Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[randall_d]

I'm part of a college film club that would like to show some public domain films.

When a film is in the public domain, is the fact that is doesn't have a copyright just common knowledge, or is there some sort of documentation?

Specifically, I'm thiking of Night of the Living Dead, a film that is only in the public domain due to a screw up where the copyright notice wasn't on the film's actual print.

I do know that numerous compaines have released their own version if Night, and nothing has happened to them, but is there any concrete way to show that Night (or any other film) is public domain?

[nobody]

There are (or used to be) lists of such films on the Web. Try Google. The only way to be perfectly safe is to search the Copyright Office index or have someone search it. (unfortunately it's not online) That would be for pre 1923 [U.S.] works, and works published but not renewed. Under the 1909 copyright act, notice was required as you imply, but be careful in interpreting that. A work that was published without notice can create a murky area -- for example you could be sued anyway if the owner disagrees that it was a general publication -- or involves other issues. Not advice.

[randy]

You can't have a concrete way to tell a movie is in the public domain - that is proving a negative.

Here's a general summary of the rules
http://www.openflix.com/information/US-copyright.php

[nobody]

Quoting an excerpt from your link: "there is another exception for foreign published films between 1909 and 1923 that were first published without a copyright notice"

A consequence of the twisted minds from the nutty, frequently overturned ninth circuit. (Which doesn't apply to me.) This requires some explanation:

11 The differing dates is a product of the question of controversial Twin Books v. Walt Disney Co. decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1966.  The question at issue is the copyright status of a work only published in a foreign language outside of the United States and without a copyright notice.   It had long been assumed that failure to comply with US formalities placed these works in the public domain in the US and, as such, were subject to copyright restoration under URAA (see note 9).  The court in Twin Books, however, concluded "publication without a copyright notice in a foreign country did not put the work in the public domain in the United States."  According to the court, these foreign publications were in effect "unpublished" in the US, and hence have the same copyright term as unpublished works.  The decision has been harshly criticized in Nimmer on Copyright, the leading treatise on copyright, as being incompatible with previous decisions and the intent of Congress when it restored foreign copyrights.  The Copyright Office as well ignores the Twin Books decision in its circular on restored copyrights.  Nevertheless, the decision is currently applicable in all of the 9th Judicial Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands), and it may apply in the rest of the country.

© 2004 Peter B. Hirtle. Use of this chart is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License.  In addition, permission is granted for non-profit educational use, including but not limited to reserves and coursepacks made by for-profit copyshops.  Any reproduction or modification of this chart should include the citation to the first appearance of the chart in Archival Outlook and acknowledge Laura N. Gasaway's chart, which is this chart's inspiration. - http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm#Footnote_11

[nobody]

"You can't have a concrete way to tell a movie is in the public domain"

If it bears a copyright notice dated before 1923, and it was published with permission, it IS PD in the US.

[randy]

"You can't have a concrete way to tell a movie is in the public domain"

If it bears a copyright notice dated before 1923, and it was published with permission, it IS PD in the US.

That's not really true because older movies often have changes made such as re-editing, colorization, tinting, new music, etc. These derivitives may well be copyright protected.

So, beside the fact that I do not think the original poster was inquiring about such movies, you have to be able to prove unchanged provence back to 1923 to be concrete.

Technically, two other classes of public domain works are also counter to my overly-categorical statement:

1) US government films
2) Films explicitly dedicated to the public domain

I do not think the original poster was inquiring about these either, though.

[nobody]

"That's not really true because older movies often have changes made such as re-editing, colorization, tinting, new music, etc. These derivitives may well be copyright protected."

True. But that does not affect the PD status of the original edition. (or even the new version minus the new content -- such as a new soundtrack) If what you have in your hand is a new version, it would probably say so. (and look newer too.)

Btw, the Copyright Office position is that "substantial" new authorship must be added to a PD work in order to qualify for a new registration. However, courts define "substantial" differently than common sense might imply.

"1) US government films"

Name some, I'm just curious if you have any examples. (Commissioned or acquired works are not technically public domain.)

"2) Films explicitly dedicated to the public domain"

Like what? (no GPL's please)

"I do not think the original poster was inquiring about these either, though."

Probably not. They were probably referring to films published without notice and never registered -- or not renewed -- under previous copyright law. These would be evaluated on a case by case basis asking questions like "was it a general publication" as defined by law.

[randy]

"1) US government films"

Name some, I'm just curious if you have any examples. (Commissioned or acquired works are not technically public domain.)

I'm not a lawyer, just going off of page 7/16 in THE PUBLIC DOMAIN by Stephen Fishman, which seems to say us govt commissioned works are in the public domain unless copyright expressly granted:

Films created for the government by non-employees are also in the public domain unless the government allowed the non-employee to claim copyright in the film

.

As far as examples, are you serious? There's loads of stuff the govt does on the presidents, a gazillion war documentaries form WWII, Vietnam, and others, training films etc.  Probably not what you are looking for for movie night, but many have top-notch hollywood talent.

[randy]

"That's not really true because older movies often have changes made such as re-editing, colorization, tinting, new music, etc. These derivitives may well be copyright protected.

So, beside the fact that I do not think the original poster was inquiring about such movies, you have to be able to prove unchanged provence back to 1923 to be concrete."

True. But that does not affect the PD status of the original edition. (or even the new version minus the new content -- such as a new soundtrack) If what you have in your hand is a new version, it would probably say so. (and look newer too.)

Sorry, I misspelled the word provenance. You probably would not have responded as you did if you knew what I was talking about.

[nobody]

"THE PUBLIC DOMAIN by Stephen Fishman, which seems to say us govt commissioned works are in the public domain unless copyright expressly granted:"

Could be. I would assume it's like any other work for hire contract. Depends what it says.

[nobody]

Regarding "publication without notice," you might find this case very interesting. A particular poem is PD in the 7th circuit...

Bell v. Combined Registry Co., 397 F. Supp. 1241 (N.D. Ill. 1975) and Bell v. Combined Registry Co., 536 F.2d 164 (7th Cir. 5/14/1976)

but copyright upheld in the 6th circuit...

Robert L. Bell v. Pro Arts, Inc. et al, U.S. Court of Appeals No. 74-1232 (6th Cir. 1975)

and ambiguous everywhere else...

cert. denied 429 U.S. 1001, 97 S.Ct. 530, 50 L.Ed.2d. 612 (December 6, 1976)

See:

http://www.fleurdelis.com/desidera.htm
http://www.fleurdelis.com/combinedregistry.htm
http://puebloadvocacy.com/desiderata/domain.htm

Not related to the Combined Registry case, but also, read:
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/publicdomain/Vanpelt-s99.html
...which has some interesting cites within. (the article researches "publication without notice" -- not Copyright Extension, even though the title implies that.)

[M. Arthur Auslander]

Dear Randall_d,

I have posed to myself, and not researched the answer, "..how does the copyright law apply to publication of Civil War images of Matthew (one "t" or two?) Brady mages?

My gut says copyright applies to the source of the images and that copying from a copyrighted source of public domain images is infrigement.

So 1923 is the cut off, where did the image come from?

[nobody]

Your gut might be lying to you.

[M_Arthur_Auslander]

Dear Nobody,

When a client asks, I go to the books. I'm not going to the books on this one.

[Steve Kassell]

Some time ago International Historic Films discontinued most of It's line of 30s-40s German films. Does anybody know if this was a copyright issue with the Murnau foundation, which owns these films?