how do you know a 1923 film is/isn't in public domain?
idiotprogrammer
which
are not yet in the public domain.I'll be
compiling a list for the years 1923-1931 and doing one post day for
each of those 9 years. I'll try to include short notes when possible.
I'm focusing mainly on American works--both literature and film. (You
can see the introduction to the series
here: http://www.teleread.org/blog/?cat=62 which will have links to
each year. I'm publishing 1923 today, 1924 tomorrow, etc. )
I'm familiar with the basic copyright rules
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm
1. IMDB is excellent in letting you search by year. But how do I know
that a 1923 film is actually still under copyright and not in the
public domain?
2. How caught up are sites like archive.org for digitalizing public
domain stuff?
3. I know lots of lowcost DVDs are out which are early (pre-1930) but
not pre-1923. I'm guessing some are in public domain, but have no way
of knowing for sure. Anyone know how to verify this?
3. Finally, I have a question about DVD remastered editions like
Unseen Cinema
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/B000AYEIJA/ref=s9_asin_title_1/102-4538424-4392935
If I were to convert one of their DVD clips before 1923 into an mpeg
/avi file for sharing/distribution, is that legal under American law?
I'm working on the 1923 list of films/vids not in public domain. So far
I have
* Gasoline Love (early film with Fay Wray)
* Burning Brazier (surreal French/Russian detective ) Ivan
Mozzhukhin
* Little Old New York, (comedy of Irish female immigrant who comes
to USA starring Marion Davies)
* Sidney Olcott
* Zaza, story of French music star battling with her rival,
* The Extra Girl, actress wins a contest to become a star
* Our Hospitality & Balloonatic, Three Ages, Love Nest (1923)
Buster Keaton classic
* Covered Wagon, Western with giant budget
* The Daring Years, starring Mildred Harris, Charles Emmett Mack
and Clara Bow
* The Hunchback of Notre Dame, starring Lon Chaney
* The Purple Highway, starring Madge Kennedy, Monte Blue, Vincent
Coleman and Pedro de Cordoba
* Safety Last!, starring Harold Lloyd. In one scene, Lloyd is seen
climbing around and hanging off the side of a tall building, including
a very famous scene where he hangs off a clock. Lloyd did all of his
own stunts, and worked without a safety net.
* Salomé, starring Alla Nazimova; directed by Charles Bryant,
stylized avante-garde version of Oscar Wilde's play (deemed a
"culturally significant film by the National Film Registry; see this
Village Voice article
* Souls for Sale, starring Richard Dix and Eleanor Boardman; look
at gliterati of Hollywood
* Why Worry?, silent comedy about hypochondriac millionaire
(starring Harold Lloyd)
* A Woman of Paris & Pilgrim , starring Edna Purviance; directed by
Charles Chaplin
* It's a Gift (Hal Roach films)
* [edit] Short film series White Rose, D.W. Griffith tale of an
orphan girl who goes out into the world.
* Bright Shawl, adventure/political/spy thriller Edward G.
Robinson, Mary Astor, William Powell
* Adam's Rib & 10 Commandments Directed by Cecil B. DeMille
* Laurel & Hardy: 19 video shorts
(BTW, I've watched a few titles from that period, but really this is
all really new stuff to me).
Thanks for any help.
homes...@netburner.net
Library of Congress and view the copyright files. Rob Farr has done
just that and has abused his spine and eyes at the microfilm machines
and silent comedy researchers owe him a huge debt of gratitude.
I was amazed recently to learn that the Fox two-reelers from 1923 to
1928 are still copyrighted. I find it amazing that Fox spent the money
to renew copyrights on materials for which they no longer posessed
prints.
Tommie Hicks
On Jan 2, 12:07 pm, "idiotprogrammer" <idiotprogram...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi, I'm posting a series of essays about public domain works and works
> which
> are not yet in the public domain.I'll be
> compiling a list for the years 1923-1931 and doing one post day for
> each of those 9 years. I'll try to include short notes when possible.
> I'm focusing mainly on American works--both literature and film. (You
> can see the introduction to the series
> here:http://www.teleread.org/blog/?cat=62which will have links to
> each year. I'm publishing 1923 today, 1924 tomorrow, etc. )
>
> I'm familiar with the basic copyright ruleshttp://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm
>
> 1. IMDB is excellent in letting you search by year. But how do I know
> that a 1923 film is actually still under copyright and not in the
> public domain?
>
> 2. How caught up are sites like archive.org for digitalizing public
> domain stuff?
