Talk:God's Little Acre (film)

RE: Gung Ho ref.
A film cannnot technically evoke a feeling of something which POST DATES it... try a bit harder with syntax--Stephencdickson (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
I have flagged this article as NPOV due to the last paragraph of this section being written in extremely non-neutral language, e.g. "The viewer should not be settled with the trite explanation of what God's little acre really is."


 * I removed the POV tag that was placed on the article June 2008. There has been no discussion at all since it was placed.


 * IMO the section of the article about what and where God's little acre really is gets into some far-fetched and unsourced explanations. I plan to delete most of it if no objection is raised.  CBHA (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What a fine essay....
The plot synopsis is chock full of film criticism. The section on the first scene (which I removed ) is an essay that appears as WP:OR. The final section (titled "Where is God's Little Acre" and also removed ) is similarly more essay than encyclopedia article.

I imagine that I've missed a critical comment or two. Phiwum (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, "lensed"? Really? Stop verbing nouns. 198.53.208.74 (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status (pinned)
Previously this film was alleged to be in the public domain, apparently without taking into account its copyright and renewal registrations. It is possible that the renewal was not valid, but the fact of the renewal is now stated. Aardvarkzz (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)



Hi, It appears that the copyright of this film was renewed. It was registered (no. LP10695; drawer CALDW-CALER, card .0234) on 9 May 1958, and that copyright was renewed 25 September 1986 (RE0000304495) Please see the discussion on. Which proved that third party claims are sometimes not reliable, which I already said a long time ago. For copyright renewals, there is nothing better that direct reference to the records. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * User:Yann, are you sure 1986 is not the colorized version? Because according to the Stanford University site, one of the most reliable on Copyright, it says only the colorized version is copyright. Also keep in mind that on English Wikipedia, we use reliable secondary sources. Referring to a primary database source is not the best option because that involves Original Research. --  Green  C  14:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition to possibly being the color version, it's also possible someone claimed copyright of a PD film who had no right to do so (copyfraud). Somehow we need to reconcile why a reliable source like Stanford explicitly says it is PD vs. that entry in the copyright database. -- Green  C  15:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe the entry says in full:
 * God's Little Acre was registered (LP 10695) for copyright 9 May 1958 by Security Pictures, Inc. as copyright owner and renewed under RE 304-495 25 September 1986 by MPH Films as proprietor of copyright in a work made for hire.
 * Question: Who is "MPH Films", and what rights do they have to a film made by "Security Pictures, Inc.". What does it mean "in a work made for hire"? -- Green  C  15:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but copyright was asserted on Commons after 2 undeletion requests. I would be happy to be proved wrong, as I tried to upload it myself. Yann (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's ok you raised the issue, there is uncertainty. Commons maybe a more strict standard of proof.
 * MPH Films might be Moss/Petermann/Holtzman (MPH) Films. There was a MPH Films in the 1970s in Santa Monica, which might be the same. There are some others with the name MPH Film(s) but I think they are different/newer companies. I'm having trouble making connections. No information when the color version was released, or who did it. No connections between Security Pictures and MPH Films. -- Green  C  15:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The key might be in the wording "MPH Films as proprietor of copyright in a work made for hire". This is a legal phrase that means the company MPH Films owns the copyright and not the creators. Specifically, "The work was created by employees or contractors working for MPH Films." Probably, MPH Films hired a company to make the colorized version ("work made for hire"). The colorization is low quality, but typical of 1980s technology. This is a likely scenario, only need to find more information. -- Green  C  16:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

For the record: https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/7200944 As I understand it, this is a copyright renewal for the registration of a 1958 film. So it could not be for the color version. Yann (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It also adds up, because for films produced in 1958, the copyright expires after 28 years ie. 1986. == Green  C  13:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks like MPH Films may have sold the film rights to "TV Matters, BV" in 1996: here. It also looks like MPH Films sources back to someone named Richard L. Rosenfeld ie. "Richard L. Rosenfeld, trading as Johnar Film Productions, is acting individually and on behalf of Motion Picture Holdings, Inc. (which is trading as MPH Films)." -- Green  C  13:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The film has been re-sold many times: The most recent sale was 2021:  In a pack of 1,500 films, to Aim Group, LLC, which is owned by the holding company Cinevision Global, which is owned by Richard Mayor. He buys thousands of films and distributes them globally. I think we can now determine this film is owned by someone, and who they likely are. --  Green  C  14:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Frequently??
Quoting the article: "A box office failure upon first release, the film has frequently been aired on television."

I question the "frequently been aired on television" bit. Is there any source for this statement? CBHA (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * God's Little Acre, 1958.webm

Incoherent Plot Synopsis
The Plot Synopsis in this article is almost completely incoherent in its current form. It obviously has been edited to death, and sections that explained basic plot points seem to have been totally removed and not replaced.

IMHO, the entire article should be deprecated and replaced. I’m surprised to be first to point this out. 73.15.107.16 (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)