Popeye the Sailor enters the public domain on January 1, 2009
Modemac
Evidently, since Popeye isn't backup by a mega-corporation that uses
him as its primary symbol, the copyright laws aren't going to be
changed to extend the spinach-eating sailor's copyright.
--
The High Weirdness Project
http://www.modemac.com
NeuroManson
news:1dc0f1fb-6f35-4772...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
What about Popeye brand spinach and Popeye's Fried Chicken?
Modemac
> >http://tinyurl.com/9gvgea
> What about Popeye brand spinach and Popeye's Fried Chicken?
Unless there's some obscure subsection of the law (and there probably
is), they shouldn't have to pay royalties for use of Popeye anymore.
Actually, Popeye's Fried Chicken doesn't come from Popeye the Sailor;
it was based on Gene Hackman's character of "Popeye" Doyle in "The
French Connection." But since no one remembers "The French
Connection" anymore, people just assume it's the same Popeye.
Rev. 11D Meow!
REALLY?
Someone could spend the rest of their life dissecting POPEYE!
Rev. 11D Meow!
"NeuroManson" <doge...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UqadnQI8VpSHpcfU...@giganews.com...
I GET POPEYE's BRAIN MATTER!
I OWN THIS AREA!!!
NeuroManson
That's odd about Popeye's Fried Chicken, because in the case of the French
Connection, I didn't exactly associate Popeye Doyle's character with fried
chicken at all. And the "Popeye The Sailor Man" association with the fried
chicken chain was going as far back as the early 80s, not that long after
The French Connection came out.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popeye%27s_Fried_Chicken, the
business first opened in 1972. While this follows The French Connection by a
year (released in 1971). While the owner claims he based it on the
character, it could also be argued that he claimed to base it on that
character's name in order to avoid potential lawsuits. Or because he didn't
want to be associated with a cartoon, trying to avoid being another
"Clownburger Chain".
However, with the timing, considering that movies were much MUCH slower to
distribute in those days, AND the fact that the chain started in the south
(when they were STILL pissed off at the Yankees over the civil war and later
civil rights clashes), associating a southern fried chicken chain with a
northerner movie reference would have gotten more derision than basing the
name on a cartoon character.
In which case, could The French Connection also have swiped the name? Popeye
isn't exactly an unknown name in that case.
After the fact, however, they DID acquire the right to associate their brand
with Popeye the Sailor instead, which means their brand could be threatened
when the copyright expires.
NeuroManson
Mmmm, speaking of which, there's a Popeyes less than 6 miles north of me.
Tempting, very tempting.
NeuroManson
news:gjde7...@news6.newsguy.com...
Yeah, but his horribly deformed forearms are MINE!
Rev. 11D Meow!
ain't no Yeah about it, Olive Oyl!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_Oyl_for_President
Rev. 11D Meow!
Shop Here
105 SW 7th St
Renton, WA 98057
"NeuroManson" <doge...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_7qdndotzbeBo8fU...@giganews.com...
NeuroManson
"Rev. 11D Meow!" <Ji...@Crack.corn> wrote in message
news:gjdev...@news6.newsguy.com...
Chris Sobieniak
> "Modemac" <mode...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I know people who have!
There is however a chain of Popeyes Chicken & Biscuits down in Puerto
Rico that does use Popeye & Co. on it's building and promotions.
Warewolf
news:_7qdndotzbeBo8fU...@giganews.com:
> Mmmm, speaking of which, there's a Popeyes less than 6 miles north of
> me. Tempting, very tempting.
And, for trivia's sake, there's a place in my area called 'Popeye's' that
sells fitness supplements.
I wonder how many of them contain actual spinach. ~_^
Don Del Grande
Modemac wrote:
> NeuroManson wrote:
>
>> What about Popeye brand spinach and Popeye's Fried Chicken?
>
>Unless there's some obscure subsection of the law (and there probably
>is), they shouldn't have to pay royalties for use of Popeye anymore.
>Actually, Popeye's Fried Chicken doesn't come from Popeye the Sailor;
>it was based on Gene Hackman's character of "Popeye" Doyle in "The
>French Connection." But since no one remembers "The French
>Connection" anymore, people just assume it's the same Popeye.
"The version I read was," Popeye the copyright and Popeye the
trademark are two different things. The copyright on Elzie Segar's
strips/drawings is expiring (at least in Europe - I think they're
still covered in the USA under the same extension that Disney got for
Mickey Mouse), so those are public domain, but putting new images of
Popeye on merchandise, even in Europe, may still be illegal.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/kids_tv/article5415854.ece
Aren't some of the Popeye cartoons in the public domain already?
-- Don
Trump 0: The Fool.
> http://tinyurl.com/9gvgea
>
> Evidently, since Popeye isn't backup by a mega-corporation that uses
> him as its primary symbol, the copyright laws aren't going to be
> changed to extend the spinach-eating sailor's copyright.
>
No trademark is public domain, and spreading that misconception is
harmful.
--
ration
haywood jablomy
But a TM ends up in the public domain if the owner fails to protect it.
(e.g. trampoline, escalator, aspirin, thermos)
le...@my-deja.com
Isn't Popeye owned by King Features Syndicate?
Zapanaz
Thunder crashed, NeuroManson laughed madly, then wrote:
>That's odd about Popeye's Fried Chicken, because in the case of the French
>Connection, I didn't exactly associate Popeye Doyle's character with fried
>chicken at all. And the "Popeye The Sailor Man" association with the fried
>chicken chain was going as far back as the early 80s, not that long after
>The French Connection came out.
>
>According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popeye%27s_Fried_Chicken, the
>business first opened in 1972. While this follows The French Connection by a
>year (released in 1971). While the owner claims he based it on the
>character, it could also be argued that he claimed to base it on that
>character's name in order to avoid potential lawsuits. Or because he didn't
>want to be associated with a cartoon, trying to avoid being another
>"Clownburger Chain".
>
>However, with the timing, considering that movies were much MUCH slower to
>distribute in those days, AND the fact that the chain started in the south
>(when they were STILL pissed off at the Yankees over the civil war and later
>civil rights clashes), associating a southern fried chicken chain with a
>northerner movie reference would have gotten more derision than basing the
>name on a cartoon character.
>
>In which case, could The French Connection also have swiped the name? Popeye
>isn't exactly an unknown name in that case.
>
>After the fact, however, they DID acquire the right to associate their brand
>with Popeye the Sailor instead, which means their brand could be threatened
>when the copyright expires.
>
Compare the letters of the Popeye's chicken logo
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/Popeyes2.jpg
to this
http://www.math.pitt.edu/~bard/bardware/popeye/popeye1.gif
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
We must try to avoid sweeping generalizations unless they're hilarious.
Then, BOMBS AWAY!! Friendlies, enemies, everybody.
:: Currently listening to No.2 in E-flat major, 1838, by Liszt, from "Piano Sonata In B Minor"
Bluuuue Rajah
7e9ce3...@e22g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 30, 8:25 am, Modemac <mode...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/9gvgea
>>
>> Evidently, since Popeye isn't backup by a mega-corporation that uses
>> him as its primary symbol, the copyright laws aren't going to be
>> changed to extend the spinach-eating sailor's copyright.
>
> Isn't Popeye owned by King Features Syndicate?
...who went out of business like about a zillion years ago.
Garondo Marondo
> http://tinyurl.com/9gvgea
>
> Evidently, since Popeye isn't backup by a mega-corporation that uses
> him as its primary symbol, the copyright laws aren't going to be
> changed to extend the spinach-eating sailor's copyright.
rat added.
Remysun
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<dd4c377c-c642-4591...@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Remysun <remys...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That's just in Britain.
What he said. The copyright expiration doesn't affect the trademarks
on Popeye, either.
