Talk:Biograph Company/archive 1

for Walloon: why you can say "The American Mutoscope & Biograph Company incorporated in California in 1991 is unrelated to the original company"? If you visit the official site of American Mutoscope & Biograph Company http://www.biographcompany.com, you can't assert with certainty the company is unrelated. Do you have other sources?

I am a scholar of early American cinema. My sources include the incorporation papers at the California Secretary of State's Office, the records of the U.S. Copyright Office, and the records of the U.S. Patents and Trademarks Office. And yes, I have visited the bizarre website of that new company. Whoever put that site up is living in fantasy land. He also claims to own the copyrights to all the old Biograph movies, even though every single one of them is out of copyright and in the public domain, and has been since the 1940s.

For a business to be a continuance of an earlier company, there has to be a some transfer of assets, whether physical or intellectual property. Physically, the Biograph studios in the Bronx and Los Angeles have long since disappeared and the properties put to other use. As for intellectual property, as I said, all the copyrights expired on the films decades ago. Likewise, the trademark "American Mutoscope and Biograph" became inactive and entered the public domain decades ago. (Not to be confused with the separate trademark "Mutoscope" for a peephole movie viewer.)

From the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:

Word Mark: MUTOSCOPE
Goods and Services: (ABANDONED) IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Consectutive view moving picture apparatus. FIRST USE: 18970101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 18970101
Filing Date: February 21, 2002
Owner: (APPLICANT) American Mutoscope and Biograph Company CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 432 F. Street Suite #409, San Diego, CALIFORNIA 92101
Type of Mark: SERVICE MARK
Live/Dead Indicator: DEAD
Abandonment Date: December 26, 2002

Word Mark: AMERICAN BIOGRAPH
Goods and Services: (ABANDONED) IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Motion pictures. FIRST USE: 18970101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 18970101
Filing Date: August 26, 2003
Owner: (APPLICANT) American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, Inc. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 8601 Wilshire Blvd. Suite #502-C Beverly Hills CALIFORNIA 90211
Type of Mark: TRADEMARK
Live/Dead Indicator: DEAD
Abandonment Date: August 23, 2004

Walloon 03:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your details. I have a huge interest in all things regarding RKO, because you are an expert about this matter, may I have any details you know about the RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. - RKO Teleradio - RKO General - RKO Pictures LLC? While it is easy find informations about the old company, instead it's hard to find clearly details about the passage from RKO General to the new RKO Pictures LLC. In this case I'm sure the old and the new company are related because of the passage of all trademarks (I verified in www.uspto.gov) and also some intellectual properties (not the negatives of the movies or the theatricals and TV rights but quite all the novels, the stories, the screenplies and all things correlated to the movies except the movies) were traded between the old and the new company and now are owned by RKO Pictures LLC. Thanks (GPM from Italy)

Sorry, I know nothing about the new RKO Pictures LLC. --Walloon

To readers:

This is Frank Marks - VP/Operations of the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, Inc. We need to clear this up because this "Walloon" seems to be attempting to attack our company personally, and have alterior motives. Statements such as "I have visited the bizarre website" and "Whoever put that site up is living in fantasy land". are vindictive statements in which we will deal with later.

First, n the statement "There has to be a some transfer of assets, whether physical or intellectual property", the company was not "Continued", it went into "Dormancy", and was "Revived". This was done by our attorney's in 1991. This is when the company was incorporated in California. A company does not have to be the same corporation, but I am not here to give law lessons. In 1985, Blanche Sweet (Biograph actress) who knew our CEO helped us try to revive the company. We have the copies of ALL the original corporate papers from New York, as well as statements.

On trying to discredit us on the "Copyrights" of the films, the "Actual" films are public domain. However, the "Story rights"(Please see the "Citizen Kane" and "It's a Wonderful Life" legal cases) are retained by us. This means that the films cannot be shown since it is our storyline. The acutal films themselves hold our "VALID" trademark on the beginning and the end, as well as watermarked within scenes (Yes, if you look carefully, you will see our trademark somewhere in actual scenes). This means that NOTHING with our trademark can be shown, or altered for exhibition.

On the false statement of "The trademark "American Mutoscope and Biograph" became inactive and entered the public domain decades ago", our company trademark is IN FORCE retroactive from 1908. Please visit the USPTO website at:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=bom5gq.2.1

Here is the actual text:

Word Mark: AB
Goods and Services: IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Motion picture film production for theatrical, television and commercial release. FIRST USE: 19080201. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19080313
Filing Date: October 30, 2003
Owner: (APPLICANT) (APPLICANT) American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, inc. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA Suite #503 8601 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills CALIFORNIA 90211
Type of Mark: SERVICE MARK
Register: PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator: LIVE

In a side note, the trademarks that were listed by this person were abandoned because they were "Word" trademarks and not usable to us at this time, therefore not renewed.

In summary, for someone to take the time to try and discredit our company, give degrading personal comments instead od facts, and giving misleading information distrurbs us greatly, and in our opinion, must have personal reasons or an agenda. We do appreciate the editors of Wilkepedia to leave the correct information of our company in tact.

Frank Marks VP/COO American Mutoscope and Biograph Co., Inc.

---

From the website of the above mentioned "American Mutoscope and Biograph Co.":

In the beginning of 2003, Biograph embarked on the most adventurous endeavor than any other film company has ever done. Biograph announced the opening of its "Space Production Division". The division was to explore filmmaking in space for motion pictures, documentaries and commercial production. Biograph's first accomplishment was to legally acquire almost 2,000 acres on the surface of the moon from Lunar Embassy. This is slated as a four year plan that will culminate with the filming of an hour long documentary, and the land called the Biograph "Moon Lot" would be the place where Biograph will film the first ever documentary on the moon's surface by a private commercial motion picture company.

Biograph will begin this endeavor with the placement of a monument sigifying the place where Biograph's "Moon Lot" is. This monument will be a titanium disc with inscription. The plans are to launch the monument disc within one to two years from now. Within the two year period, Biograph begins work on sending a production craft, manned with the Biograph production crew, to land on the moon and film its full length documentary entitled "A Trip To The Moon®".

I've made screen captures, with dates, from the website should anyone wish to see them.

On to other matters, ALL of the U.S. copyrights of works published before 1923 are now in the public domain. That includes "story rights" and any other subsidiary or underlying copyrights. To put it another way, no U.S. copyrights of any kind exist for any work — film, music, literature — published before 1923.

As for trademark, U.S. courts have already established that trademark cannot be used to thwart the public domain copyright status of a work.

Walloon 20:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

We have turned matters over to our legal department. First, posting our future plans for a documentary on the moon is irrelevant to any copyright subject, and shows that this individual is using this to try and purposely discredit us. The false information that "The trademark "American Mutoscope and Biograph" became inactive and entered the public domain decades ago" when our trademark is in force, is misleading and incorrect. The subject has bounced from American Mutoscope and Biograph Company not being who we are, to trademarks and public domain status of our films, to taking select items from our website that are legitimate, and attempting to make our company look like a farce. We feel this individual purposely has tried to use every source of the individual's undertaking to slander and discredit us. Just from the trademark information being omitted about our legal trademark is, we feel, yet another intent to discredit us as well. I can go into more detail. However, this is futile since this is clearly a "Vindetta" action.

This individual also refuses to disclose who they are, which is questionable within itself.

Our department has contact Wilkepedia foundation as well.

Frank Marks VP/COO American Mutoscope and Biograph Co., inc.

