To publish, distributor and release?

Question

Dear All,

Could you tell me, please, whether publish can be used when someone has made a film, had a few copies of it made on DVD and had the title and a picture printed on them, but those DVDs cannot be bought and aren’t available publicly anywhere?

And, again, in the latter case, could the person who owns the copies and the original be called the distributor of the film (despite the fact that the film is not being sold anywhere and is not available for someone to buy or to get it for free?)

And, can the word release also be applied to this situation, or does it mean in every case that something is made available to large masses of people through some medium for money or for free?

Could you be so kind as to help me with these, please?

Thank you very much.

JohnParis · Accepted Answer

Dear All,

Could you tell me, please, whether publish can be used when someone has made a film, had a few copies of it made on DVD and had the title and a picture printed on them, but those DVDs cannot be bought and aren’t available publicly anywhere? No, publish is reserved for anything that is printed or caused to be put into print.

And, again, in the latter case, could the person who owns the copies and the original be called the distributor of the film (despite the fact that the film is not being sold anywhere and is not available for someone to buy or to get it for free?) Again, I would say No. The owner is the owner and the distributor is the distributor.

And, can the word release also be applied to this situation, or does it mean in every case that something is made available to large masses of people through some medium for money or for free? In your context, the transitive verb 'release' would mean: make (a movie or recording) available for general viewing or purchase.
Could you be so kind as to help me with these, please?

Thank you very much.

Anonymous · Answer

Thank you very much, JohnParis.

I’ve checked some legal dictionaries and I’m still confused about publish, though, because law.com says it means “to make public to at least one other person by any means”, while dictionary.findlaw.com gives “to make known to another or to the public generally” as one of its definitions, while in the latter, the other meanings akin to “disseminate” and “distribute” are listed in clearly separate entries. This would mean that the first time a film is shown to an outsider could be taken as the time it is published… What do you think?

And one more question, does distribute cover what I wrote in my 1^st post? If it is neither big quantities, nor for money, and the copies are not publicly available, either, then it doesn’t qualify as distribution, does it?

Sorry for the further inquiry, and thanks in advance.

JohnParis · Answer

You are very welcome, Anonymous.

What I think is that I am not qualified to delve further into legal definitions. I can only say that online dictionaries should be carefully scrutinized before accepting their definitions as entirely correct.

That said, I have never seen the term "publish" associated with the initial showing of a motion picture or television series. To me, "publish" can only refer to printed matter (either printed on paper or displayed electronically). Music, plays and even audio books are also published because at some point, the original product was written down. I have never seen the word "publish" associated with the initial showing of a motion picture. Films per se are never published. The script of a film can be published, but showing a film for the first time in public is simply showing a film for the first time. The celebrations leading up to and including the showing of a film to an audience for the first time is referred to as the "premiere" of a film. I think that it would definitely be a mistake to say anything like "the film was first published the night of 23 June, 2011".

With regard to you final question, and again taking into account the fact that I have no legal training, it would seem to me that if a distributor of a film - regardless of the number of copies he possessed or whether they were available to anyone other than him - possessed legal ownership of the film then he would simply be the owner of the film. If he chose to give out (distribute) his property, he would not necessarily be "the distributor" of the film any more than I would be the distributor of ice cream if I were to offer you a bowl of chocolate rocky-road from my freezer.

If you have additional questions of if you would like me to take a look at the entire document you are questioning (writing?), I would be happy to do so. I have the feeling that you have not exposed the entire context of the problem. My email is in my profile.

Regards,

John

Anonymous · Answer

Thank you very much for your detailed reply and for the offer, too

. It’s very kind of you, and I really appreciate it, but you already helped a lot and now I see these terms more clearly, so hopefully I’ll do just fine.

To publish, distributor and release?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions