Ron Howard's Beatles Documentary Feature Film About The Band's Touring Years, "Eight Days a Week"*

And it sounds like the same (modern) voice too for those questions.

 

No... I don't think it is your imagination.

 

But it's not Whoopi's voice. Maybe Dr. Kitty's though. I hear she has a very low voice....

 

Yes, like the Nagra recorders during Let It Be. I was trying to keep it simple.

 

Pretty sure someone has stated above that Shea was recorded to stereo

 

The first one seems to be - probably inaudible on any source - the last one has an edit to add something to the question by the original interviewer.

 

Definitely a dub, the question has even been reworded.

Actually said was: "A psychiatrist recently said you're nothing but a bunch of British Elvis Presleys"

 

Two sets of stereo according to Ron Furmanek. He did some work on those tapes. But it appears this work might have been discarded. Has any stereo version ever been released/leaked?

 

When does a documentary stop being a documentary? ;-)

 

I think they've done that before. Anthology, maybe? Compleat? Maybe the questions were inaudible?

EDIT: May be a right's issue. You can use someone else's voice for news purposes, but not for commercial purposes without a release.

 

Or rather:
When does a documentary START being a documentary? Because so far, we've had colorized footage, overdubbed voices, futzed-with music audio, and interviews with people who have no reason for being in the film at all and who weren't in the Beatles world during 1962-1966.

 

All in all that sounds exactly like what I would expect from a documentary, particularly one about the Beatles. What it is not is an anthology compiling old footage in raw form.

 

I just had to look up "Documentary" in the dictionary (American Heritage edition) to see exactly what it means:

"A movie or a television or radio program that provides a factual record or report."

"The presentation of facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter."

 

Ugh, Eddie Izzard!?

 

Not sure if this applies: But being more than 50 years old (which that clip is since it from 1964), wouldn't all the audio from the press conference fall into public domain anyhow?

 

I equate Ron Howard with the epitome of safety and mainstream American vanilla. Thus far, prejudices confirmed. Still, I'm sure there will enough in the film to enjoy.

 

When Nigel Tufnel is interviewed? (Actually, I'd rather hear from Nigel than Whoopi.)

 

Your positive outlook is entirely out of keeping with the tenor of this thread.

Get with it! Whine and whine some more about a film you haven't seen, or get out!

 

You may be thinking of the EU copyright law as it applies to unpublished material, which would not apply to this often broadcast and published US press conference. Either way, I don't think copyright law has to do with someone's right to control their own likeness and image. Apple may have waivers from some of the reporters (or their estates) but not from others, or even not know who some of them were, which would be why some original audio is used but some questions are always overdubbed.

I've noticed that press conference questions are frequently overdubbed.

I'm not an expert, but I'm interested in this kind of thing and my limited knowledge kind of jibes with what's here:
Legal guide to video releases & the use and publication of Audio and Video Recordings | New Media Rights »

 

WogBlog: Beatlemania for Boys! »
A good read! And actually emotional.

 

I'm no expert either, but, for example, did all the lawyers who appeared in "Making a Murderer" or "OJ: Made in America" sign off on the inclusion of archival footage which makes them appear unprofessional or inept? For that matter, did OJ Simpson have to sign off? Has Mr. "What kind of police protection?" from 1964 been signing waivers for the past 52 years?

 

That'll be me Thursday evening! I may also wet myself and scream, but I do that most days anyway.

 

Nobody has ever made one of those. Just by selecting what archival material to use and how to juxtapose it a director is editorializing and choosing what to present as factual.

 

Lawyers will do something akin to a fair use analysis on each film and decide how risky not getting permission for each protected element is. The closer something is to hard news, the less the risk of not getting permission.

But I suspect redubbing voices was more done to make the film sound better than for legal reasons.

 

I do not know, obviously. The law is this:

"You need a release waiver when you are using another person's name, voice, signature, photograph (if readily identifiable), or likeness for exploitative purposes. Even if you have consent to initially record the person, you still need further consent to use or publish those recordings for exploitative purposes. A release waiver provides consent for how you intend to use the recordings. "

I would assume the rights holder would get as broad a waiver as they could so they could use the footage they shot/own for as broad a purpose as the individual granting the waiver would allow.