Jim Hensons Funeral

[Tim]

I've been trying to get a copy for myself, and even though I am one who NEVER goes to funerals, I don't find this "goulish" at all. (Personally, I think the TV show "Fanily Plots" is MUCH more goulish.) It's a MEMORIAL NOT A FUNERAL! Now if it was footage of Jim's body actually being cremated, I think that all of us here would all want that banned outlawed. I think the question should be whether or not anyone is actually making money off this. If the disks are being sold at cost, or for trade only, then it is simply sharing memories. (Please contact me if you have such.)

I can't speak for the company or the family's feelings on this, but the memorial was public, press and all, and the funeral itself was totally private. Clips of the memorial have been used in various documentaries, and I'm sure everyone knows how much Jim meant to us and except the fact that his being a public figure creates interest and demand. While I'm sure they would brefer it not be an issue, they are not issuing an "official" DVD version so as not to totally exploit the man and his memory. Both sides are staying out of the contriversy by allowing the true fans to get hold of a copy without prosicution, but not supporting or encouraging licensing control over it either.

I want a copy since it is the closing chapter in the life of Jim Henson and without it, it's like a book that is missing the last few pages. A memorial service such as this gives us all a chance to remember Jim, thank him and say goodbye.

 

[ravagefrackle]

You do all see that you are trying to justify something that the family did not authorize,and does not want out ,arguing the semantics, FUneral service or Memeorial, does not change the fact that this video was never meant to be in your hands, and some one is profitting of it, that does not in any way shape or form make it right

its interesting were some people will draw the line,

 

[Tim]

If it was never meant to be seen then the press and general public would not have been invited and clips and quotes of such would never have been made available. (There was a very private gettogether at the Muppet Mansion just for family, friends and co-workers. This is NOT part of that, and not meant for public consumption.)

By comparison, there was NEVER anything not so much as a photograph from Walt Disney's burial released to anyone, and that family and company would never allow such. Fans ond others capitalizing on that would be creating product at family and fan's emotions, thereby true exploitation. I don't like the idea of anyone making money from this, but sharing at no cost what is already public record is not exploitation, any more than putting together a "tribute" or "fan club" website showcasing the work of others, so long as it is presented free of charge.

 

[Muppet Matt]

then is it all right to make copys to send to MCers for free?

 

[ravagefrackle]

If it was never meant to be seen then the press and general public would not have been invited and clips and quotes of such would never have been made available. (There was a very private gettogether at the Muppet Mansion just for family, friends and co-workers. This is NOT part of that, and not meant for public consumption.)


yes , of course press was invited this was headline news, at a far different time than when Disney died, with cble news channels and medai beiging to take a firm grasp of the telivised media,

the point here is that the Video of the service was not meant to be realeased, the tapes were made for friends co-workers,and family of Jim's, and were not meant to be duplictaed inanyway shape or form(i have seen the originals, it is quite clearly lapled do not dublicate on it), my feeling is that by buying these online you
A)disrespecting the families wishes
B)allowing someone to profit from this dis-Respect ,

sure peopel what to see things, wish they were part of it, that doesnot at all in anyway justify purchasing smething that you were not meant to have in the first place,

think of it as buying stolen property , just because you didn't steal it yourself, does not make reciving it ok whether it be thru a cash transaction, or a gift, its still theft plain and simple,

any basic legal text will say the same thing

 

[Tim]

Then we might as well shut down 90% of the internet. Fan-based websites all use copyrighted photos and other material "not meant to be duplicated in any way, shape or form" that is protected legally. I believe it is ALWAYS TOTALLY WRONG to be profiting from any of this, and feel that doing so is true exploitation. But does that mean a photo from the memorial taken by the press can never be run in a book or magazine that is sold for profit? That the material can never be made available for study in a library or written about in a book, authorized or not by the estate? Jim's death is part of his story, and if we are keeping the facts alive for those who weren't even born then, it becomes educational and not exploitive. If we are sharing a "headline news" story of a memorial that was opened to the public, I don't feel that that is any different than downloading a video shot by a CNN reporter of the World Trade Center tragedy. Is that not stealing the work of someone else, infringing copyright laws and exploiting the death of people who were not in the public eye (by choice-and only after it was too late)? Or is it a way of keeping the facts strait so that people under 16 years old won't be like the "Disney fans" who don't even realize that there was a "Walt" before there was a "Disney". God help us if they forget Jim existed. Sharing the memories of a very public figure, and someone who was so important to us is no more more "exploitive" than if we were to have been invited to the memorial in person, except there wouldn't be a place big enough for everyone who would have wanted to be there. Technology just allows us to morn, share and remember for those of us who didn't get the chance.