>
> 3. I know lots of lowcost DVDs are out which are early (pre-1930) but
> not pre-1923. I'm guessing some are in public domain, but have no way
> of knowing for sure. Anyone know how to verify this?
>
> 3. Finally, I have a question about DVD remastered editions like
> Unseen Cinemahttp://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/B000AYEIJA/ref=s9_asin_title_1/102-45384...
idiotprogrammer
If a German-produced film premiered in Germany in 1922, but came over
to the US in 1926 (for instance), what year would you go by to
determine public domain status.
Robert Nagle
james
without
their consent. If you read thru the entire page on Amazon you will see that
they
added new musical scores and that could create a problem for you.
Personally, I would contact them and ask them about doing what you propose
to do
before actualy doing it. Even if the films they are packaging and selling
are public
domain, if they have added content ( such as new musical scores) then they
could
copyright that and you could run into problems reproducing it without their
consent.
(or paying them to do so)
james
"idiotprogrammer" <idiotpr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167757665....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Darren
have to do is contact the LIbrary of Congress?
Would their document, or lack of one, be all you need for a legal copyright
clearance on any given film?
Darren
rod...@mont-alto.com
james wrote:
> I think you may have a problem with using the films from Unseen Cinema
> without
> their consent. If you read thru the entire page on Amazon you will see that
> they
> added new musical scores and that could create a problem for you.
> Personally, I would contact them and ask them about doing what you propose
> to do
> before actualy doing it. Even if the films they are packaging and selling
> are public
> domain, if they have added content ( such as new musical scores) then they
> could
> copyright that and you could run into problems reproducing it without their
> consent.
> (or paying them to do so)
You can of course get around a music copyright by hiring a musician to
play their own score live, if that fits your budget. It's certainly the
right way to do it. There are additional possibly copyrightable items,
such as translated title cards, restoration-from-a-variety-of-sources,
and even tinting; so it always is safest to just do it right and get
permission.
Rodney Sauer
Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra
www.mont-alto.com
Donald4564
I don't know whether the United States differs from Australia in this
respect, but the advice I was given with regard to a 1930 German film I
had was that all German copywrite prior to 1945 was forfeit at the end
of the 2nd World War.
Regards
Donald Binks
idiotprogrammer
you have certainly given me ideas--I am sort of a video producer).
It's conceivable that I (or someone) could strip these films of the
post-1922 soundtrack.
Is the remastering copyrightable (the visual part); that's my main
question.
robert Nagle
idiotprogrammer
issues here.
I'm a public domain scholar/advocate and am trying to familiarize
myself with the process. I honestly don't know.
There's a difference though between restoring a print and adding unique
minor effects to establish "ownership." We get this problem a lot in
the print publishing world. New "editions" add minor details to an
edition for the sole purpose of extending copyright control.
In the case you mention, claiming copyright over something merely
because you added modern title cards seems like a trivial way to do it.
On the other hand, I recognize that some restoration work adds
significant value and could be considered a significant rework. On the
other hand, Bridgeman vs. Corel case clearly said that slavish
reproductions of public domain art is not copyrightable.
Thanks.
Robert Nagle
David P. Hayes
news:1167765798.4...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> The only sure way to determine current copyright status is to go to the
> Library of Congress and view the copyright files. Rob Farr has done
> just that and has abused his spine and eyes at the microfilm machines
> and silent comedy researchers owe him a huge debt of gratitude.
Actually, if Rob Farr used the microfilm machines to research copyright
status, he made the process too difficult on himself. Most of the records
required are on paper, generally in bound volumes, to a lesser extent on
index cards.
"Darren" <dnem...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:n2Amh.399$TP7...@newsfe03.lga...
LOC charges a per-incident fee or per-hour fee (depending on how many
searches are to be performed) for the use of their staff for this purpose.
--
David Hayes
Remove director name from address when responding privately.
Mortilla
The initial post inidcates he wants to do just that.
homes...@netburner.net wrote:
> The only sure way to determine current copyright status is to go to the
> Library of Congress and view the copyright files.
David P. Hayes wrote:
> LOC charges a per-incident fee or per-hour fee (depending on how many
> searches are to be performed) for the use of their staff for this purpose.
>
You can perform an initial search for free online at the LOC website.
At least you can quickly see if there is a deposit registered. Titles,
claimants and authors may not be where you expect, so that is not the
best way to do it and does not leave a decent paper trail to bring to
court if you are sued, but you DO NOT necessarily need to throw money
at a search from the start.
If you are planning a commercial production, the investment is doing a
proper search is cheap insurance against (and a good defense of) an
infringement suit.
