|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Song of the South - 2006 DVD release
|
Tao Yue
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 209
From: Princeton, NJ
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-30-2005 12:49 AM
Frank, that sounds awfully like an urban legend. Even if there were a shred of truth in it, the Star Trek theme is copyrighted separately so you wouldn't be able to run the picture with the music.
Furthermore, the copyright law is (and was) not specific about where the copyright notice must go. Copyright Office regulations are more specific, but clearly state that the packaging is a location where the notice "may be affixed, in addition to" (emphasis mine) the regular locations for films: leader, titles, credits, immediately before or after the film. Notice it does not say "must." This is nothing new, it's been true for decades.
See: http://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201.20.pdf to read the regulations yourself.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-30-2005 05:45 AM
Yes, Teo, you are right, the law is not specific as to where it is to be placed, but placed it must be when the work is first published (in the case of a motion picture, first shown commerically with a paying audience), and it has to appear with the correct three elements -- the copyright insignia, i.e., the familiar circled (c), the date, and the copyright holder's name. Mostly they add "All rights reserved," but I am not sure that is necessary....it probably just makes them feel good because it sounds so officious.
You might very well be right, it might be an urban legend, and since I have never heard it from anyone who I could claim was in one of the "inner circles" where that kind of thing would be know for a certainty, all I will say is that it is possible. After all, plenty of copyrights expired on films because of carelessness.
As for the music being copyrighted, well that's a recent ploy they have tried to used to stop a work from going PD. Just because a studio CLAIMS they still hold control over a film by virtue of the fact that there is some piece of copyrighted music on the soundtrack, doen't mean they do. What they bank on is that very few are going to put up the huge amounts of money it would take to go to court and challenge such a contention.
I believe they pulled this with IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE by claiming the screenplay was copyrighted. I am no lawyer and I won't even pretend to understand how it all works, but I was told that what should be argued against the separation out of elements in a motion picture to thwart the law, is that even though the music (or screenplay or whatever) has been separately copyrighted, those elements are bought by the producer when the film is being made. They are sold to the films producers to be used unencumbered in that work. If that weren't case and they were actually separate works, then the theatre owner would have to pay a separate royalty to the composer, to the screenplay authors, etc, because he is exhibiting the music, and the story, and the actor's likenesses and whatever else is copyrighted that happends to wind up on the screen or the soundtrack. The sub-elements are all paid for and become part and parcel of the larger work, regarless of their copyright status. If then, the film, for whatever reason, goes into Public Domain, as long as the elemental copyrighted works within are presented as part of that now Public Domain work, the music composer, the screenplay author, etc., cannot again claim additional compensation or control because they have already been paid for the use of their works and have relinquished control of them relative to their use in the context of that particular motion picture. They don't get to claim to be paid twice for the same stuff.
That's what a good lawyer would or should argue if a they had the money to challenge a studio that would make such a claim. Would the challenger win? An old flame of mine who is now a corporate copyright lawyer told me that copyright law is ellusive. She said, just when you think you understand it down to the letter of the law, some judge will rule 180 degrees of what seemed like an open and shut case. So it is very hard to tell IF someone were to challenge the IAWL contention, who would win.
And yes, Paul, of course it was 28 + 28 years max.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-30-2005 07:40 AM
There is one classic example of the kind of copyright screw up that Frank is talking about, it involves the original Night of the Living Dead, which was allowed to fall into the public domain thru the carelessness of the original producers.
What happened was that the film was originally produced under an alternate title, “Night of the Ghouls”. The title card that was originally photographed and superimposed carried a copyright date, along with the name of the production company (‘Image Ten Productions’). When the film was finished, George Romero and company started shopping it to various studios and distribution companies, hoping for a pick-up deal. Eventually, the Walter Reade organization bit. They wanted a title that was a little less lurid, though, so they bade Romero to change it to “Living Dead”. So he went back and shot a new title card, but carelessly left off the copyright information, so that there was none to be found anywhere on the film. The rest is history, and that’s why if you browse the horror racks of Suncoast Video or Best Buy you’ll likely find many different copies of the movie, all from different companies. During the VHS days, I remember seeing this picture in at least ten or twelve different incarnations, because anyone who had access to a print, no matter how beat-up, could legally put it out.
As far as It’s a Wonderful Life goes, I remember hearing that the successors to the original Republic Studio were able to make an argument that the soundtrack music was somehow still under copyright, and that’s how they got control of it back.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-30-2005 11:50 AM
Again, Mark, what it would really take is a good team of copyright lawyers and a company that sees a potential profit that would offset whatever court costs it would take to contest that claim.
