Talk:The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.

Plot

I am willing to work on the plot for this movie (it is one of my top 10 favs). Maybe I can work on it this upcoming weekend (5/4/08). I have made very few changes here, but am willing to work on it. There will be no references, and I will have a better plot summery than the 1982 version of the film.

Can't we boost the film to medium priority at least? :-)

Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrederi (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status

I have deleted the links to the illicit hosting of this British film on Internet Archive et al. Co-writer S. N. Behrman did not die until 1973, so UK copyright subsists until the end of 2043. As a non-US film still under copyright in its country of origin on 1 January 1996, it is protected in the US for 95 years after publication, so to the end of 2029. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that those topics can be hairy, but for what it's worth I'll quote here this IMDB trivia:

The failure of the original copyright holder to renew the film's copyright resulted in it falling into public domain, meaning that virtually anyone could duplicate and sell a VHS/DVD copy of the film. Therefore, many of the versions of this film available on the market are either severely (and usually badly) edited and/or of extremely poor quality, having been duped from second- or third-generation (or more) copies of the film.

Besides, multiple copies are on Youtube.com, including this one that explicitly states Public Domain. Wouldn't it be strange that both Alphabet Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. overlook a copyright infrigement ?

Finally, this one copy on Archive.org does specify Public Domain. I don't know exactly how scrupulous they are about copyright there, but this being a highly visible institution, I'd be surprised that they'd take chances. This long list of public domain movies must have been scrutinized and again by many a legal department.

Hence, I would motion that we re-instate the archive.org link and that, with proper sourcing, the alledged loss of copyright be mentioned in this article.

Noliscient (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shan't we diambiguate ?

Seeing that there exist many works with this same title, shouldn't this article wear a hat of disambiguation ? Noliscient (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]