quote: Christian Appelt

---

Are they afraid that audiences might say: "Hey, this LADY AND THE TRAMP movie is fifty years old, let's buy a new movie?" - "Yeah, but not SNOW WHITE, it's 68 years old!"

Seems ridiculous to me.

---

quote:

---

Yesterday I bought 20.000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA - it carries a 2004 copyright designation. Only in Special Features the 1955 release date is mentioned.

Are they afraid that audiences might say: "Hey, this LADY AND THE TRAMP movie is fifty years old, let's buy a new movie?" - "Yeah, but not SNOW WHITE, it's 68 years old!"

---

No, Christian, you have to think with a much more sinister mind. You are giving them way to much credit. What they are REALLY doing here is what they have lobbied Congress for decades. They want to totally eliminate the copyright time limitation.

Originally the copyright law was designed to gave governmental monopolistic protection to artists' works for a very specific, very limited time frame. Why? because our capitalistic system abhors monopoly, or at least it used to. Copyright protection only lasted for 24 years. It was renewable again, only for another 24 years. After that, the work belonged to the public, i.e., it moved into the famed Public Domain status. And amazingly, a reading of the original law shows that the intent of the authors WASN'T to give protection the author (although that was the secondary effect), but it was a way that Congress devised to insure that the PUBLIC would have access to works that educate, entertain and edify. The idea being, if you give the author monopolistic protection for a limited time, they could reap more profit from actually creating artistic works, thus encouraging them to create more for public good. The idea being that an artist could actually write or draw or compose more if he didn't need to wait tables or drive a horse and buggy taxi, etc. Central to that idea, however, was that the protection ended after a specified period of time. The other central point of the law was to ensure that after that period and the work went into Public Domain, that PD status was sacrosanct. Once the copyright protection expired, it belonged to the public and couldn't be reversed.

Well, that was then, this is now. The original thrust of the law which focused on the public good has long been forgotten; it is no longer the poor struggling artist who holds copyrights but the huge, powerful multinational entertainment conglomerates. And these corporations, once they saw their copyrights about to expire, plied Congress (you know, those guys who are there to protect our interests....the public's interest), plied them with wine women and song, and probably in a few cases, wine, pretty boys and song, and got the law changed again and again to make sure that the time limit was, for all practical purposes, totally castrated.

First they got the limit extended to 75 years, then when they saw that that wasn't enough, so they got this unchallenged nonsense: "the life of the artist plus 50 years" (what exactly is the life of Disney Entertainment. Inc or 20th Century Fox?) and they get and extra 50 years MORE to boot! It's a joke. But, because this has been the goal of every studio from the first time they realized that the Public might actually get rights to expired copyright works, even the life of the artist plus fifty years isn't enough for them. What they really want is the government to give them monopolistic protection FOREVER, along with using the FBI to be their personal policemen. Thus, you see them doing stuff like this -- taking a work that was copyrighted at a given date, and summarily saying that the copyright has started all over again. It's bullshit and it should be legally challenged.

What they are doing by claiming 2004 as the copyright date is blatantly trying to circumvent the legal limitation of the copyright protection. This is an affront to Public Domain, which has already taken a hit with the again unchallenged claim that the once inviolate Public Domain status for IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE is revoked.

No place in the current law is there any provision for recopyrighting a work in order to thwart the copyright time limitation, just because it is issued in a different medium. And they probably will get away with it. As a Disney executive once said at one of those wine and brie parties they are so fond of, when asked what was going to happen now that the FANTASIA copyright was only a year away from expiration, he chuckled and said, "You really don't think this company will ever allow FANTASIA to go Public Domain, do you?" The arrogance of these people is astounding. To them, the original limitations of copyright seems to just be a quaint relic and something for them to manipulate, the public be damned.

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." So this "all American" company is willing to, in effect, publically renounce it's American corporate citizenship just so it can get some additional benefit that the British copyright law provides. How's THAT for being a corporate Benedict Arnold?!!
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-28-2005, 09:03 AM:
 
I'm looking forword to this one!! I wish the African American Community would put all the political correctness garbage behind them and become plain ole Americans like the rest of us.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 08-28-2005, 09:16 AM:
 
And if we could only get CBS to release Amos N' Andy. The crap on the market are mostly dupes of 16mm TV prints.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 08-28-2005, 03:32 PM:
 
I got the Japanese laserdisc of Song Of The South a couple weeks ago and watched it right away just to see what was so bad about this movie. I didn't see anything that would cause a huge outcry amongst the PC crowd- there's been tons of other movies with much worse racial stereotypes than this one. The characters in this movie don't even appear to be slaves, and seem to be treated with respect by the 'white' people. (If they are slaves, it's certainly not stated up-front.) The white and black kids even hang out together and not once is the issue of race brought up! This isn't even a fraction as un-PC as some of the older Mickey Mouse cartoons that have shown up on the Disney Treasures discs, and I haven't heard of any complaints about those.

I have to wonder if those who are against releasing this movie have actually seen it. If anything, they're just building up interest for those who have to check out anything that's controversial. Anyone expecting to see something blatantly racist is going to be very disappointed. Also why didn't Disney have any problem releasing this in Japan, but not in the US?
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 08-29-2005, 01:16 AM:
 
Mark I'm sure it's not just the African American community that's up in arms about this movie, I'm sure a lot of it is from the white, middle aged PC crowd who are afraid of offending anyone in the least bit.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-29-2005, 02:50 AM:
 

quote:

---

One thing that seems funny to me is that BVHE omits the original production year.

---

quote: Jesse Skeen

---

I have to wonder if those who are against releasing this movie have actually seen it.

---

quote:

---

quote:
-----------------------------------------------------
One thing that seems funny to me is that BVHE omits the original production year.
-----------------------------------------------------
On the packaging...

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

Copyright protection only lasted for 24 years. It was renewable again, only for another 24 years.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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

---

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 ]
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-30-2005, 07:00 PM:
 
"Sony Bono"(?) Appropriate for any discussion of taping! Louis
 

---

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 10-15-2005, 09:17 PM:
 
Amos and Andy broadcast was used in "The Untouchables".
 

---

Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 10-15-2005, 09:32 PM:
 
Will'

Oh man please don’t say ”The Untouchables” I couldn’t get the DVD to play with out continuous flutter, and tried 3x fucking DVD, sorry about that….

So Disney’s “Song of the South” is THX still being applied to there DVD’s as there seems to no more THX certification on the DVD’s over hear now, strange?
 

---

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 10-16-2005, 06:36 PM:
 
In reference to the star-trek side-track...

In the 1970's I was asst. Film Director at a small TV station. All of the first season S.T.'s had a spliced-on Desilu logo at the end that had 'Copyright 1978, etc etc.' Until then, I'd never noticed they were missing the copyright info.

They (Paramount TV) just called us one day and told me to start adding the Desilu logo that the distributor would be sending out the same day.

Thats how they got on our prints.

Song Of The South was a totally innocent film, and is well made. I never thought Disney had anything to be ashamed of.

I'll get it when it comes out.

Maybe they will restore the Hatfield / McCoy sequence back to "Make Mine Music," one of their other underrated gems.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 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."

---