---

I can call myself "Abraham Lincoln". I can imitate his signature. I can tell people that they can't use Abraham Lincoln's writings without my permission. I can claim that Abraham Lincoln wasn't really dead between 1865 and now, just in a "dormancy period." And I can insert at the bottom of the Wikipedia article on Abraham Lincoln that "Abraham Lincoln currently resides in Beverly Hills, California." And I can claim that I have already purchased 2,000 acres of land on the moon, where I will soon be filming Abraham Lincoln Goes to the Moon®.

But that doesn't make me the 16th President of the United States.

Walloon 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, the last statement we feel is slanderous and accuses our company of misrepresentation. Thank you for that statement.

Frank Marks VP/COO American Mutoscope and Biograph Co., Inc.

Lincoln Is Turning In His Grave

Walloon, evidently you are a loon. Don't disgrace the the name of Pres. Lincoln. He stood for freedom and human rights and human decency. He also told the truth and new the facts before he opened his mouth. Besides, he was a person, not a company. You can revive a company and continue its tradition or do you not have enough imagination to figure that out? No one here is trying to revive a person. Not even Lincoln, so you need a new example, putz! You need to do a little more research and find out the true facts about this company. I have seen the documents and I know the people involved with the company. They truly love the old movies and old Hollywood, not the new Hollyweird. I am in the film business myself and I would be very upset if someone was telling lies and slandering my good name, so if I were you I would be careful and maybe look for an attorney. You may need one. If you are going to talk about someone in a negative way, you must be correct with your facts or guess what? You will be the one eating your words and possibly finding yourself in court. Get a life and go bother some other company who is really doing something wrong, not this one. -The Walloon Popper

Disputes

If there are any factual errors to the article, please state those factual errors here. — Walloon 16:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The article currently states that Blanche Sweet and her husband Marshall Neilan acquired the corporate records of Biograph in 1930. However, that couple divorced in October 1929. So, did they acquire the papers in 1929, or did they acquire them in 1930 after they divorced? — Walloon 18:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats and claims

Be advised that Wikimedia's legal advisors have reviewed the claims made by the new company above and have found them to be without merit. Making legal threats on Wikipedia, especially baseless ones, is grounds for being denied permission to edit Wikipedia, and as a result the anonymous editors who have been making legal threats here have been blocked from editing for one month for making such threats. Further threats will result in further, longer blocks. Please attempt to settle your disputes over the content of this article without resorting to legal threats. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Site Postings

The postings on this site contain numerous slanderous misrepresentations regarding American Mutoscope and Biograph Company ("Biograph Company") and its corporate structure, history, and intellectual property rights. Accordingly, Biograph Company is following proper Wikipedia protocal to block such slanderous statements, which violate the spirit and purpose of collaborative information websites, such as Wikipedia. Biograph Company will continue to vigorously defend its legal rights and its rights as a participant in this or any other collaborative information website. To prevent Biograph Company from taking legal action against you, please direct all legal inquiries to Biograph Company's legal department and refrain from posting slanderous and inaccurate statements about Biograph Company on this or other websites. AMBC 30 March 2006

AMBC, you may NOT remove the postings of others on this discussion page, especially not those of a Wikipedia administrator, as you did by removing Kelly Martin's entire post about legal threats and claims. You are also required to properly sign your user name and the date to your postings on this discussion page — Walloon 19:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Making legal threats is not the "proper Wikipedia protocal [sic]" for dealing with statements one disagrees with. Since the foregoing is a clear legal threat, User:AMBC has been blocked indefinitely, and the legal threat has been reported to our legal advisors as requested by the Wikimedia Foundation office. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Tagged for cleanup and as unreferenced

This article needs external references and at a minimum, split down into an introduction and sections. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Many "citation needed" notes were added where citations already existed in the article. I prefer to place citations at the end of sentences, not in the middle of sentences unless necessary. For instance, the fact that Classmates was the first feature released by Biograph, and that it was released in February 1914, can be found in The American Film Institute Catalog of Motion Pictures, volume F1, which is already cited at the end of the sentence. — Walloon 00:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)