Talk:House on Haunted Hill/Archive 1

Unauthorized Versions?
I put a citation needed comment on the statement, "The film has since fallen into the public domain, and is available in a number of unauthorized issues of questionable legitimacy." I'm not sure that that's exactly my problem with the statement, although it's part of it. Since the film is public domain, I'm not sure what is meant here by "questionable legitimacy." While it may be technically true that certain releases are "unauthorized," in that they are not authorized by the filmmakers, but since the film is in the public domain, it seems a little bit misleading, as there's no reason why they would need to be authorized. Also, I think there would need to be some evidence for the idea that certain versions are "unauthorized," if that needs to be in there at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PotatoKnight (talk • contribs) 06:49, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm going to go ahead and delete those words, since there's still no sign of a citation.PotatoKnight 07:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The rest of the plot?
What hapened to the rest of the plot? --Bending Unit (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Bending Unit

Prize money for surviving the night
Let it be made clear that in the original, the prize for staying the night was $10,000. For the 1999 remake, the prize was inflated to $1,000,000. IP editors keep raising the stakes every few weeks. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Poster
I replaced this DVD cover image with the original theatrical poster. (Sugar Bear 04:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

Replaced w/ better scan. SIckBoy 15:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Public domain
There is evidence Warner Brothers made a claim to the film rights, they issued a DMCA takedown notice to a film distributor:. Given this, we need a reliable secondary source that confirms the film is in the Public Domain. Reliable secondary might include a journalism article reporting on a judge's decision; an academic essay. Unreliable would be film distributors, Internet Archive (uploaded by fans) and others with a conflict of interest who may want to support the idea the film is PD. In the interm the Wikipedia article should not state unconditionally the film is PD, though it should not say it is Copyright either. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW my personal opinion is that WB probably let the Copyright expire but there may be other elements of the film that are still in Copyright, such as script or music, which is why WB is able to make a DMCA claim. The situation is not uncommon. However, it is pure speculation which is why need reliable secondary sources to clarify. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Public domain status
The video file of the film itself states that it's public domain because "it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1963, and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed". While there are some secondary sources describing the film as public domain - even cited in the lede, although it's possible they were quoting Wikipedia - are there any sources describing exactly how it fell in the public domain? In the case of Night of the Living Dead, there's a whole section discussing the film failing to properly register for copyright, but this is lacking here. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)