But who would challenge it? Say you are a production company and want to package a DVD release -- (forget about exhibitors; they barely make the house nut on retrospective stuff), the problem is, even if you think you could make enough profit should the work be ruled PD, if you LOOSE in court, all that money you would have to spend fighting would be forever lost. So it's no wonder there are very few court challenges. My friend says that most copyright battles are between smaller companies and usually the lawyers get settlements before it ever reaches federal court. Hardly anyone ever is willing to challenge the likes of 20th Cen Fox or, god forbid, Disney. Not if you value your cahonees.
The Victory Theatre -- one of the Brandt chain of grindhouses on Forty Douche Street as we used to call it -- booked NIGHT OF THE GHOULS as the "C" picture on a triple bill (for $1.25 matinee) --movie-lover's heaven. The theatre was practically empty, which is the way I liked it, and me and a few others had no idea what we were in for. I sat there with my mouth opened...I had never seen anything so graphically disgusting. Ever. What a gas!! It was all I could talk about for weeks, but no one had ever heard of it. What was this film? Where did it come from? There was no printed information anyplace in magazines, newspaper reviews, Billboard or Independent Film Journal, etc. I called up the theatre manager who knew less than nothing and then the chain headquarters, all they knew was it cost them $50 FLAT!! Little did I know what a phenomenon it would later become. Years later, when I got to be booking films, it had already go PD and it was impossible to get a good print. There were at least three little fly by night guys who were renting it, but every one of them had beat up prints.
I sure wish I owned one of them.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jeffry L. Johnson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 809
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 08-30-2005 03:49 PM
Charade (1963) is the classic "forgot the copyright notice" example.
Wikipedia -- Charade quote:
Copyright status
According to the Archive.org website and other sources, due to an irregularity involving the lack of a copyright notice on this film, it is now in the public domain. No claim of copyright was put into the original prints, despite that copyright notices were mandatory in the US prior to 1989. This was not a major issue until the introduction of VCR equipment meant that companies could produce retail copies with no need to pay any licence fees.
Or, maybe not.
The Fight for the Right to Copy
quote:
Sunday, May 19, 2002
MOVIES
The Fight for the Right to Copy
If the Supreme Court reverses a copyright extension act, there could be significant implications for movies
By RICHARD NATALE
In 1998, Congress passed the Sony Bono Act (sponsored by the
late congressman), extending the copyright on everything from movies to literary and musical works from 75 to 95 years. The sweeping measure guaranteed, for another generation, that the creators and owners of 20th century works and their heirs would have exclusive control over their presentation and use.
The Supreme Court, however, recently decided to review the
extension, questioning how long the original artists and their
estates should artistically control and financially benefit from a work. The court review, the result of a challenge filed by an
Internet archivist, raises several questions about the fate of all kinds of creative properties, motion pictures in particular.
If the court strikes down the extension, F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel "The Great Gatsby" and Walt Disney's original Mickey Mouse renderings would soon enter the public domain and copies could be freely disseminated in book and video stores, and over the Internet. Almost all American-made films from the silent and early sound era and musical works from the same period would be accessible to anyone for any use.
In the case of movies, the original negatives--which usually
provide the highest quality source for reproduction--would still
reside with studios and independent companies that previously held the copyright. Ostensibly, this would provide enough incentive for studios to preserve the movies, but the opposite has more often been the case, if you believe those who side with Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Assn. of America, who has lobbied for the extension vigorously on behalf of the major studios. Even if multiple copies of a movie are available in the public domain, studio executives such as Amir Malin, chief executive of Artisan Entertainment, contend that "whoever owns the best materials will still be able to best exploit works that then fall into the public domain."
An example cited on both sides of the argument involves Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life." Opponents of copyright extension claim the movie would have continued to gather dust in a vault if the copyright hadn't expired. Because it fell into the public domain, numerous television stations began to broadcast the film. What was a commercial disappointment at the time of its release was transformed into a Christmas favorite.
Those who favor copyright extension contend that because the film was free for anyone to copy, numerous video companies were able to exploit the Capra classic, and the market was flooded with versions of varying quality, often extracted from old 35-millimeter and 16-millimeter prints. When Republic Pictures discovered a way to regain control of the property and renew the copyright (by tying up the rights to a piece of music used in the film), the company also gained a financial incentive to restore Capra's movie and distribute high-quality videocassette, DVD and television versions. "It's a Wonderful Life" was rediscovered by a new generation of critics and filmgoers and, according to Malin, sells in excess of 750,000 videos every year. Video sales were nowhere near that level when numerous poorer-quality versions were available in public domain.