Patrick McNamara
"Rev. 11D Meow!" <Ji...@Crack.corn> wrote in message
news:gjddo...@news6.newsguy.com...
>
> "Modemac" <mod...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:50fe65ee-f5f0-4174...@v15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 30, 10:02 am, "NeuroManson" <dogego...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >http://tinyurl.com/9gvgea
>> What about Popeye brand spinach and Popeye's Fried Chicken?
>
> Unless there's some obscure subsection of the law (and there probably
> is), they shouldn't have to pay royalties for use of Popeye anymore.
> Actually, Popeye's Fried Chicken doesn't come from Popeye the Sailor;
> it was based on Gene Hackman's character of "Popeye" Doyle in "The
> French Connection." But since no one remembers "The French
> Connection" anymore, people just assume it's the same Popeye.
>
There is a Wimpy's Diner based upon the same character.
(http://www.wimpysdiner.net/) They don't seem to be using the characters
much anymore, but I don't think I've ever been to one.
--
Patrick McNamara
E-mail: patjmc...@gmail.com
Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/writerpatrick
Podcast Ping podcast: http://podcastping.blogspot.com
Torrentcast: http://www.mininova.org/rss.xml?user=PodcastPing
Okierazorbacker
>
> Mmmm, speaking of which, there's a Popeyes less than 6 miles north of me.
> Tempting, very tempting.
Bring me back some jambalaya and a couple of biscuits, will ya?
Thanks.
Hunter
97899c...@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, remys...@yahoo.com
says...
> That's just in Britain.
And the rest of Europe, at least European Union members. In the US
the copyright extends to 2024, 95 years. The actual trademark is held
by King Features which is owned by the Hearst Corporation and
according to the article they will guard it zealously, so while you
can go out and start printing those unauthorized Popeye and Wimpy T-
Shirts you better not make a doll LOL!
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Derek Janssen
> The Internet Archive has Popeye cartoons you can download for free.
> How does that square with this article. You can download even movies
> from there, and I've seen where some basement-ran operations were
> putting them on DVDs and selling them. Popeye and Betty Boop DVDs,
> too. Is it legal or not?
If it's the three two-reel Technicolor ones that fell into public
domain, yes.
Fortunately, Warner fixed them up and put them on REAL disks.
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<al...@cableone.net> wrote:
> The Internet Archive has Popeye cartoons you can download for free.
> How does that square with this article. You can download even movies
> from there, and I've seen where some basement-ran operations were
> putting them on DVDs and selling them. Popeye and Betty Boop DVDs,
> too. Is it legal or not?
There are Superman cartoons from the 1940s that are in the public
domain. Do whatever you want with them -- sell them, exhibit them,
re-edit them into the next Bryan Singer film, whatever.
There's even a short Superman film starring George Reeves that was made
for the U.S. government as part of a savings-stamps drive. Because the
short was made for the government, it's in the public domain and
(unusually enough) always has been. You can do whatever you want with
that, too, including sell it.
Warchild
Alric Knebel <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
> Over the holidays, I ordered from Amazon a copy of "The Stranger," the
> 1948 Orson Welles noir. This one edition by some company called
> Triad. That I'd never heard of Triad didn't set off any bells, because
> I had never heard of Kino until I bought the restored edition of
> "Metropolis" back in 2003. The Triad edition of "The Stranger" at
> Amazon was listed as "The Stranger (Remastered)" for $19.95. It was
> "released" in June of 2008. Well, the date and price seemed about
> right, and I thought it was something released to meet the improved
> home theater technology. Even more encouraging, one of the customer
> reviews remarked specifically that it looked great on his HDTV. That's
> all I needed to read. I ordered it. Well, my copy arrived a few days
> before Christmas, and it turned out to be an absolute piece of
> bottom-barrel trash. If I had paid, like, $5 for it, I might not have
> been so mad because my expectations would not have been so high. But
> at $20, I was furious. I immediately contacted Amazon and set up a
> return, then ordered "The Stranger (MGM Noir)" for $17.95. But the
> rip-off had been so obvious, I went back to take a second look at
> those positive reviews. There were eight at the time. The negative
> criticisms were very negative, stating flat-out that it wasn't
> remastered. I discovered that the copy they were burning to DVD was
> exactly the one you could download for free from Internet Archive.
