[OT] It's a Wonderful Copyright Mess
Farix
protection periods may be damaging the US culturally. The article
discusses the copyright issue related to _It's a Wonderful Life_ and it
is technically in the public domain. However, because the short story
that the film is based on is still under copyright, it has affectively
put the kibosh on the film being broadcast during the holiday season.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/it%E2%80%99s-a-wonderful-copyright-mess/
Farix
Relic
I remember the hullabaloo back in the late 80s I recall, when various
companies believed that it had entered the PD scene, and thus flooded
the market with cheaply made VHS copies of the movie. Soon afterwards
the owners of the copyright laid the law down on these operators.
Eh, I watched the Married w/Children parody with Sam Kinison last night.
MUCH more fun ^_^.
bil...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Wow,
This sounds like something Mikey / Starcade would write.
Cheers,
Bill N. - New York
Farix
> Farix wrote:
>> Here is an article from Pajamas Media about how long copyright
>> protection periods may be damaging the US culturally. The article
>> discusses the copyright issue related to _It's a Wonderful Life_ and
>> it is technically in the public domain. However, because the short
>> story that the film is based on is still under copyright, it has
>> affectively put the kibosh on the film being broadcast during the
>> holiday season.
>>
>> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/it%E2%80%99s-a-wonderful-copyright-mess/
>>
>> Farix
>
> I remember the hullabaloo back in the late 80s I recall, when various
> companies believed that it had entered the PD scene, and thus flooded
> the market with cheaply made VHS copies of the movie. Soon afterwards
> the owners of the copyright laid the law down on these operators.
Technically, the film is in the public domain, or at least the
individual frames are. However, the story is not, which is how they are
getting around the public domain issue.
Farix
Farix
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:07:46 -0500, Farix <dhstr...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Wow,
>
> This sounds like something Mikey / Starcade would write.
Did you even read the article? It clearly states that the lengths of
copyright protection is damaging our cultural heritage. Only 2% of works
published between 55 and 75 years ago have any commercial value. So why
do all works need to be protected for over 100 years? Yet, by the time
the works fall into the PD, they have been largely forgotten. And in the
case of films, may no longer exist or be of very poor quality do to the
decays of the film stock. One economist has mathematically calculated
that the optimum length for copyright protection, when most works retain
their commercially value, is 14 years. After that, with few exceptions,
their commercial value drops exponentially.
Farix
Andrew Floyd
Farix wrote:
"... The article discusses the copyright issue related to _It's a
Wonderful Life_ and it is technically in the public domain. However,
because the short story that the film is based on is still under
broadcast during the holiday season. ..."
That's funny. I've seen it listed in the TV listings at least 3 times in
the past week or so, also on NBC. Maybe you're in a different country?
The film is also on DVD. My mother bought one copy a while back.
Official pressing.
"Read this very carefully, I shall type this only once nyo!"
"There would be little point in typing it twice nyo!!" - 'Allo 'Allo nyo
"They make crayONs; do they make crayOFFs?"
CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech
Astrobiochemist
At about the point at the article where the author seems to have
missed out on the fact that Sonny Bono was a congressman was when I
decided to look up his credentials. He's not really the person I'd
look to for legal advice.
However, guys like Bill Patry, David Post and Lawrence Lessig are the
people I'd look to on legal advice and they also say that the term of
copyright protection is way too long. However, their arguments have a
much stronger jurisprudential basis and use more than a smattering of
anecdotal examples.
I'm not saying that the only people who can discuss copyright are IP
lawyers. However, when non-IP lawyers usually talk about copyright
law, misconceptions with the understanding of copyright law will
usually be seen in the discussion. (Seriously, it's just crazy. I
read a thread a few months back on a webforum where people were
discussing copyright and someone stated "What if a corporation had
copyrighted the wheel when it was first invented? The wheels' in tons
of stuff and no one would be able to use it, especially if the
copyright kept getting extended." Honest to g-d, someone wrote that.
Worst part is that no one corrected that statement for several pages
of the thread.)
Giovanni Wassen
> Here is an article from Pajamas Media about how long copyright
> protection periods may be damaging the US culturally. The article
> discusses the copyright issue related to _It's a Wonderful Life_ and it
> is technically in the public domain. However, because the short story
> that the film is based on is still under copyright, it has affectively
> put the kibosh on the film being broadcast during the holiday season.
This documentary: <http://www.opensourcecinema.org/> was broadcast a few
times over here a few weeks ago. Basically says the same thing.
--
Gio
http://www.watkijkikoptv.info
http://watkijkikoptv.info/animeblog
Kimba W Lion
> It clearly states that the lengths of
>copyright protection is damaging our cultural heritage.
That doesn't matter, as long as DisneyCorp stays rich.
</sarcasm>
Actually, it is true. But as long as megacorps run the lawmakers, it's only
going to get worse.
--
Intelligent Life Is All Around Us
http://intelligentlife.info/
Chris Sobieniak
> Farix wrote:
>
> "... The article discusses the copyright issue related to _It's a
> Wonderful Life_ and it is technically in the public domain. However,
> because the short story that the film is based on is still under
> copyright, it has [effectively] put the kibosh on the film being
> broadcast during the holiday season. ..."
>
> That's funny. I've seen it listed in the TV listings at least 3 times in
> the past week or so, also on NBC. Maybe you're in a different country?
> The film is also on DVD. My mother bought one copy a while back.
> Official pressing.
NBC has been the sole broadcaster of the film in the US for some years
now. The CBC in Canada has also aired it too. We also have the
official DVD as well, and that's all that matters (and nothing like
the constant stream of VHS tapes back in the 80's).
sanjian
Ok, this is pretty high on the list of places I never expected to see
Pajamas Media quoted. And, even more surprising, I'm not the one citing
them.
Granted, it's not the highest on the list... but I won't admit to visiting
the list toppers.
Starcade
> Here is an article from Pajamas Media about how long copyright
> protection periods may be damaging the US culturally. The article
> discusses the copyright issue related to _It's a Wonderful Life_ and it
> is technically in the public domain. However, because the short story
> that the film is based on is still under copyright, it has affectively
> put the kibosh on the film being broadcast during the holiday season.
Actually, there's a very easy way to answer this:
The movie is _NOT_ public domain, but now is under the ownership of
the owners of the short story.
It's like a baseball game, in that any (copyright-relevant)
description of the events of the game must be done only with the
permission of MLB.
Mike (In fact, that disclaimer actually is sponsored by a law firm
during San Francisco Giants radio broadcasts, or at least was when I
used to live there.)
Bill Steele
<61832f4e-ec45-4977...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Starcade <darkst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 25 2009, 4:07�pm, Farix <dhstran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Here is an article from Pajamas Media about how long copyright
> > protection periods may be damaging the US culturally. The article
> > discusses the copyright issue related to _It's a Wonderful Life_ and it
> > is technically in the public domain. However, because the short story
> > that the film is based on is still under copyright, it has affectively
> > put the kibosh on the film being broadcast during the holiday season.
>
> Actually, there's a very easy way to answer this:
>
> The movie is _NOT_ public domain, but now is under the ownership of
> the owners of the short story.
I'd sure like to know how that came to pass. Presumably the owners of
the story signed a contract granting Frank Capra or the studio or some
such the right to make a movie, and such an assignment of rights doesn't
wear out like a copyright--unless a time limit was specified in the
contract, which would be weird.
Stainless Steel Rat
Bill Steele <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> I'd sure like to know how that came to pass. Presumably the owners of
It's a derivative work and as such falls under the ownership of the
original.
Chris Sobieniak
> In article <ws21-0BF70A.18404215012...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Bill Steele <w...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> > I'd sure like to know how that came to pass. Presumably the owners of
>
> It's a derivative work and as such falls under the ownership of the
> original.
It also had to do with the music in the film still being under
copyright as well, though I assume Wikipedia probably has the details
over that.
Astrobiochemist
> > the owners of the short story.
>
> I'd sure like to know how that came to pass. Presumably the owners of
> the story signed a contract granting Frank Capra or the studio or some
> such the right to make a movie, and such an assignment of rights doesn't
> wear out like a copyright--unless a time limit was specified in the
> contract, which would be weird.
Actually, the movie IS public domain and isn't under the ownership of
Trifecta Entertainment & Media (the owners of the copyright to the
short story "The Greatest Gift'). However, I'm going to assume that
Starcade wasn't being literal in terms of the ownership as he
described it. Since Trifecta does effectively control the disposition
of the film, you can say (as Starcade did), that the film is
constructively owned by Trifecta.
The film rights to the story now belong to Paramount, the succeeded
the original owners of the film rights, Liberty Films, which was the
movie production company owner by Frank Capra. While the film in it's
current form can't be aired without permission from Trifecta, as the
film is in the public domain, one could hypothetically replace the
music, rearrange the footage and show the new product without
violating Trifecta's rights.
As for movie rights "wearing out," something like that happened with
another Jimmy Stewart movie, Rear Window. There was a US Supreme
Court case on the matter in 1990, Stewart v. Abend.
Starcade
> I'd sure like to know how that came to pass. Presumably the owners of
> the story signed a contract granting Frank Capra or the studio or some
> such the right to make a movie, and such an assignment of rights doesn't
> wear out like a copyright--unless a time limit was specified in the
> contract, which would be weird.
I can see how that is interesting (which was the point of the original
article referred to).
But, since the original story is still under copyright, so are all
retellings of it -- the movie, "It's a Wonderful Life", therefore, is
_NOT_ public domain -- it is just no longer owned by the owner of the
movie's copyright. That reverts to the owner of the work it was
derived from.
Mike
Starcade
> Actually, the movie IS public domain and isn't under the ownership of
> Trifecta Entertainment & Media (the owners of the copyright to the
> short story "The Greatest Gift'). However, I'm going to assume that
> Starcade wasn't being literal in terms of the ownership as he
> described it. Since Trifecta does effectively control the disposition
> of the film, you can say (as Starcade did), that the film is
> constructively owned by Trifecta.
The film IS owned by Trifecta, _BECAUSE_ the copyright they hold on
the short story still stands.
The film IS NOT public domain, else this discussion would be entirely
moot.
> The film rights to the story now belong to Paramount, the succeeded
> the original owners of the film rights, Liberty Films, which was the
> movie production company owner by Frank Capra. While the film in it's
> current form can't be aired without permission from Trifecta, as the
> film is in the public domain, one could hypothetically replace the
> music, rearrange the footage and show the new product without
> violating Trifecta's rights.
That makes zero sense. Because, at that point, all NBC would have to
do is re-score the footage and it can air, and yet it's the same short
story Trifecta has rights to.
That does not compute.
Mike
Astrobiochemist
> the short story still stands.
The short story gives them some property rights over the IP of the
film but that is very different legally from directly owning the film.
> The film IS NOT public domain, else this discussion would be entirely
> moot.
The film is public domain, as demonstrated below.
> > The film rights to the story now belong to Paramount, the succeeded
> > the original owners of the film rights, Liberty Films, which was the
> > movie production company owner by Frank Capra. While the film in it's
> > current form can't be aired without permission from Trifecta, as the
> > film is in the public domain, one could hypothetically replace the
> > music, rearrange the footage and show the new product without
> > violating Trifecta's rights.
>
> That makes zero sense. Because, at that point, all NBC would have to
> do is re-score the footage and it can air, and yet it's the same short
> story Trifecta has rights to.
It's not just the music that's the problem. The aspects of the film
that are based upon the original short stories are also an issue.
However, if you decided to take the entirety of the footage and redub
it to tell a different story, that would be legally allowed, which is
not true of films which aren't in the public domain.
> That does not compute.
It's some rather complicated intellectual property law. It's can be
difficult to understand without a legal background.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
In Starky's case, it's difficult to understand because it doesn't fit
with what he believes, and therefore must be wrong.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Starcade
> > The film IS owned by Trifecta, _BECAUSE_ the copyright they hold on
> > the short story still stands.
