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

This is the most ridiculous statement Ive ever read. Do you think you should be able to go to the movies for free? Do you think motion picture studios should just mail you DVDs of whatever you request free of charge and at their own expense? These films are a commodity which people own and in a goods and services based economy that commodity is worth money. There is no reason why they should feel as though have to provide those goods to you or anyone else free of charge.

That being said, the ridiculous legends about what is in the Cayton-Jacob's collection are so exaggerated its sick. They do have some gems but not like what some people think.

Furthermore, somebody in a previous post said "Jacobs was a man of high integrity. I don not think he would lie,"

Jacobs was a famous practical joker and a guy who loved to pull peoples legs about what he had in his collection. He would invite somebody to his office for a meeting and leave a film can on his desk that he had put a label on saying "Jack Johnson-Sam Langford" or some other extremely famous fight. The film can of course would be empty or have another fight in it. He would also tell people he had found footage of something like Langford-Ketchel but it was in such bad shape there would be no way of transferring and preserving. It was all bull****, he just wanted to see the reaction on peoples faces.

 

Yeh nobody owns fights really thats why its a shame a boxing fan never bougth the collection

 

A boxing fan did buy the collection. His name was Jim Jacobs and he wasnt giving those fights away for free. Do you seriously expect me to believe that if you spent tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on an extremely rare collection of fight films you would just post it on Youtube free for all to see at a loss to yourself? WHATEVER.... :roll:

 

mate if i bought lots and lots of fights mate i couldnt store them uo by myself i would have to give people some of them whats the point of watching rare fights and fighters with noone to discuss them about

 

If you could afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on rare films you could afford to store them...

 

Jacobs acquired the rights to most of the films by ascertaining if a particular fight was registered to an owner ,if it was not Jacobs,and Cayton registered themselves as the owners.He did not spend hundreds of thousands of pounds /dollars getting the fights ,because contrary to the impression Jacobs liked to give[ that he was independently very wealthy ] ,he actually came from modest origins, financially speaking. My source for this info is Mickey Duff ,a very close friend of Jacobs, who scouted most of Tyson's early opponents for Jacobs and Cayton.Duff was a frequent house guest of Jacobs ,and his son Gary ,was the UK representative of Big Fights INC,until Cayton sold the library rights.
Jacobs and Cayton built up a library of classic fights worth an absolute fortune ,for the expenditure of very little capital at all really.

 

so Jacobs basically said i own this fight and this fight.

that is utter BS how did they get away with that

 

Some more questions -

When would films of fights fall into the public domain?

Did Jacobs perhaps get his ownership / copyright by dubbing his (?) voice & those ridiculous punching sounds to the films, adding his own graphics, and thus packaging them as "Big Fights, Inc." products?

If many of these fights are in the public domain, does ESPN retain ownership simply by having possession of the films themselves, thus owning the films but not the rights to the fights on them?

 

This is all only half true and very misleading. Jimmy Jacobs wasnt independantly wealthy until Tyson. That part is true. BUT, Bill Cayton was and Bill was the money behind Jacobs. Jacobs did the leg work and bought films with Cayton's money. He had a good collection going before hooking up with Cayton but it wasnt until Cayton and Jacobs hooked up and then purchased the MSG film collection that they really took off. And they did spend a small fortune on the films. I may be exaggerating about the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent but keep in mind that Cayton used to fly Jacobs all around the world doing leg work to find these films and purchase them. The sad thing is that once Jacobs died Cayton no longer had a knowledgeable leg man to do his work for him (he was much more of a business man and much less a boxing enthusiast) and as such several great opportunities to purchase rare films that surfaced passed him by.

This part: "Jacobs acquired the rights to most of the films by ascertaining if a particular fight was registered to an owner ,if it was not Jacobs,and Cayton registered themselves as the owners."