>
> The POSITIVE reviews were all plants by the manufacturer. All the
> other DVDs these characters reviewed were Triad editions of similar
> public domain stuff.
>
> I added my own strongly worded review, and included a link to the MGM
> edition (which, by the way, looked very, very good; not a
> frame-by-frame restoration, but free of jiggle and the image was
> sharp) and recommended it instead. I monitored the page, and my
> review, within a couple of days, got three helpful votes. Considering
> it's an old title that not many people will be looking for, that's
> doing pretty good. In other words, I steered people away from this
> obvious rip-off. The other negative reviews were doing all right,
> too. Well, two days ago, ALL THREE of the negative reviews were gone.
> I recomposed mine and posted it, this time keeping a copy in my word
> processor. By late last night, it had again accumulated three helpful
> votes.
>
> This morning it was gone. I copied it from my word processor and
> reposted it. But, of course, the votes are gone.
>
> The thing is, my review includes the admonition to read the product
> description closely, and note THIS line: "This product is manufactured
> on demand using DVD-R recordable media." I didn't notice it myself
> before I took a second look. I'm emphasizing it to other potential
> customers, because it definitely says it all.
>
> After this adventure, the whole public domain thing became
> interesting. Amazon is selling Triad's trash all over the place,
> Popeye cartoons, Betty Boop, classic films, all of which can be
> downloaded for free from Internet Archive. I can't believe Amazon is
> allowing it. It's a rip-off.
>
> ______________________________________________
> Alric Knebel
Clarification of 'Popeye copyright expiration'. The expiration is on
the original newspaper strip art and stories. The trademark of the
Popeye design from the cartoons is not up for grabs.
So essentially, one could write and draw new Popeye adventures, reprint
the comic strip from original sources, etc. It is not a license to
grab and reprint copies of currently in-print sources.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Warchild <b...@bob.com> wrote:
>
>
>Clarification of 'Popeye copyright expiration'. The expiration is on
>the original newspaper strip art and stories. The trademark of the
>Popeye design from the cartoons is not up for grabs.
>
>So essentially, one could write and draw new Popeye adventures, reprint
>the comic strip from original sources, etc. It is not a license to
>grab and reprint copies of currently in-print sources.
Reprint the original strips -- perhaps. Write and draw new ones -- no, that
would violate the King Features trademark (not the copyright). (And you
couldn't illustrate your reprint book with a "new" picture of Popeye).
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Derek Janssen
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 07:44:59 GMT, Derek Janssen
> <eja...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
<snip>
> After this adventure, the whole public domain thing became
> interesting. Amazon is selling Triad's trash all over the place,
> Popeye cartoons, Betty Boop, classic films, all of which can be
> downloaded for free from Internet Archive. I can't believe Amazon is
> allowing it. It's a rip-off.
Whatever--If you're looking for the official Warner-restored Good
versions of "Popeye Meets Sindbad" and "Ali Baba", they were both on Set 1:
http://www.deepdiscount.com/viewproduct.htm?productId=13112336
(Most of the short one-reel Fleischer-era toons *didn't* fall into PD,
unlike the crappy color 50's-Paramounts, and were also presumed missing,
but have now been preserved for your protection.)
Derek Janssen (and we get the Warner-restored Fleischer Supermans next
April)
eja...@verizon.net
Chris Sobieniak
Unclaimed Mysteries
Sean O'Hara
> http://tinyurl.com/9gvgea
>
> Evidently, since Popeye isn't backup by a mega-corporation that uses
> him as its primary symbol, the copyright laws aren't going to be
> changed to extend the spinach-eating sailor's copyright.