"People who don't want extension to occur make a number of perfectly valid arguments concerning access to important intellectual works," says Roger Mayer, president of Turner Entertainment, which purchased the MGM library in the mid-1980s and is now part of AOL Time Warner. For example, despite the fact that MGM popularized "The Wizard of Oz" for several generations through its 1939 musical, if L. Frank Baum's original series of "Oz" books was not in the public domain, the costs of obtaining permission to produce more recent stage, film or TV versions might have been prohibitive.
However, says Mayer, "the perception is that if a movie falls into public domain, it's more likely to be preserved. Exactly the opposite is true."
Older film titles, most of which are in black-and-white, can
cost anywhere from $25,000 to $250,000 to restore and remaster. Then there are problems of maintaining, storing and marketing the film. Without deep pockets, the return on such an investment--particularly for less conspicuous titles--is just not there.
"As it is, archives and preservation foundations have limited funding," says Richard P. May, vice president of preservation at Warner Bros. "Imagine how much would be needed if all the films of the 1930s [Hollywood's so-called golden age] were to fall into public domain."
Due to oversights in copyright renewal, many films from that
period, such as the original 1937 version of "A Star is Born," are already out of copyright and lack the backing to be properly
restored. The burgeoning DVD market has given some of these films a new lease on life. Recently, specialty video company Navarre Corp. introduced the first group of about 40 planned titles on DVD, including "A Star Is Born," "Metropolis," "Nosferatu," "A Farewell to Arms" and "Little Shop of Horrors."
None of these titles is derived from negatives, says Joyce
Fleck, vice president of marketing at Navarre, but the company has tried to access the best available existing prints of these films. Sold in groups of three for $9.99, Fleck says any compromises in quality are more than offset by the bargain prices. Whether you agree depends on how much of a stickler you are for video and audio quality.
Over the years, other companies have released video versions of movies--foreign titles, for example--that were either temporarily in the public domain (the 1949 British film "The Third Man," Fellini's 1957 "Nights of Cabiria," the early Alfred Hitchcock films) or owned by companies that were lax in enforcing their copyright (some Ingmar Bergman movies). "Many of the people in the public domain business are pirates and take the chance that the copyright owner is looking the other way," says Steven Riforgiato, vice president of sales and marketing at Home Vision Entertainment/Criterion.
For a time, it was mistakenly thought that Universal's 1962
romance "Charade," starring Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn, was in the public domain, resulting in substandard video versions of the movie. "Universal had to go after them," Riforgiato says. Through an agreement with the studio, his company restored and remastered
"Charade" as well as other specialized titles from the studio's
library, including "The Last Temptation of Christ," "The Scarlet
Empress" (this one from the pre-1948 Paramount library, which
Universal owns), "Brazil" and "Spartacus."
HMV/Criterion prefers not to work with public domain titles
because they wouldn't have access to the original negative. The
company's quality restoration from original materials, however, comes at a price. Its video and DVD titles are usually more expensive than comparable studio releases, although they often include special materials. Riforgiato says his main audience is the film buff who places a premium on quality.
The mass market may not be as discriminating, Warner Bros.' May contends. A flood of older movie titles into the public domain could result in lucrative product, not only for discount video distributors, but independent television stations looking to fill programming schedules with cheap programming. Exposure to bad movie transfers could diminish, rather than enhance, the overall value of the work, he argues.
Opponents of the copyright extension counter that the studios have created a smoke screen, and that, particularly in the digital age, the tools are available for less expensive ways to restore and preserve movies. Continuing to extend the copyright hampers the rediscovery and exploitation of less commercial films and the works on which many are based. Some companies, such as Turner Entertainment, have refurbished all the materials in their libraries, according to Mayer. Others pay close attention only to their top commercial titles.
Malin says that of the 6,700 titles in the Artisan library--a collection of works from various companies mostly made in the last half of the 20th century--only about 600 or 700 are commercially viable.
Mayer says that even movies that don't appear to have much commercial potential are worth preserving. For instance, a few years ago, Disney purchased the rights to remake MGM's 1950 film "Father of the Bride." The redo, which starred Steve Martin, was so successful that it enhanced the value of the original on home video and television.
"There are valid arguments on both sides," says Lou Petrich, partner in the law firm of Leopold, Petrich & Smith who specializes in copyright issues. "The court doesn't like monopolies but has [in the past] agreed to limited monopolies as an incentive for authors to create new works."
The fear is that by upholding the 20-year extension to 95 years, the court would continue the monopoly on creative works and open the door to further lobbying at the end of that period for yet another congressional extension.
The argument goes beyond the Davids and Goliaths. Besides
protecting the interests of studios and major film companies, the
copyright law also ensures that underlying rights holders--authors, playwrights, composers and their heirs--benefit.
