Talk:The Gold Rush

Disambiguation
I think that a "Gold Rush" disambiguation page should be created, as I suspect that many users of the Wikipedia search "Gold Rush" looking for the "Klondike Gold Rush." Anybody else agree? (Yes, I know that there is a link for the Klondike Gold Rush page at the bottom of the article.)--66.188.221.60 03:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is one already: Gold rush (disambiguation). You can find it if you type in just "gold rush" instead of "the gold rush". Perhaps you have a point, though - I'll add it to this article. Esn 17:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Film projection speed
An unregistered editor, rather than deleting or changing disputed content, simply put a strikethrough through it. This violates WP:MOS. Looking at the paragraph, which is uncited, I chose to remove it completely and place it here pending citation and correction (if the struckthrough material was incorrect). 23skidoo 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the film was originally shot at 18 frames per second, the sound version, shown at 24 frames per second, is both shorter and faster than the original silent screenings. This has the side effect of making Chaplin's slapstick routines appear more frantic than before, a fact that had probably influenced Chaplin's decision to shoot Modern Times at silent speed. By the mid-1920s, projection speeds had unofficially standardized far closer to 24 frames per second than the somewhat slower speeds common in the late-1910s. Chaplin and his crew knew that and shot appropriately. It is true that Chaplin chose to shoot some scenes for Modern Times slower than 24 fps, so that those scenes would appear to move faster when projected at 24 fps. But those kinds of variable speed shooting choices were a common fact of virtually all Chaplin films.

Using data from the United States Treasury, the stated $4,250,001 pulled in by "The Gold Rush" would be worth about $48,000,000 in 2006 dollars. Please confirm and add as necessary.

about the gold rush
i what bto know about the gold rush and how it got started —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.193.11 (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:LadyBouviersLover1.jpg
The image Image:LadyBouviersLover1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction
The infobox says the film grossed $499,000 (less than it cost) but the article says it grossed $4.25 million and was the highest grossing silent film of all time! Which is it? Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright and home use section
I am setting up another editathon in the UK at the Cinema Museum in London with a Chaplin focus. The Assocation Chalin are being very helpful in terms of allowing photography of artifacts etc.

One area they are asking for help on page improvement is around this section.

They believe it is inaccurate and would like to replace some of the current text thus:

“In 1953, the original 1925 film possibly entered the public domain in the USA, as Chaplin did not renew its copyright registration in the 28th year after publication in accordance to American law of the time.[7] As such, the film was once widely available on home video in that country. In the years since, Chaplin's estate has blocked the unauthorized releases of The Gold Rush in the United States:

by arguing that under URAA/GATT, the copyright to the dramatic composition of The Gold Rush was restored, and therefore US copyright in the 1925 version was also restored.”

This would therefore be deleted: “However, according to copyrightdata.com, the film was first screened in the USA, thereby disqualifying reciprocal copyright recognition under §104A(h)(6)(D); and the film exceeded the 30-day rule (more than 30 days between the US and British screenings), thus also disqualifying it for reciprocal-nation copyright protection.[8] »

Anyone feel this is not valid?

YellowFratello (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No comments so will make the change. YellowFratello (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The page linked to for this information in the article has a link to an "exercises page" which presents the persuasive counter argument.


 * For URAA/GATT to apply, the work must have not have been published in the US before it was published in the other nation in question (in this case England), nor within 30 days of its publication in that other country.


 * The Gold Rush fails this test. It was published in the US before -- about 30 days before -- it was published in England. Published in the US on August 16, 1925 (which is well documented). Published in England September 15, 1925 (also well documented).


 * Since The Gold Rush fails that test, URAA/GATT does not apply, and US copyright law applies instead. Under US copyright law, since copyright was not renewed in its 28th year, at a time when that was required, The Gold Rush entered the public domain in 1953. Of course that applies only to the 1925 version, not to the 1942 version, which is protected as a derivative work under US copyright law (if URAA/GATT doesn't apply to it either, which I don't know) until January 1st, 2038.


 * https://chart.copyrightdata.com/exercises.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greglovern (talk • contribs) 09:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that it's 2021, the copyright issue is moot. I've updated the article accordingly. Kaldari (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So what happened with those artifact photos? It would be nice to add some to the article, but I don't see anything on Commons. Kaldari (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested Guild of Copy Editors copy edit complete
As requested by, I have copy-edited this article. I have added a few "citation needed" tags, cleaned up some of the citations, and changed the article's structure a bit, along with the usual copy editing.

Feel free to correct any remaining errors that I have left behind. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you ; have you seen the film? How was it? Because if you did, then your editing of the plot would be just flawless. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have seen it, but not for a few years. I tried to keep the basic plot points while removing the "terrific" etc. puffery that struck me as not in keeping with the tone of an encyclopedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)