Quote:
Originally Posted by J Harker  Would I be right in thinking though that a number of restorations to undertaken by the bfi are done primarily in the interest of artistic/historic preservation as opposed to making a financial profit? |
Both. Obviously, the profit motive isn't paramount in the way that it would be if the projects were handled by a wholly commercial restoration, but they'd be happier if restorations paid their own way (only about half the BFI's income comes from central government: the rest is self-generated).
And of course they have to protect their work legally, just as much as any other rightsholder does. The silent Hitchcock restorations averaged out at £100K apiece - so the last thing they want is for some scrote to claim "public domain!" and do their own unauthorised release on the back of the BFI's materials. (The composers of the new scores might have something to say about that too!)
Although it's because the restorations cost £100K apiece - money that is almost certainly not recoupable on the open market (even when you factor in sales across all media - DVD, BD, TV, VOD, you name it - it's unlikely you'll make back those sums on titles like
Champagne,
Downhill or
The Farmer's Wife) that organisations like the BFI generally end up taking on the task instead of the actual rightsholders - the Hitchcock titles are split between Network and StudioCanal in the UK.