Is very misleading. What you are talking about here is broadcast rights, not ownership. To this day BigFights/or rather ESPN ascert that they have certain rights to fights which have no copyright status (such as fights filmed prior to 1923, or home movie footage shot by a relative of a fighter who never filed a copyright). In these case Cayton and Jacobs have tried to strong arm people and insist that they have rights to the film and thus anyone using it must pay them. Thats bull****, its actually gone to court more than once and in the end Jacobs/Cayton were proven to be wrong (which theyve gone to great lengths to keep quiet). That being said they didnt just say "you have this footage, I own it, give it to me." There is no law which would back that up because thats why ESPN's collection is locked tight in a vault: Ownership of the film in the business world means nothing, the ownership of the rights means everything in terms of licensing (which is where the money is at). The films that they dont own rights to and KNOW IT they wont show unless they are common such as Dempsey, Tunney, Jack Johnson, etc. The reason is because if they show these rare films that no rights exist to then Vs. network, BBC, or whoever else wants to can show the copy they made of the films and make money off of their investment. So, you may ask why they keep these films to themselves: The answer is fairly simple. If they are the only owner of the actual film, or only KNOWN owner. They can hold this film as collateral for means of raising capital. Its as simple as that. The film itself becomes more valuable than the rights by its rarety alone. Almost like a piece of memorabilia. As such they HAVE to keep it locked away to protect that value to their investment.

This is why its so ignorant to expect them to just give this stuff away. Its business, it was bought for business purposes, it was filmed for business purposes, and its going to be used in the operation of the business. Nowhere in that statement do you see the word charity which is what guys like Flamengo want.

 

In short NO. In order to file a copyright on a piece of work previously produced and filed by another artist, company, etc. you have to change that work by an amount significant enough that it alters the original piece and makes it your own. Being that the actual film of the fight is what was being marketed simply using your own graphics would not qualify you for a new copyright on that product.

 

It was your phrase "hundreds of thousands of dollars "that originally prompted me to post on this thread.Its true the Cayton was a millionaire before he met Jacobs,he did not make his money from boxing,indeed neither he or Jacobs was especially knowledgeable on the subject.They used Duff to scout out suitable opponents for Tyson ,and Duff also helped Jacobs with Benitez.Jacobs has a reputation for being a decent man and Duff confirms this ,he is less than fullsome when talking on the subject of Bil Cayton however.
I dont know how the intricasies of film rights work out and I have never had sufficient interest in them to find out. I started buying Super 8mm fight films inthe 1960s ,importing them from the States from Blackhawk Films. I dont doubt you are more versed on the subject than me ,I just queried the "hundreds of thousands of dollars".:good

 

Klompy, I believe the most ridiculous statement I've ever read is from yourself. Regarding the integrity of another trash can... Steve Lott. Why dont you ask Steve about the Fammo and Jackie Fields Ring belts?? The story begins with Nat Loubet incidently!!!!!!

Ask him how he crumbled at pressure from a certain agency in Oz, under potential legal threats, and ultimately 'sold' the Fammo ring belt, at a far less than agreeable price. I personally love this story. He's a great man, of HIGH intergrity... as if.

Klompy, what the hell makes you think, that any particular piece of film has the given allowance for being monopolised 100 years from birth????

Fine, money's have been transfered over the years.. Complete con-artists/bull**** artists (as you refer to Jacobs) have claimed ownership....???

So what gives TRUE credit to any ownership???

Clearly nothing more than a pack of lies by a bunch of thieves!!!

 

Ive already told you once that Lott was nothing more than a steward of the Cayton/Jacobs collection. Why you insist that he has control over this stuff is beyond me but you dont know what you are talking about. That much is obvious. Ive personally had several dealings with Lott over the years and he is one of the nicest guys in boxing Ive ever had the PLEASURE of speaking to.

 

Klomps, the mention of Steve Lott had nothing to do with the Jacobs/Clayton Film Collection this time...

Why dont you tell some of your blessful opinion regarding the Fammo Belt issue.. the only reason Lotts name resurfaced. A better example would be inducing LOTT to confess his opinion to all... The fee will be re-negotiated!!

He might be a nice guy to speak to... I've been told the same... Business is too often done with a SMILE.