Darren
> proper search is cheap insurance against (and a good defense of) an
> infringement suit.
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/records/
Thanks for the link.
Already been there but have been told at another forum that some titles that
are known to be copyrighted don't show up in search results. That is what
was said. May not be correct.
Darren
(Just thinking. One film I wonder about is Don Juan Quilligan (1945). It
was one of those WWII era films that had some kind of credited involvement
from the Red Cross (?) but was produced by Twentieth Century-Fox Film
Corporation. It isn't on the http://www.copyright.gov/records/ site. A paid
search would be in order here.)
Mortilla
Darren wrote:> Already been there but have been told at another forum
that some titles that
> are known to be copyrighted don't show up in search results. That is what
> was said. May not be correct.
This is true especially if the film is part of a compilation or under
an artistic title created by the new claimant.
robf...@yahoo.com
machines, but not to retrieve the copyright renewal info. I wanted the
information that was part of the original deposit of record, usually a
pressbook, scenario or cutting continuity. I understand from the folks
in the LoC Reading Room that many of the paper deposits no longer exist
and in fact you can see evidence of decomposition setting in as you
scan through the microfilm images, particularly when the producer
attached a nitrate frame (those are the black blobs that pop up
occasionally). The Library of Congress Motion Picture Reading Room is
one of the great joys for anyone who has the slightest interest in film
history. A must-stop if you visit Washington DC (3rd floor of the
Madison building).
Rob Farr
www.slapsticon.org
July 19-22
Early Film
> The only sure way to determine current copyright status is to go to the
> Library of Congress and view the copyright files.
That only may work for US made films. For foreign made films, this
search would be useless, since the laws of the original country now apply.
And, when there is a doubt, for US made films, the claimant with the
most money for Lawyers usually wins....
Copyright ain't a case of black and white, but now is a maze of infinite
shades of grey.
jessica
arrangements to license them so I am not sure how that helps
Rule of thumb is that the VAST majority of films produced by major
studios from 1923 onwards are still under copyright. Some slipped
through
for one reason or another but you need to research it title by title
and the only
way to be SURE is to deal with a professional because even if the FILM
is no longer
under copyright it may be protected by underlying literary work. I
would tread carefully
and if you seriously need to confirm a film is PD you really should
get some professional
help in terms of copyright research.
Also I am confused by your list as it contains films which are PD (
Hunchback, Salome
and films which are not Covered Wagon , Woman of Paris, Safety Last to
name a few)
haub...@yahoo.com
Fox Movie Channel has shown that one a number of times, which would
seem to indicate that they own it, or at least think they own it.
Brent Walker
Eric Grayson
master from film prints to save your butt.
Eric
In article <1167779244.5...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Grayson
For example, I am in the process or restoring a print of Things to Come
(1936), which is public domain in the US. The original version clocked
in at 92 minutes, but there was another version released in Canada that
had some different footage, was longer in some sections, but shorter
overall. By combining them to make one longer print, I am only
restoring versions that existed previously.
HOWEVER, I am creating a new longer version that was NEVER issued in
this form and the act of doing this is itself (arguably) a new
copyrightable work of art. You could sit and argue about it for years.
Bruce Lawton recently restored a print of Buster Keaton's Convict 13
with a French version that had replaced titles. He replaced the French
titles with new ones that were translated back from the French titles
that had originally been translated from English. He also reordered
the film to make it more coherent and tightened the editing which had
been made sloppy by combining multiple takes from some scenes.
Is that a new work of art? I'd argue yes, too.
When some of these guys spend $20,000 removing nitrate mottling from
the best print to make a clearer video transfer, I would AGAIN argue
that this may be restoring the film to the way it was but is in itself
a new work of art because we are in effect restoring something that no
longer exist and we can't compare it to a new un-restored print to see
how good a job they did.
I'm a big proponent of public domain myself. I believe that some of
these people who have no material on certain titles and no longer care
about the films should not own them. However, when someone lovingly
works on these films to restore the best possible footage from several
different versions, then they're doing an artistic service which should
be copyrighted. Those people who want the PD stuff should be stuff
with the "available" prints.
Eric
In article <1167780232.9...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
David Pierce
Unfortunately, American copyright needs to be viewed by the
language of the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17), not what you
want it to be.
The Copyright Office has an on-line database of all registrations,
renewals and documents received since January 1, 1978:
http://www.copyright.gov/records/
The cut-off for renewals is about 1951, so this can be used
to determine the copyright status of works from that date.
While the Copyright Office has a multi-year program to put
earlier records on-line, it will be many years before that happens.