Studios don't always own underlying rights on intellectual
properties for indefinite periods. This applies to literary
adaptations and even musical compositions. "We may have a limited
right with an author lasting maybe 10 years," explains May. After
that, the studio has to negotiate to extend the agreement, as MGM did with the Irving Berlin estate on the 1950 film version of "Annie Get Your Gun." Depending on the contracts, if rights are not extended, the movies may have to be taken out of circulation.
"The whole purpose of the copyright was to encourage people to create artistic works by giving them significant exclusivity," May says. "And there are a lot of authors who, over the years, have not wanted their work to be translated into another medium. I'm not sure that's wrong."
Capping the copyright at 75 years (and 50 years after an
author's death), would open the door to a slew of novels, plays and musical compositions created in the '20s and '30s, denying the creators' heirs financial remuneration or artistic control over how the work is distributed or adapted.
The entertainment Goliaths would also be at odds with one
another. If vintage studio films were in the public domain--as well as the source materials (original screenplays, adaptations, novels, musical works)--competing companies would be able to refashion them into new works for stage, screen and television.
But how many generations of heirs should enjoy the fruits of an author's labors before everyone is allowed free access? If Charles Dickens' novels were still under copyright and his estate proscribed any film or theatrical versions of his work, wouldn't the public be poorer as a result?
More hunting.
alt.movies.silent posting: quote:
Elias Nov 1 1998, 4:00 am
[snip]
In the case of CHARADE, the movie could not be registered for copyright because the film did not contain the proper copyright notice when released.
Renewal today is moot because of automatic extension on any film published and/or between 1964 and 1977. ANything for 1978 and beyond is a straight 95 year term. Anything before that is properlt registered and extended is also 95 years.
Back to CHARADE and the underlying story and music:
The copyright for the original story THE UNSUSPECTING WIFE was included in the blanket copyright B912939 claimed by McCall Corp. for Volume 117, Number 3 (July 1961) or Redbook Magazine, published on June 22, 1961. The story was renewed, RE-454-442, by the author on December 20, 1989. A 190-page book entitled CHARADE was published in paperback by Fawcett Publications and registered for copyright A670568 by Peter Stone, citing December 2, 1963 as the date of publication. This copyright was not renewed. Hence the original story is still protected by copyruight.
The theme song and numerous other songs/cues were separately registered and renewed and is also still protected by copyright.
Selling the film as public domain is questionable in the same way IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE was considered p.d. for years until Republic realized the underlying story was still protected by copyright.
Use of clips that don't infringe the story and the music is another story, of course.
Elias Savada
Director, Motion Picture Information Service
Bethesda MD 20817
rec.arts.movies.tech posting:
quote:
Jeff Joseph Apr 3 2004, 10:55 pm
The prints were sent to theatres without a copyright notice. Universal called all the prints back in and spliced in new titles WITH the copyright notice.
There was a court case about this; the court ruled that this was not a valid copyright; the film IS public domain.
However, there ARE underlying story rights and music rights.
So lots of fly by night DVD companies still put it out.... but they probably shouldn't.
Jeff Joseph
SabuCat Productions
[ 08-30-2005, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: Jeffry L. Johnson ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 10-17-2005 01:48 AM
quote: Frank Angel
Even more outragious, look closely at the copyright insignia on some of the films Disney released a few years back and you'll see the statement, "For purposes of Copyright, the country of origin of this motion picture is the United Kingdom."
Well in that case the copyright isn't going to expire any time soon. Although our current copyright legislation defines the term as 70 years from the year of production or first release (whichever is later), the 2001 European Union Copyright Directive, which was implemented in UK law by an amendment to the 1988 act in 2003, provides for extensive 'performers' rights', the duration of which takes the start point as the death of the performer, not the year of production. With some subtle interpretation of the law, which I'm sure is what the big European media conglomerates who lobbied for the directive had in mind, the effective copyright duration of a typical film could easily extend to 130-150 years.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jeff Joseph
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 131
From: Palmdale, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 10-18-2005 12:29 PM
Regarding Star Trek: An entire season was broadcast on NBC without a copyright notice. Therefore, that season is PD, right? Well, no. Paramount sued various PD outfits playing with those shows, and won. The judge ruled that being broadcast on the NBC network did not constitute "publication" of the shows, therefore they were NOT published without notice.
Years ago, I met the guy who was sued by Paramount (and who lost this case). He had spent all his money defending himself and had no money left to appeal. So this case is now "law".
In the 1970s, Paramount put copyright notices on syndication prints of the show and "published" them. So the shows are indeed under copyright.
Does this decision make any sense? One can argue that if millions of folks saw the shows on NBC, they were "published". The court, however, ruled otherwise.
Jeff
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic