Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: copyright date of tv shows on dvd

This is topic copyright date of tv shows on dvd in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000594

Posted by Dave Ganoe (Member # 53) on 08-21-2007, 06:47 PM:

Anyone else notice that the copyright date on the dvds from sony of 60's tv shows is always 1966 no matter what season of a show it is?

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 08-21-2007, 09:22 PM:

Are you referring to Bewitched? All the syndication color prints that we ran in 16mm on TV had c 1966 for all the Dick York episodes.

We didnt run the B/W's. I always disliked that.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 08-22-2007, 01:22 AM:

I read, in a book about the Library of Congress, that TV shows used to not be copyrighted until the show went into syndication. This was before VCRs, and apparently no one thought to swipe and copy tv show prints from the networks...

Posted by Dave Ganoe (Member # 53) on 08-24-2007, 01:48 AM:

Not just Bewitched, but I dream of Jeannie, Flying Nun and any other show from screen gems that I have seen so far. Would this make the copyright invalid?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-24-2007, 10:16 AM:

No, I don't think so. From what I've read, copyright does not have to be announced to be valid. If I write a book, I own the copyright on it whether I put "Copyright 2007 by Mike" on it, or not....but it does make it more official-looking (and therefore less likely to be abused) if an announcement is put on the work.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-24-2007, 11:45 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
From what I've read, copyright does not have to be announced to be valid.

That's how it works in the UK; I don't know about over there.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-26-2007, 06:46 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
No, I don't think so. From what I've read, copyright does not have to be announced to be valid. If I write a book, I own the copyright on it whether I put "Copyright 2007 by Mike" on it, or not....but it does make it more official-looking (and therefore less likely to be abused) if an announcement is put on the work.

Unless they have changed it recently, that is not true. In the application for copyright status, it clearly states that the copyright must be affixed to the work on the first copy sold, and it MUST be put into commerce; i.e., you can't copyright your manuscript and keep it as a copyrighted personal work, never putting on sale publicly.

Likewise the copyright posting must follow the stated format. It must either say Copyrighted followed by the year or it must display the copyright (C) symbol followed by the year and then the name of the copyright holder. I think the "All rights reserved." is optional. You also have to pay the copyright filing fee. Miss any of those elements or worse, not display the copyright insignia at all and you permanently loose copyright protection....which always sounded unduly officious to me, but back then, the onus was on the copyright applicant to do it right as he was being afforded the suspension of capitalist principals (he was asking the government to give him government-sanctioned monopolistic protection), which was not a right (ironically) but a privilege and it carried some pretty heavy responsibilities. Screw it up, and you lost that privilege.

Same with renewals -- you miss the renewal deadline to file and you've got yourself a work that is moves into Public Domain. Lots of films wound up in PD for this reason -- if you don't have a really good filing system, you can easily loose track of that 24 year old appointment to renew your copyright.

Now there have been some variants granted, such as news and sprots programs -- they still must display the copyright insignia, but they can file after before the fact, given that the news goes on the air live as it happens, so it is impossible to file a copyright application before it airs. I believe they can pre-file for the entire year before the work is actually "published." But as far as I know, the insignia is still a strict requirement.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-26-2007, 07:19 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Unless they have changed it recently, that is not true. In the application for copyright status, it clearly states that the copyright must be affixed to the work on the first copy sold, and it MUST be put into commerce; i.e., you can't copyright your manuscript and keep it as a copyrighted personal work, never putting on sale publicly.

That is not true.

At the very instant you create a new piece of artwork, be it visual art, a manuscript, a musical recording, etc., US Copyright law states that a copyright is created and you own it. You do not have to put the work up for sale at all either to be justified in copyrighting the creation.

The formalities of legally covering one's ass to protect that copyright are where things like registration become involved. One of the biggest reasons why most screenwriters join the Writers Guild of America is for the benefit of registering their copyrighted scripts with the WGA. That stands up better in court than just going it alone and filing something with the US Copyright office.

As to identifying copyright, that varies from one medium to the next. It's not always required to use a "©" symbol and date. For visual art, you don't even have to stick your name or anything else on the piece as long as there's some way to prove the work is your creation and that you created it at a certain date.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-26-2007, 11:14 PM:

Well Bobby, I defer to you as obviously you are closer to this than I am, but I have written some and published a number of pieces, all during the 70s and 80s copyrighted some of them, and there is no question that at least back then, the application (and the reams of instructions and rules) clearly stated the conditions for copyright as I mentioned above.

Given how the corporations have continually pressed to make copyright laws written to their benefit, I am not surprised that a lot of that restrictive stuff has gone out the window.

I believe it was CBS that went court to stop some University from making an archive copy of the Evening News with Walter Cronkite. The University lost. Perhaps that precident was the beginning of the "instant copyright" concept and became part of the law.

Just seems strange that you don't have to file to copyright with the US Copyright Office in order to get a copyright. But then again, at one time it was sacrosanct that once a work lapsed into Public Domain, it was the a public work and could henceforth never be re-copyrighted. And we know how that wound up. [Mad]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-26-2007, 11:48 PM:

The problem with creative people trying to defend their copyrights against plagiarism and other sorts of abuses is money. The courts are largely influenced by money. Sure, big media companies lobby certain politicians to water down copyright laws for their benefit. But they really don't even have to bother since our civil court system is morally polluted.

Lots of companies, both big and small often fuck over artists, writers and musicians because they know full well most don't have a legal "war chest" of money. It costs a fortune to wage any sort of legal battle, especially one waged against a wrong-doing large company. The big company just files all sorts of motions and delays and other bullshit until the legal copyright owner is either bled dry of cash or gives up or both. It doesn't matter how "right" you are. It doesn't matter if you have a contract written in blood and notarized by the Pope. Any judge will grant those stupid, costly delays and appeals instead of doing his damned job.

Back in the late 1980s my father had to sue Stein & Day Publishers for non-payment of royalties on his first book Marine Sniper: 93 Confirmed Kills. He was very lucky to have a friend who was a former US Attorney, and that friend agreed to take the case for a percentage on the book's earnings after the case was won. My father not only won, but regained full ownership of his copyright on that book and the case put Stein & Day out of business.

A larger group like the Writer's Guild has more clout to fight legal battles. Still, lots of well established writers just move on to the next project rather than filing law suits. The risk is high of burning bridges to other opportunities. It may not be fair, but the "good ol' boys" network" is alive and well in just about all creative industries.