In the meantime, the only way to definitively determine the
copyright status of a work prior to that date is to search the
paper records in the search room on Capitol Hill, or to get a
copy of the Copyright Office bi-annual publication "Catalog
of Copyright Entries" (CCE) and work it out from there. There
are copies of CCE in Federal Depository libraries; it was last
published in the early 1980s.
The Copyright Office will do the search for $150 per hour, or
you can hire a law firm or a free-lance researcher (such as
myself).
In a related issue, I think there is a real ethical issue in simply
taking public domain DVDs and posting them on the internet
for the fun of it. As has been discussed before, the economics
of the DVD business are tight, and to pillage the honest work
of fellow enthusiasts is a sure way to ensure that there will be
fewer releases in the future.
As for a copyright in restorations, the Copyright Office is very
rigorous in examining the level of creativity involved in a
registration application, and tinting/toning, choice of speed, and
most restoration simply does not qualify. Copyright protects
creativity, not effort, and a restoration that aims to match the
original release will not get a new copyright registration.
David Pierce
http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/
Eric Grayson
David Pierce <pri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As for a copyright in restorations, the Copyright Office is very
> rigorous in examining the level of creativity involved in a
> registration application, and tinting/toning, choice of speed, and
> most restoration simply does not qualify. Copyright protects
> creativity, not effort, and a restoration that aims to match the
> original release will not get a new copyright registration.
You're right of course, but my point was that you could make an
argument that when the original no longer exists, that your version is
an attempt to recreate one, and a creative act itself.
How far that would go in court is an open question. I helped on a
restoration of The Hands of Orlac at one point that I thought was a
restoration and the original later became available, making mine a
vastly different work.
Again, it's a squishy point for lawyers, but given the existence of the
complete version, my cut/titles/reinterpretation of the film is highly
creative and vastly different from the original. I would submit that
most "restorations" that incorporate new footage are just as fanciful.
The only thing is that we can't prove that the reconstruction is
creative because we don't have any original to compare it to.
When you combine two (or more) vastly different edits of a film, the
resultant work is necessarily highly creative, because you have to
essentially make decisions that an editor would have made when he was
putting the film together initially. Your choice of placement and
continuity will probably be different than what the original editor
did.
The case of speed, tints, music, tones, etc, is quite a different
story, as these are simply augmentations of the original film.
Eric
Darren
U.S. Public Domain." They are suppose to list titles of films that are
known to be PD
Each book covers different decades.
Good luck in finding one to read, however. I've tried to get the book that
covers the 1940s through an interlibrary loan.
Noone seems to have it. These volumes list at $350+ at Amazon.com
The book that covers the silent era is this one
"Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the U.S. Public Domain, 1894-1939" by
Walter E. Hurst, D. Richard Baer
Darren
David P. Hayes
> There is a series of books called "Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the
> U.S. Public Domain." They are suppose to list titles of films that are
> known to be PD
> The book that covers the silent era is this one
> "Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the U.S. Public Domain, 1894-1939" by
> Walter E. Hurst, D. Richard Baer
Rather than stating "They are suppose[d] to list titles of films that are
known to be PD", it is more accurate to state that these books list
(intermixed) films that are in the public domain and those that are
copyrighted, giving the status of each. The books in this series reproduce
the Copyright Office publications "Cumulative Copyright Catalog," amended to
put alongside the listings the renewal information (if any) for each item in
the listings. Renewal information is matched to the information from the
original registration. (The editors of the books collated both forms of
records to make this possible.) Thus, the reader wanting to see what is in
the public domain looks for the ABSENCE of any addition to the listing, such
additions being the renewal information which the editors of the book were
unable to match to any listings for renewals as published in the "Catalog of
Copyright Entries" Renewal sections.
(Although the use of the titles "Catalog of Copyright Entries" and
"Cumulative Copyright Catalog" might make the reader think these are two
very different publications, in fact they contain listings in the same
format. The "Catalog of Copyright Entries" are periodicals that list the
records received by the Copyright Office for a particular one-month,
three-month, six-month or one-year period. The "Cumulative Copyright
Catalog" is published far less often, and so they are much thicker and allow
the user to more easily find a record for which he does not know the
copyright date within a short period of time. Because a Cumulative Catalog
may have ten years or even three decades of records in one volume, you only
have to conduct a single search to find a listing that is in any of those
years.)
For the years 1950-59, the "Film Superlist" for that period has competition
in the form of "Motion Picture Copyrights and Renewals 1950-59," by David
Pierce (Milestone & Co.).
