Guest Orygun Posted November 25, 2013 Does anyone know approximately how much in royalties the PGF generates each year? Did the Pattersons have kids or is there a trust or other organization that will benefit from those royalties after Mrs. Patterson is gone? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,982 Posted November 25, 2013 The PGF does not generate any royalties. A license fee is pid to show the PGF on TV programs, and still images are licensed for specific uses. No one who holds licensing rights receives any steady income. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmaker 1,443 Posted November 25, 2013 Ok, so not royalties, but revenue is generated. Who does the licensing fee go to? And does anyone know how much it is? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch 845 Posted November 25, 2013 It's always been my understanding that Patricia Patterson's contractual agreement guarantees $10,000 for media showing of the PGF, while I believe Rene Dahinden's rights to the stills of the film have been transferred to his sons since Rene's death. I'm sure Mrs. Patterson's lawyers will have arranged for the transfer of ownership to the Pattersons' (at least two that I know of) children upon time of her passing. This is an excellent topic for a thread, btw. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Backdoc 684 Posted November 26, 2013 I thought I had heard this issue came up with the show 'Alien Autopsy' a few years ago. There was some reason why it could be shown and not pay any money to the people who came forward with it. I don't know if it had to do with the fact they had to prove it was a film of a real Alien Creature or it had to do with some issue of the film origins reported to be a government worker who took the film. Thus, it did not belong to anyone if a government employee took it. It was some issue like that. I thought I heard it was one of the two or both. Any Legal minds out there to help us out on this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Orygun Posted November 26, 2013 Anyone want to confirm or deny the $10k price tag? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thermalman Posted November 26, 2013 I'll go with Bill's comments. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch 845 Posted November 26, 2013 Loren Coleman, in an interview with Rick Noll, said the following: "The Dahindens and Mrs. Patterson require permissions and payments for their images and moving images. I know because $300 was paid in 1999 for the use of the colored Frame 352 (one that lots of people use incorrectly as “public domain†in books) for my field guide. I’ve been interviewed by many documentary production companies that talk about the standard fee for the moving footage being $6000." http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/origins-mk-footage/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SweatyYeti 2,117 Posted November 26, 2013 (edited) To put the PGF's royalties/fees into perspective....this here very fine replication attempt doesn't command any fees for it's showing...quite the opposite, it's been pulled from the airwaves... ... Edited November 26, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC Rule 1 A Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Stan Norton Posted November 26, 2013 Sweaty you have it. Why bother with the PGF and fees when we have such an accurate replica? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SweatyYeti 2,117 Posted November 27, 2013 (edited) ^ Thanks, Stan... Yeah, who knows why anyone would pay a large fee for use of the PGF, when 'Bob-in-a-really-baggy-pajama-like-joke-of-a-suit' is available, for practically peanuts?!....(and maybe less)... Actually, just the fact that people will pay a fee for usage of this Film is a testament to something it has, that other videos/films don't have.....'realism'. Edited November 27, 2013 by SweatyYeti Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch 845 Posted November 27, 2013 I hate to derail this thread by trying to keep it on topic but: I have a question for any lawyers/paralegals on this board. Do intellecutal property and copyright laws, along with the aforementioned licensing fees, apply to the many animated gifs that have been made and posted on this forum and elsewhere online? In other words, if a person has manipulated either stills or animated parts of the PGF and posted them in a public format (without Patterson or Dahindens' consent), is that person in violation of the licensing terms of the film itself? Additionally, I read recently that Patricia Patterson gave her blessings for the PGF to be looped and shown continuously at a bigfoot conference. Does anyone know if this 'blessing' came with a price tag or has she been known to 'donate' the film free of charge at her own discrepancy? I will try to find where I read this and which conference it applied to. If anyone his any relevant information please share. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmaker 1,443 Posted November 27, 2013 ^ Thanks, Stan... Yeah, who knows why anyone would pay a large fee for use of the PGF, when 'Bob-in-a-really-baggy-pajama-like-joke-of-a-suit' is available, for practically peanuts?!....(and maybe less)... Actually, just the fact that people will pay a fee for usage of this Film is a testament to something it has, that other videos/films don't have.....'realism'. People also pay large fees for nonsense like a psychic reading. The price of something does little to guarantee value. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SweatyYeti 2,117 Posted November 27, 2013 ^ The relative price of something does have meaning, though. it's just one more aspect in which Patty 'stands apart' from the rest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Backdoc 684 Posted November 27, 2013 Assume Patty is real for a minute. It has to be one of the most important films in science. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
