Does anyone have a full listing of the Jimmy Jacobs fight collection?

how much would they be willing to get for someone to buy the films from them

 

What do you mean?


Flamengo: Your rantings have gone so far off the subject they no longer make any sense. I fail to see what Lott has to do with any of this topic. If you choose to believe he was anything other than a steward of the collection owned by other people thats your business but the memorabilia and films he oversaw where definately NOT owned by him and as such he had/has no right to sell or give away anything without acting on behalf of the parent company. If he was, as you suggest, doing something on his own with a collection of his own, then why bring him into the discussion of BigFights film collection? Its simply a matter of you not willing to accept the way the world works when it comes to commodities. Maybe Australia has different system of economy that Im not familiar with but here, where that collection is housed, things work differently and for you not to understand that either means you are ignorant, too young to understand the value of money, goods, and services, or living in some communal dream world where everything is shared by everyone free and clear and no ownership exists on anything.

 

Oh my GOD!

Read my previous posts regarding the subject.. regarding 'most ridiculous statement' ... work it from there..
Australia has a different system of ECONOMY??? This is not a nationally influential/profitable income.. ITS boxing.

You summed it up perfectly already... greedy men monopolise the entire industry.. ***** cats drink from the same bowl.

Respects to you Klomps, your willing to respond.. I appreciate that.
Cheers.

 

so are ESPN breaking the law holding these fights as the Jacob/Clayton lost the court cases

 

Not at all. You can own a DVD of Terminator. You just dont have the right to exhibit it for profit. Its similar with the boxing films they dont own rights to. They can own the actual physical film of the fight but if they know they dont have rights to it they would be opening themselves up to litigation by showing it on ESPN Classic.

What Jacobs and Cayton would do was see someone selling copies of a certain fight and threaten legal action if they didnt stop KNOWING that they (Cayton and Jacobs) had no legal rights to the film (not the physical film but the intellectual property i.e. copyrights) when a few people were savvy enough to stand up to these threats Cayton and Jacobs were forced to fold because they cant show that they have rights to a lot of these things. Remember, Cayton and Jacobs said they purchased a lot of these pre-1930s fight from old time bootleggers and mobsters who would run the fights across state lines for the actual owners. Those old gangsters just had the films they did not have the rights so for Jacobs and Cayton to ascert that they were purchasing copyrights along with the films is ludicrous. Furthermore pre 1923 no copyright is in effect for film so all of Jack Johnsons, some of Dempsey, Jeffries, etc etc arent under copyright and as such, once again, for Cayton and Jacobs to ascert that they have rights on those films is ridiculous. Furthermore lots of old fights were filmed by family members on personal film cameras at ringside and no copyright was ever filed because they were never intended to be shown or reproduced commercially. You only have a certain window of time to file a copyright on something like that and so the odds that Cayton and Jacobs have rights to those types of films is HIGHLY unlikely as well. In addition to all of this copyrights will eventually lapse within in a certain amount of time without having them extended or renewed and the likelyhood that the original owners or Cayton and Jacobs were able to do this for ALL of the vast collection that they have is unlikely as well. So in all likelyhood you probably have a significant portion of the ESPN Classic collection that either dont own rights to, or dont know if they own rights to. Therefore rather than get into legal trouble by exhibiting them they do the smart thing and keep them preserved basically as memorabilia for, as stated above, use for raising capital.

 

ok cheers for clearing that up

 

sick to death of seeing ali and tyson on espn



Any updates on what they have in the collection.

Where is klompton these days?

 

Klompton's understanding of copyright and intellectual rights is spot on and offers insight into the "ESPN vault" of fight films bought from Jacobs/Cayton.

I would surmise the following is possible and even likely:

ESPN bought a bill of goods when obtaining the "16,000" fight-collection. The network may have thought it was buying a collection of fights to which the copyright belonged to Big Fights, and therefore figured it was getting thousands of hours of classic programming that it could show forever.

If the due diligence wasn't proper, however, or complete it may be that a large part of that collection is unusable for broadcast/cablecast purposes. Some of the collection is free and clear, as the rights were cleared up upon purchase, but fights obtained by Jacobs/Cayton that they merely claimed the rights for are not ones the network can use.

So the network has choices: It can hire a team of lawyers and investigators to go through the collectioni fight by fight, determine whether there are other claimholders or possible claimholders to the rights of the fight, or they can sit on it.

The first option is quite costly and could open a can of worms that ESPN doesn't want to open -- if word gets out that the network possesses possibly thousands of fights to which it does not have ownership, the number of lawsuits by those claiming rights could be staggering and more costly than the collection is worth.

The second option doesn't cost a penny -- they can show the fights that they know they have the rights to and wait until such time as their legal advisors tell them that time has dwindled the number of possible claimholders to the rights such that it's worth the risk. That could be 100 or 1,000 years from now, and the collection's worth will increase, not decrease, over time.

And for the record, if I found out that the old man who lives down the street had a collection of unknown Greb and Gans and Tom Crib fights and I bought them for $100, I assue you I would be seeking the highest bidder and not posting them for free on youtube.

 

thanks.

So ive more chance of a tour of area 51

 

The fight was a fix that went wrong.

 

Jacobs had high integrity as far as managing his fighters was concerned , but little first hand knowledge of the game, he relied on Mickey Duff extensively for his expertise.Jacobs did however invent a totally diffferent scenario ,as far as his family and upbringing were concerned, to what actually happened. Jacobs and Cayton also bluffed , bullied ,and bulshitted their way into possession of many fights they had no legal right to.

 

jacobs brang back with him over 160 films from ozz,

 

im 100% certain that around about 86-88 from several video and aricle interviews that jacobs said 4 greb fights were recorded.

 

This mention of the Famechon belt is interesting. For anyone who isnt familiar with it Nat Fleischer passed away before he could award Famechon a Ring Belt.

Because of this event Famechon's belt stayed in the Ring Magazine collection and was eventually sold to a private collector. The Ring isnt obligated to give fighters belts and those belts are the property of the magazine until they are given to the fighters.

With that in mind the belt was never actually Famechon's and as such it was well within the rights of Ring to keep it and well within the rights of whoever bought it NOT to give it to Famechon. It sucks for Famechon but thems the breaks.

The one lone aspect of this is that the belt, never having been Famechons, probably should not be valued as highly as one that say Famechon owned and sold.

 

im near 100% sure he had carpentier vs jeannette, and fyi if anyone knows mike tyson (some people on here do) he had a 500 fight film collection of copies jacobs gave him.