>
This only applies to Britain and other countries where copyright is
life+70 -- which in some ways is worse than America's system,
because books like War of the Worlds are still copyrighted in England.
Australia has the most sane copyright regime, with life+50, meaning
that their version of Project Gutenberg already has many novels from
the '30s available.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
Just before Sexual Harassment Panda shows up, Wesley Crusher says,
"Dude, this is bullshit. Either hook me up with some fine Edo ass,
or let me get away from you creepy middle-aged swingers and find it
on my own."
-Wil Wheaton
Sean O'Hara
declared:
>
> Over the holidays, I ordered from Amazon a copy of "The Stranger," the
> 1948 Orson Welles noir. This one edition by some company called
> Triad. That I'd never heard of Triad didn't set off any bells, because
> I had never heard of Kino until I bought the restored edition of
> "Metropolis" back in 2003. The Triad edition of "The Stranger" at
> Amazon was listed as "The Stranger (Remastered)" for $19.95.
Remastered doesn't mean anything -- if you take a 16mm print you
found in your grampa's attic and convert it to a digitial format,
you've created a new master and can legitimately call it remastered.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
No Republican senator has sponsored more laws later held
unconstitutional than Hatch.
--The Hill
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> How does that square with this article. You can download even movies
> from there, and I've seen where some basement-ran operations were
> putting them on DVDs and selling them. Popeye and Betty Boop DVDs,
> too. Is it legal or not?
IA follows American copyright laws. Anything prior to 1923 is
unquestionably public domain in the US. Anything from 1923 to the
mid-'60s is still copyrighted provided the rights holder filed a
term extension within the required period. Anything from the
mid-'60s to '70s is copyrighted unless someone really screwed up (a
la Night of the Living Dead). From the late '70s onward, everything
is copyrighted, with or without a notice.
Most of the PD videos out there come between 1923 and the '60s.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
Veronica: Come on. Ruined lives? Bloodshed? You really think a
relationship should be that hard?
Logan: No one writes songs about the ones that come easy.
--Veronica Mars
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> wrote:
> >
> You can download from Internet Archive a copy of "The Last Man on
> Earth." The condition of it will suck. I bought the MGM studio
> release of it last year, when MGM issued a release to meet the
> interest generated by the Will Smith remake.
You should've gone with the older MGM release, which is a double
feature with the fantastic film, "Panic in Year Zero," for the same
price with the same extras.
> The print used looked
> great. So, once something falls into public domain, is it forever? I
> mean, the MGM edition would be having to compete in the market with
> these terrible copies downloaded from Internet Archive and burned to
> DVDs by just about anybody. Can a studio renew the copyright after
> something falls into public domain?
>
No. There are a few tricks they can use, like claiming the music is
still copyrighted -- which is how It's a Wonderful Life escaped PD hell.
But on the whole, I'd like more stuff in the public domain -- yeah,
it sucks for movies where you need to get ahold of good source
material, but it's great for books.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
Brent: The bad news is Neil will be taking over both branches and
some of you will lose your jobs. On a more positive note the good
news is I've been promoted. So every cloud... you're still thinking
about the bad news aren't you?
-The Office
Derek Janssen
>>
>>Most of the PD videos out there come between 1923 and the '60s.
>
>
> Earth." The condition of it will suck. I bought the MGM studio
> release of it last year, when MGM issued a release to meet the
> great. So, once something falls into public domain, is it forever? I
> mean, the MGM edition would be having to compete in the market with
> these terrible copies downloaded from Internet Archive and burned to
> DVDs by just about anybody. Can a studio renew the copyright after
> something falls into public domain?
Like RKO and "It's a Wonderful Life", they can copyright *elements* of
the movie and declare ownership, in extreme cases--
And since PD means you're digging a source out of the trash can for free
with no obligation or ownership (qv. Internet Archive), there's
technically nothing that *stops* you from taking the Good Samaritan time
and studio trouble to fix the print and sell it in a cleaned up version,
if you have sufficient marketing reasons to sell it under its own power.
As in the cases of Last Man, Warner's Technicolor-Fleischer cleanups,
Criterion's print-restored versions of "Charade" and "My Man Godfrey",
and Sony's print-cleanup of "Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster".
Since it involves the expense of studio time, however....most don't bother.
...Think of rescued PD's as "Adopted orphans", and there are a great
many Oliver Twists remaining.
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Derek Janssen
> In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Alric Knebel declared:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:21:00 -0500, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > You can download from Internet Archive a copy of "The Last Man on
>> Earth." The condition of it will suck. I bought the MGM studio
>> release of it last year, when MGM issued a release to meet the
>> interest generated by the Will Smith remake.
>
>
> You should've gone with the older MGM release, which is a double feature
> with the fantastic film, "Panic in Year Zero," for the same price with
> the same extras.
Yes, but then they couldn't release it with the lookalike-copycat cover,
as they did with "Omega Man"...
Derek Janssen (or Fox did with the original "Day the Earth Stood Still")
eja...@verizon.net
Chris Sobieniak
Why not?
Chris Sobieniak
> In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Alric Knebel
> declared:
>
> > wrote:
>
> > You can download from Internet Archive a copy of "The Last Man on
> > Earth." The condition of it will suck. I bought the MGM studio
> > release of it last year, when MGM issued a release to meet the
> > interest generated by the Will Smith remake.
>
> You should've gone with the older MGM release, which is a double
> feature with the fantastic film, "Panic in Year Zero," for the same
> price with the same extras.
>
> > The print used looked
> > great. So, once something falls into public domain, is it forever? I
> > mean, the MGM edition would be having to compete in the market with
> > these terrible copies downloaded from Internet Archive and burned to
> > DVDs by just about anybody. Can a studio renew the copyright after
> > something falls into public domain?
>
> No. There are a few tricks they can use, like claiming the music is
> still copyrighted -- which is how It's a Wonderful Life escaped PD hell.
Being reminded of the days when every cheap video company and their
mother had to have a release of that title at their disposal and many
stations on TV would show that movie too (Married With Children once
mocked the film's constant presence in one Xmas episode).
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Alric Knebel <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>You can download from Internet Archive a copy of "The Last Man on
>Earth." The condition of it will suck. I bought the MGM studio
>release of it last year, when MGM issued a release to meet the
>great. So, once something falls into public domain, is it forever? I
>mean, the MGM edition would be having to compete in the market with
>these terrible copies downloaded from Internet Archive and burned to
>DVDs by just about anybody. Can a studio renew the copyright after
>something falls into public domain?
>
Yes, in some cases, with "It's a Wonderful Life" usually being the poster-boy.
That one became popular *because* it was a public domain film that stations
could show during the holidays for free (*and* because it was actually quite
good, and had a famous star as the hero). The company pulled it back into
copyright by claiming (successfully) that the score was still under copyright.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<tednolan> <t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote:
Not quite, although the score story is the one I've most frequently
heard.
What happened was that the copyright on the film lapsed in 1974 because
the copyright holder, NTA, screwed up the renewal application. The
*images* of the film then went into the public domain, but the film
itself did not, because the work on which the film was based (a Philip
Van Doren Stern story called "The Greatest Gift") had had its copyright
properly renewed in 1971. Republic Pictures eventually ate NTA and, in
1993, won back the copyright on the film's images because the film had
been derived from a properly copyrighted story.
Many TV stations showed the film freely and (maybe too damn) often
before 1993 in the mistaken belief that it was in the public domain.
Royalties were due, but they were rarely (if ever) paid because of this
belief.
Remysun
wrote:
> What happened was that the copyright on the film lapsed in 1974 because
> the copyright holder, NTA, screwed up the renewal application. The
> *images* of the film then went into the public domain, but the film
> itself did not, because the work on which the film was based (a Philip
> Van Doren Stern story called "The Greatest Gift") had had its copyright
> properly renewed in 1971. Republic Pictures eventually ate NTA and, in
> 1993, won back the copyright on the film's images because the film had
> been derived from a properly copyrighted story.
But you could "Mad Movie" It's a Wonderful Life, making up your own
dubbed in story, right?
Disneygeek
Nowadays, it's "A Christmas Story" that gets run all day long.
Chris Sobieniak
Which sickens me. It was a nice little ride then, but today it's a
bit nauseating to see it over and over.
Chris Sobieniak
There probably was one made up if the LA Connection guys did so back
in the 80's, could be wrong on that, but I haven't seen that show in
such a long time.
Warchild
I am at a loss then. What does the expiration of copyright actually
mean? If you reprinted the original strips, and thereby published an
image of Popeye, wouldn't that also infringe the trademark?
Warchild
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:21:00 -0500, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Alric Knebel
> >declared:
> >> > The Internet Archive has Popeye cartoons you can download for free.
> >> How does that square with this article. You can download even movies
> >> from there, and I've seen where some basement-ran operations were
> >> putting them on DVDs and selling them. Popeye and Betty Boop DVDs,
> >> too. Is it legal or not?
> >
> >IA follows American copyright laws. Anything prior to 1923 is
> >unquestionably public domain in the US. Anything from 1923 to the
> >mid-'60s is still copyrighted provided the rights holder filed a
> >term extension within the required period. Anything from the
> >mid-'60s to '70s is copyrighted unless someone really screwed up (a
> >la Night of the Living Dead). From the late '70s onward, everything
> >is copyrighted, with or without a notice.
> >
> >Most of the PD videos out there come between 1923 and the '60s.
>
> You can download from Internet Archive a copy of "The Last Man on
> Earth." The condition of it will suck. I bought the MGM studio
> release of it last year, when MGM issued a release to meet the
> interest generated by the Will Smith remake. The print used looked
> great. So, once something falls into public domain, is it forever? I
> mean, the MGM edition would be having to compete in the market with
> these terrible copies downloaded from Internet Archive and burned to
> DVDs by just about anybody. Can a studio renew the copyright after
> something falls into public domain?
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Alric Knebel
I would suggest that the process applied to restore a film makes that
particular 'edition' of the film a copyrighted work. Therefore, some
other party could not used the restored work. If on the other hand, if
you are an el-cheapo DVD producer, you could rent a 16mm print, telecine
it, and sell your crap DVD copy. It happens all the time. The DVD
racks are full of collections of out-of-copyright films created using
crap sources.
Chris Sobieniak
> In article <qltsl4lic629j6kodob3kpn1ebm5hq6...@4ax.com>,
> Alric Knebel <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:21:00 -0500, Sean O'Hara <seanoh...@gmail.com>
Often times they steal from other previous VHS/DVD releases as well.
A good candidate for that as of recent may be EastWestDVD.
Derek Janssen
Nnnnope--In fact, one such attempt for TV had to be legally shut down a
year or two after the re-copyrighting, as it turned out our most
cherished "Sick of seeing PD airings of IAWL" gag wasn't quite the legal
case anymore. And frankly, no loss either.
(It is correct, however, that most of the LA Connection's 80's episodes
were from the time-honored classic PD List, especially for "Cyrano de
Bergerac" or "This is the Army".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dG2VgGipFw ) :D
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Disneygeek
I don't. I watch it once and then avoid that channel for the rest of
the day.
Chris Sobieniak
Which is the sensible thing to do. Do not drive yourself mad seeing
it over and over and then think you need that damn lamp!
Disneygeek
You want to know the direction madness takes? I saw a Christmas
stocking based on the film that resembled that lamp!
I saw a bit of a film with James Caan where HE received that lamp! I
don't know what the film was, but they had the same sequence of him
putting the lamp up in the window. Anyone else know about this?
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
My understanding is that it does not. The image is public domain. That is
why cover art for public domain cartoon collections like Popeye or Superman
is always images from the cartoons themselves, not a newly drawn image.
