Talk:The Brain That Wouldn't Die/Archive 1

Public domain
I've removed the link to the Internet Archive page on The Brain That Wouldn't Die from the article because it claims that this film is in the public domain. No such information is suggested in the article. (U.S. copyright policy certainly wouldn't permit this for a 1962 film without explicit permission from the copyright holder.) The Archive itself is unclear on this issue to someone who is just casually visiting it. The BTWD page includes a line that says "Creative Commons license: Public Domain", but it's not obvious to me whether that refers to the film or the IA article on the film. Its "About" page says nothing about public domain, and I found nothing in five minutes of sifting through pages that explains the meaning and possible values of that licensing line. Furthermore, its FAQ page suggests that copyright protection is done on an "opt-in" basis, and the process for citing potential copyright violations (or even erroneous information about claims) is snail-mail-based, requires the presumed copyright holder to file the complaint, and still provides no explanation of or link to how they determined whether something is in the public domain.

Unless someone can provide a reliable source for the claim that this film is in the public domain, I feel we should treat this as a link to an illegal download capability. I hope someone can provide this evidence, or at least provide pointers on how to verify IA's apparent claim. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The film is most definitely in the public domain. I've seen many low-budget DVDs of the film in stores. (Ibaranoff24 04:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC))


 * And exactly what is the legal connection between low-budget DVDs and public-domain source? I seriously doubt that copyright owners would expect that cut-rate deals to distributors are prima facie evidence of copyright waiving. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It is well known that this film is public domain. Main reason it was the first MST3K parody. SIckBoy 01:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is apparently not well-known that Best Brains had to obtain the rights to include the films that it mocked on Mystery Science Theater 3000. It is well-known, as can be found in the archives of official MST3K website The Satellite News, that this problem with rights is why (A) MST3K: The Movie and at least one episode are no longer available on DVD; and (B) it takes so long for new episodes to be released on DVD.


 * This kind of unsourced "everybody knows" common-nonsense is exactly why we can't assume that a source like the Internet Archive is a valid indication of public domain. People seem to be under the impression that as long as they think something's not protected, it's okay to copy it endlessly. I'm no fan of the crushing oppression of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, but the lawlessness of copying films just because you can is just as bad. And we STILL have no source for the PD claim for this film. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The Library of Congreses endorsment is good enough for me. The Archive is is supported by both the Libray of Congress & the Smithsonian; they are all collaborating on the Archive project itself in fact. SIckBoy 03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! That's the first piece of evidence I've seen to suggest IA isn't just letting uploaders claim "public domain". It doesn't actually say whether IA's material is public domain, and one cannot infer it is just because it's mentioned on a page that talks about PD. After all, the other sections on that page make specific statements about what in their collection is and what isn't, and how to tell or ask about it. For IA, its entire statement is the following:


 * Provides near-unrestricted access to digitized collections of moving images. The largest collection is comprised of over 1,200 ephemeral (advertising, educational, industrial, and amateur) films made from 1927 through the present. Broadcast quality copies can be purchased through Getty Images.


 * Clearly, some material is for fee, and by implication some isn't. But this page makes no clear connection between its subject, "public domain films", and the organization. If I had to guess, I'd say they're making no statements whatsoever, leaving it to IA to discuss the issue for individual movies


 * IA does have a "public domain" tag for some films, but then we're back to my original question: who determines this for IA? I must say that the general endorsement from LoC and the Smithsonian make me hope that the IA information is correct, but supposition is a legally dangerous pasttime in copyrights. We need to know IA's policy on copyrights and how it identifies public domain films. If, as this LoC page says, a formal print publication like The Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the U.S. Public Domain and Motion Picture Copyrights & Renewals 1950-1959 itself cannot be considered a final authoritative source, how can we unquestioningly trust a website that allows anyone to upload material? (The fantastic proliferation of illegally copied music demonstrates beyond question the common practice of unrefereed uploading.) However, the LoC and Smithsonian connections give me some possible angles to ferret out this info. Thanks for the tip. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * An update: As I write this, the Internet Archive's page on The Brain That Wouldn't Die doesn't appear to have any license tag — public domain, Creative Common License, or other — in the "Download" box, which seems to be where it's supposed to be displayed. I interpret this to mean that the uploader, whoever they are, has made no assertion of their right to upload this item. (In contrast, the vast trove of material contributed by the Prelinger Archives has explicit tags — like the CCL tag for Why Study Home Economics?, another MST3K offering — that match the statements about Prelinger in the Motion Picture Archive's FAQs.) I am still trying to find out who is behind the "Feature Films" collection, which seem to be in the middle of this sloppy licensing problem. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Brainthatwouldntdie.jpg
Image:Brainthatwouldntdie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-added Missing Info
I re-added the information on the use of a clip from this movie in the Film Dub game on the U.S. version of Whose Line Is It Anyway. The information had been there, but for some reason, it was gone this time.MysticOrbot (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Plot Summary Inaccurate
The assistant is not directly killed but instead has his arm torn off by the monster; this is as a result of his inattention due to engaging in a verbal battle with Jan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.183.141 (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
Added the trivia from my own watching experiences. Jesus On Wheels 15:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Brain That Wouldn't Die. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120907201059/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6660611491774828467 to https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6660611491774828467

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Brain That Wouldn't Die. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101208230602/http://www.soundportraits.org/on-air/the_jewish_giant/ to http://www.soundportraits.org/on-air/the_jewish_giant/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite and Expansion
This article is poorly developed, and is missing a great deal of citations for its information. A complete overhaul and rewrite is necessary to ensure that this article meets Wikipiedia's standards of a well-developed and properly sourced article. With the exception of the "Adaptions" section, every other section needs to be reformatted and rewritten into well developed sections that are properly formatted. The Production and Release section could be expanded a bit more if there is any other information available. The MST3K and Adaptions sections could be added as sub-sections inside a legacy section or as a paragraph. There is also a great deal of information that remains unsourced and should either be given proper citations from reliable sources or removed from the article entirely. Finally, the article is also missing important information on the film's reception which needs to be added to the article (with proper and reliable citations), I will start with that section which can be expanded later. This article needs a lot of work done to it in order for it to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards of a well-developed and properly sourced article.--Paleface Jack 17:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources of the plot
This is all derived from Frankenstein, and I'm surprised that isn't mentioned in the article. Part of the horror is that the "mad doctor" isn't looking for body parts. He wants a whole female body. The scenes where he examines young women, thinking only of their bodies, are actually something that a young man can understand in a way, but the film contains the moral lesson that this is wrong. The severed head of his girlfriend turns against him because she would rather die, and the monster in the closet rescues the potential victim at the end. Although it's cheaply made, this film has more to say by implication than most, and it harks back to the original Frankenstein novel by Mary Shelley. I think it's very underrated. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric Wastrel Way (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)