 

[crazed gonzo fa]

Couldn't have said it better myself Tim.

 

[a_Mickey_Muppet]

Couldn't have said it better myself Tim.

righty-o on that one!

 

[ravagefrackle]

Then we might as well shut down 90% of the internet. Fan-based websites all use copyrighted photos and other material "not meant to be duplicated in any way, shape or form" that is protected legally..

and many are , site like this one, are pretty much here by the grace of the copyright and trademark owners who veiw them as free PR, and Pulicity, as wellas a way to monitor the way fans feel about things, if think they dont know you are here your wrong, many sites have been shutdown, or had legal actions threatend or taken againts them beacuse of the contents of thier sites,

one such incedent in fandom would be the threated legal action by producer Don Murphy agaisnt several Transforer fan websites when they strated re-posting content from his Blog, on thier sites, the situation was resolved amicably but the threat remains to all fansites.

I believe it is ALWAYS TOTALLY WRONG to be profiting from any of this, and feel that doing so is true exploitation..

we do agree on this point .

But does that mean a photo from the memorial taken by the press can never be run in a book or magazine that is sold for profit? That the material can never be made available for study in a library or written about in a book, authorized or not by the estate?..Books and Magazines and Newspapers

The press was given permision to take photos for publication, they also contaced the companies for photo's, (look at a photo for a movie or character from a movie or comic book in a newspaper , most will have a "photo curtesy of..." or something to a similar effect under the photo .

same goes for any book related to a person, or a Book about specific icons of popular culture, 90% of the time the photo is printed with permision, any book on puppetry that has muppet photos will have a small credit to the Henson company , or what ever company owns the rights to a specific set of characters, the authors and publishers can not just use any photo from any source, credit is given were it is due, and only when the permision of the rights holder has been granted.

Jim's death is part of his story, and if we are keeping the facts alive for those who weren't even born then, it becomes educational and not exploitive.

and their are numerous place for people to learn about individuals and historic events, libraries, and the internet all have fact and hisorical sites were info can be read about people and thier lives,

If we are sharing a "headline news" story of a memorial that was opened to the public, I don't feel that that is any different than downloading a video shot by a CNN reporter of the World Trade Center tragedy.Is that not stealing the work of someone else, infringing copyright laws and exploiting the death of people who were not in the public eye (by choice-and only after it was too late)? .

well the video shot by CNN or any other news group is most likey to appear online , they have archives on most major news station websites, and they are thier for you downloading pleasure, The video in Question was not filmed by a crew from a mass media market , but By the Henson Comapy , the clips of the service that were seen on TV were supplied to the news outlets by the company, thier were no other video crews in the Cathedral.[/QUOTE]

Or is it a way of keeping the facts strait so that people under 16 years old won't be like the "Disney fans" who don't even realize that there was a "Walt" before there was a "Disney". God help us if they forget Jim existed. Sharing the memories of a very public figure, and someone who was so important to us is no more more "exploitive" than if we were to have been invited to the memorial in person, except there wouldn't be a place big enough for everyone who would have wanted to be there. Technology just allows us to morn, share and remember for those of us who didn't get the chance.

DO you really need to be a voyeur in order to rember someone, People who are buying this are not individuals who are likley to forget who Jim is or was, it just fandom getting out of hand, over zealus collectors who feel a compulsion to complete thier collections with a Video , you do not need to watch a service to remember someone, and once again the main issue here is that someone is capitolizing on this video and making a profit from it, and that really is what is bothering me, i do not think i would have bothered posting in this thread if the fact that some one out thier is duping these and selling them for profit didnt anger me ., if someone found it on YOUTUBE or VEOH, i dont think it would bothered me because it is then there freefor the worlkd to see, (even though thats not something the family wants), at least its free, and with out money changing hands, but people spending $20 or giving it to someone who knows they should not be selling this dvd is just plain worng , and that really seems to be the only place were we agree.

 

[crazed gonzo fa]

You sure stick to your opinions ravagefrackle.