For a character which was never trademarked, like Sherlock Holmes, there is
no problem with your writing or drawing new stories even though some of the
actual Conan Doyle stories are still in fact in copyright.
(Don't try this at home, I'm no lawyer!)
Chris Sobieniak
> In article <bob-A7CE77.12270103012...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>
>
>
> Warchild <b...@bob.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <sRs7l.1676$Y32....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,> >> In article <bob-856EB7.10501302012...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> >> Warchild <b...@bob.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Clarification of 'Popeye copyright expiration'. The expiration is on
> >> >the original newspaper strip art and stories. The trademark of the
> >> >Popeye design from the cartoons is not up for grabs.
>
> >> >So essentially, one could write and draw new Popeye adventures, reprint
> >> >the comic strip from original sources, etc. It is not a license to
> >> >grab and reprint copies of currently in-print sources.
>
> >> Reprint the original strips -- perhaps. Write and draw new ones -- no, that
> >> would violate the King Features trademark (not the copyright). (And you
> >> couldn't illustrate your reprint book with a "new" picture of Popeye).
>
> >> Ted
>
> >I am at a loss then. What does the expiration of copyright actually
> >mean? If you reprinted the original strips, and thereby published an
> >image of Popeye, wouldn't that also infringe the trademark?
>
> My understanding is that it does not. The image is public domain. That is
> why cover art for public domain cartoon collections like Popeye or Superman
> is always images from the cartoons themselves, not a newly drawn image.
There are a lot of PD companies that don't even use images from those
cartoons, and often draw up ones themselves that are just horrid.
http://www.platypuscomix.net/bored/publicdomain.html
Patrick McNamara
"Ted Nolan <tednolan>" <t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote in message
news:OM68l.2525$rF5...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
In the case of a literary character, it's not about trademark but copyright.
One might trademark a particular image of the character, but only the
copyright holder can copyright the character so that it would cover all
images. Trademarks are more for logos and names.
Disney can copyright their particular image of Snow White or Cinderella but
they can't copyright the character. So if someone wants to make a Snow White
or Cinderella movie they're free to do so as long as the character doesn't
look too much like the Disney version.
According to http://www.sherlockian.net/acd/copyright.html, Holmes stories
have fallen into public domain. Only one story still remains copyrighted in
the US, but for Canada and the UK all stories are public domain. It does
vary, but copyright usually ends based upon a set number of years after the
death date of the author. Doyle died in 1930 and I believe it's 75 years
after death, which would be 2003. But it tends to vary by country. Of course
it's certain that the Holmes movie that's coming out this year was made
because the copyright expired and they wouldn't have to pay royalties.
Of course how many kids today really care about (or could relate to) Popeye?
So even if it's safe to use the character, it's no better than using a
character of your own creation.
--
Patrick McNamara
E-mail: patjmc...@gmail.com
Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/writerpatrick
Podcast Ping podcast: http://podcastping.blogspot.com
Torrentcast: http://www.mininova.org/rss.xml?user=PodcastPing
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
My 5 year old niece cares quite a lot about Popeye, and even has
developed her own "twister" punch!
As for Holmes, people have been writing new Holmes stories for years
without paying any fees. Conan and Tarzan OTOH are trademarked, and you
cannot write new stories without permission.
Ted
Derek Janssen
> In article <gjs4cs$672$1...@news.motzarella.org>,
> Patrick McNamara <writer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Of course how many kids today really care about (or could relate to) Popeye?
>>So even if it's safe to use the character, it's no better than using a
>>character of your own creation.
>
> My 5 year old niece cares quite a lot about Popeye, and even has
> developed her own "twister" punch!
In fact, now that the "real" (ie. Fleischer-directed, Mercer-voiced,
pre-war B/W) toons are available again where people can actually see
them, now would be a good time to reacquaint them--
Educate your children before Paramount does! 0_0
Derek Janssen (although the Robin Williams version is close enough to
Fleischer/Mercer to count)
eja...@verizon.net