Print

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

[Toybankman]

Where can I find a list of films in the public domain?  If a film is public domain, can the poster art for the film also be reproduced without the possibility of a law suit?
Thanks
P.

[JSonnabend]

The fact that a film is in the public domain does not necessarily mean poster artwork for the film is in the public domain.  Jacquelyn's answer is therefore accurate except for the "yes" portion of it.

- Jeff

[RM]

For J Sonnabend ,  Can an institution show a movie rented from a retailer by the inmates or purchased by the inmates to the whole facility if nothing is charged? Would  it qualify under limitations of exclusive rights Being a government entity?

[jacquealp]

You can show the film in a state run institution as long as you are not charging an admission fee.  This is fair use.

[RM]

Are you speaking of any film or just those in the public domain. I was interested in films in general . I did not think a movie with no educational value would apply to Fair Use

[JSonnabend]

If the film is in the public domain, you can make the poster unless the poster features a person whom you do not have a release for or a next of kin release for if he or she is deceased.  

Great, but that doesn't answer the original question.

[clarklawyer]

I'm seeing a few strange things being put forth authoritatively
so I thought I'd chime in.  As Jeff suggests, the copyright on a film
and a film poster are independent.  At one time works went
into the public domain if they were published without a
copyright notice and a registration.  I'm sure it often happened
that posters and other movie art weren't worth the trouble to
register while not protecting the movie itself would be criminally
stupid.  Not only that, but back in the day, copyrights had
to be renewed.

I don't really agree with the theory that showing a movie to
inmates constitutes fair use.  I can come up with some possible
theories as to why doing so would not constitute copyright
infringement.  It's also not clear to me why it would be more
likely that showing an educational film to inmates would be
protected by fair use.

One possible theory that comes to mind is that state agencies
are extremely difficult to sue for copyright or patent infringement
unless the state agrees to allow itself to be sued.  They
would be protected from suit in federal court by the 11th
Amendment and state courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction
over most copyright infringement matters.

[jacquealp]

I agree with your later analysis Isaac.  Moreover, it is fair use because there is no commercial gain/loss in showing the rental/purchased video in a state run institution that is designed to instruct inmates (educational purposes).

As for  Jeff, my answer to Toybankman's public domain question does answer his question.  Isn't defamation re: someone's professional advice illegal in NY?

[clarklawyer]

Jeff- if someone created a derivative of a public domain film and has a copyright on the derivative when the original is in the public domain, I will be very surprised.

Toy- to err on the side of caution, make sure that no one has a cr on a poster realted to that film which may be similiar to your creation (i.e., features the same clip of the film).

For an example of a case finding a derivative work protectable
after the original work entered the public domain, see
Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123, (9th Cir. 1979).  The case
involved a film based on a play (Pygmalion) that had entered
the public domain.

Besides that, it follows logically from the defn. that a derivative work
could have a copyright beyond the pre-existing work.  Remember that
the copyright of a derivative work covers only the new creative
portions and is independent and does not extend the copyright on
the underlying work.

One of the copyright holder's exclusive rights is to control
public display of a motion picture.  Assuming that the copyright
holder of the movie had not licensed that right, it seems
to me that showing the movie to prison inmates would be an
infringing public display absent some exception.  I'm really curious about
the analysis that such a showing would be fair use.  I won't
commit to saying that it isn't, but I find the prospect
dubious.  Showing the film to family members and close friends
would not be infringement IMO, but the reason would be that
such a showing is not a public display.

[Jacquelyn Alpert]

For Isaac:

§ 110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances  

(1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made;

(2) except with respect to a work produced or marketed primarily for performance or display as part of mediated instructional activities transmitted via digital networks, or a performance or display that is given by means of a copy or phonorecord that is not lawfully made and acquired under this title, and the transmitting government body or accredited nonprofit educational institution knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made and acquired, the performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or reasonable and limited portions of any other work, or display of a work in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in the course of a live classroom session, by or in the course of a transmission, if —

(A) the performance or display is made by, at the direction of, or under the actual supervision of an instructor as an integral part of a class session offered as a regular part of the systematic mediated instructional activities of a governmental body or an accredited nonprofit educational institution;

(B) the performance or display is directly related and of material assistance to the teaching content of the transmission;

(C) the transmission is made solely for, and, to the extent technologically feasible, the reception of such transmission is limited to —

(i) students officially enrolled in the course for which the transmission is made; or

(ii) officers or employees of governmental bodies as a part of their official duties or employment; and

(D) the transmitting body or institution —

(i) institutes policies regarding copyright, provides informational materials to faculty, students, and relevant staff members that accurately describe, and promote compliance with, the laws of the United States relating to copyright, and provides notice to students that materials used in connection with the course may be subject to copyright protection; and

[clarklawyer]

The exception in Sec. 110 should not be confused with fair use.
My position is that while arguments can be made that the
showing of the film is not infringing, a fair use argument
would IMO be a weak one.  Fair use is described in
section 107.

Maybe the difference between fair use and the other copyright
exceptions described in the statute seems like nitpicking.
But there is enough confusion among lay people concerning
fair use that we shouldn't blur the line further.

[JSonnabend]

As for  Jeff, my answer to Toybankman's public domain question does answer his question.  Isn't defamation re: someone's professional advice illegal in NY?

Defamation is actionable in NY, in my understanding, and your original answer did not address the original question.

Jacqueline, this is not law school, and the questions people ask here are not law school exam hypotheticals.  These are real-world questions with real-world implications for those asking them.  Your black-and-white, bright line answers are suspect to say the least, and anyone relying on them to fashion a course of action is thowing caution largely to the wind, I believe.

You may want to get some practical experience advising clients under the guidance of an experienced practitioner before advising clients on your own.

[jacquealp]

Jeff- I advised clients for 4 years for one of the largest Media companies in the World and have my LLM in IP from the number one school in IP.

Thanks for your encouragement.

[janetina]

 Hi please forgive me if I am being opurtunistic.  I am a film student and I sell my footage to a stock film house. they inturn sell the footage to advertisers.  I recently came across two documenturies that are in the pulic domain.  Can i edit the film to eliminate the people and submit the lanscape footage as part of my library to the stock house for re-sale?

[pixman9]

enough with the legalize.  yes or no will suffice. we're not looking for interpretations, just some guidance.  If I have a promotional photograph of 2 actors,  one of which is still alive, for a movie made in the 50's, can I take a photograph of the existing promotional photograph and reproduce it for sale?  I realize that the law is not always yes or no or black and white, but I would think that the answer to this type of question should be fairly straight forward.  But that's me!