David P. Hayes
"Darren" <dnem...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Wo3nh.3065$AO1....@newsfe03.lga...
> There is a series of books called "Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the
> U.S. Public Domain." They are suppose to list titles of films that are
> known to be PD
>
> Each book covers different decades.
>
> Good luck in finding one to read, however. I've tried to get the book
> that
> covers the 1940s through an interlibrary loan.
Darren does not say where he lives. For some readers of this newsgroup, it
may be easy to access a copy. When I lived in Los Angeles County, I knew of
three libraries (all open to the public) where the various volumes in the
"Film Superlist" series could be used. On the U.S. East Coast, I've come
across them as well, albeit at greater distances from the next set. The
"Film Superlist" books can be found in surprising places. I've used them in
the main public library of a suburban county in southern New Jersey far
removed culturally from the entertainment world.
> Noone seems to have it. These volumes list at $350+ at Amazon.com
You might contact the publisher (Hollywood Film Archive) directly and see
whether they will offer a discount from the Amazon price. The last time I
dealt with them, they still didn't have a web site, but you can reach them
by phone (area code 323). Usually, the owner answers the phone.
> The book that covers the silent era is this one
> "Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the U.S. Public Domain, 1894-1939" by
> Walter E. Hurst, D. Richard Baer
--
Darren
MIchigan
Darren
idiotprogrammer
(sorry if this is a duplicate posting)
I wish to reopen this thread. (I was the original poster). I realize
that this post might seem like I'm trolling.
The thread so far had interesting information, but really didn't get
at the questions I was asking.
I am not a restorer or anyone remotely in the film business. I am a
scholar of the public domain with a little tech background and a
little video background. However, I would contemplate ripping/
transferring old silent vids if I fully understood the legal
requirements of doing so.
I recognize and appreciate that many restorers put considerable time
and effort into restoring old silents. I understand that selling DVDs
is one way to finance future restoration projects. But frankly that is
irrelevant to the public domain. We may admire and respect the work of
archivists, but the public domain is public domain.
However, here's is my understanding of US copyright law (and I am
certainly not a lawyer).
1. Fixed motion pictures works produced prior to 1923 are in the
public domain. Period.
2. Corel vs. Bridgeman established that slavish reproductions of
artwork published prior to 1923 cannot be copyrighted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corel_vs_Bridgeman
Significantly, if an artwork has been published in a book prior to
1923, a 1982 photograph of this same work of artwork could not be
copyrighted.
My question then is: where are the "slavish reproductions" of pre-1923
films?
Why aren't nonprofit organizations and archiving services like
Prelinger coming out with these kinds of versions?
Instead we have a ludicrous market where 95% of the silent films out
there are produced on (admittedly well-packaged) high priced editions.
And many are pre-1923.
Surely that is not an ideal situation!
What do you think?
Yes, In a way, I'm asking for legal advice (and yes, expecting to get
accurate advice on a newsgroup is fraught with danger). But I'm more
interested at what people and organizations are doing to address the
problem of access right now.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Robert Nagle
idiotprogrammer
houston, texas
http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer/
idiotprogrammer
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.movies.silent/browse_thread/thread/461ef0ba9249a48e/f432300d4ab5760a?hl=en#f432300d4ab5760a
David P. Hayes
> U.S. Public Domain." They are suppose to list titles of films that are
> known to be PD
> The book that covers the silent era is this one
> "Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the U.S. Public Domain, 1894-1939" by
> Walter E. Hurst, D. Richard Baer
I previously responded:
> For some readers of this newsgroup, it
> may be easy to access a copy. When I lived in Los Angeles County, I knew
> of
> three libraries (all open to the public) where the various volumes in the
> "Film Superlist" series could be used. On the U.S. East Coast, I've come
> across them as well, albeit at greater distances from the next set.[...]
Since writing that previous response, there has become available on the
internet a page that goes into investigations of copyright status, brings up
the two aforementioned sources of information about renewals on motion
pictures, and provides illustrations of the format by which these two
resources present copyright registration and renewal information. The URL
is http://chart.copyrightdata.com/ch17.html. (This page contains links to
http://chart.copyrightdata.com/ch07.html and
http://chart.copyrightdata.com/ch10.html. If you are interested in the type
of documentation found on the first page linked, you likely will also want
to see this other documentation.)
These web pages and the site which goes with it, was uploaded this past
Monday, March 5. The illustrations discussed here were actually created
(scanned, cropped, digitally cleaned up, and overlaid with new text) prior
to this thread being started in this newsgroup, but the illustrations have
not been made available on the net until now.