Talk:Juno and the Paycock (film)

public domain
The following paragraph (which I've just removed) was copied across from the play page: ''Like other Hitchcock films made for British International Pictures, its current copyright status is at best ambiguous and it is generally considered to be in the public domain. Primarily due to its association with the still-popular Hitchcock, the film is widely available in the United States in the VHS format, generally at very low prices due to the fact that no copyright fees have been paid. However, this also means that copy quality may be rather poor. Many of the VHS copies available have been poorly cropped to fit the format, and the sound quality may also be poor, which is an important consideration for audiences who have a hard time following the cast's authentic Irish brogues in any event. It is unlikely that any major restoration of the film will be undertaken, at least while its copyright status remains unclear, as there would be no financial incentive for anyone to undertake it, since others would be free to redistribute the restored version.''

This seems to be a popular misconception about Hitchcock's early films -- the majority of his films from 1925-39 are currently under copyright in the USA and their rights were re-asserted in the late 1990s following the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In particular, this article published by the US Copyright Office on August 22nd 1997 states that UGC filed a "Notice of Intent to Enforce Restored Copyrights" for "Juno and the Paycock". The UGC film library was subsequently acquired by Canal+ Image UK, who are the current copyright holders of the film. Details for the copyright re-assertions of Hitchcock's other early films can be found in the documents linked to from this page on the US Copyright Office's web site. Davepattern 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The will a lie by Bentham? I think not!
The article currently states: The Captain soon learns the inheritance was a lie by Charles to gain Mary's favors. I will need to go back and watch the film again, but in the stage version (and I am pretty sure the film as well) this is untrue. Charles Bentham never loved Mary, rather he courts her to marry into a family he believes is about to become wealthy. He steals her heart and sires a child within her, then learns of a technical error in the will which will make the inheritence difficult (or likely impossible) to collect. As soon as he finds this out, he shows his true colors by abandoning her. The will existed all right, and Bentham believed it was valid, or he never would have courted Mary.Floggolozzo (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)