welcome on this forum.

They are welcome but not only isn't it a technical question but it's also a ridiculous scenario that no one apart from you actually understands.

I really can't see what you're trying to achieve

Newer posts