>
> The short story gives them some property rights over the IP of the
> film but that is very different legally from directly owning the film.
Perhaps, but the film is NOT public domain, else this discussion would
be entirely moot, for reasons I shall explain.
> > The film IS NOT public domain, else this discussion would be entirely
> > moot.
>
> The film is public domain, as demonstrated below.
>
> > > The film rights to the story now belong to Paramount, the succeeded
> > > the original owners of the film rights, Liberty Films, which was the
> > > movie production company owner by Frank Capra. While the film in it's
> > > current form can't be aired without permission from Trifecta, as the
> > > film is in the public domain, one could hypothetically replace the
> > > music, rearrange the footage and show the new product without
> > > violating Trifecta's rights.
>
> > That makes zero sense. Because, at that point, all NBC would have to
> > do is re-score the footage and it can air, and yet it's the same short
> > story Trifecta has rights to.
>
> It's not just the music that's the problem. The aspects of the film
> that are based upon the original short stories are also an issue.
> However, if you decided to take the entirety of the footage and redub
> it to tell a different story, that would be legally allowed, which is
> not true of films which aren't in the public domain.
That would get the party sued real good and quick. Basically, the
film is a derivative work of a copyrighted short story -- hence, the
rights to the film, if they are no longer with the filmmakers (for
whatever reason) fall to the owners of the derivative work. Else,
this entire discussion would never have happened.
> > That does not compute.
>
> It's some rather complicated intellectual property law. It's can be
> difficult to understand without a legal background.
I'd be very interested to see how you could get away (short of parody
or other recognized fair-uses) with doing as you propose and not
having a judge slap it down, _because the work you are taking is
recognized as a derivative of a copyrighted work).
If you were right, why the mess in the first place?
Mike
Starcade
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> In Starky's case, it's difficult to understand because it doesn't fit
> with what he believes, and therefore must be wrong.
No, bitch. It's difficult to understand because it makes no material
sense.
If I make a movie out of one of your books (legally, with copyright
protections and all such), and somehow lose the protections of my
movie, why does that not, as a derivative work of a copyrighted
product, fall to your rights as a copyright holder of the derivative
product?
If this were not the case, as I just got done telling the other
person, this entire discussion would be moot.
What he is suggesting is that he can take the film, re-combine the
elements to tell a different story, and have it end up legal. I find
that more than a bit puzzling.
Mike
Astrobiochemist
> protections and all such), and somehow lose the protections of my
> movie, why does that not, as a derivative work of a copyrighted
> product, fall to your rights as a copyright holder of the derivative
> product?
Because the author never created the movie so the aspects of the movie
that are independent of the book don't belong to the author. For
example, in The Wizard of Oz books, Dorothy's slippers were silver but
in the movie, they were ruby. If the WIzard of Oz books were still
under copyright but for some reason, the movie had passed into the
public domain, then one could use the ruby slippers in a completely
unrelated story without issue but not use the silver slippers.
Original aspects of a derivative work do not revert to the copyright
holder of the original work if the derivative work passes into the
public domain. There is no reason that it would under title 17 (the
part of the US Code involving copyright). This is why the aspects of
"It's a Wonderful Life" that are independent of "The Greatest Gift"
are in the public domain, because those aspects never belonged to the
copyright owner of the short story. However, the reason why the movie
isn't free to be aired is because the aspects of the movie which are
derivative of the original short story belong to the copyright owner
of "The Greatest Gift."
This is how Trifecta can control the airing of the movie and yet,
still not technically own it.
> If this were not the case, as I just got done telling the other
> person, this entire discussion would be moot.
>
> What he is suggesting is that he can take the film, re-combine the
> elements to tell a different story, and have it end up legal. I find
> that more than a bit puzzling.
Because once you remove the derivative aspects, only the original
aspects of the film remain. As those aspects never fell under the
purview of the short story's copyright, those aspects are now in the
public domain and people can do whatever they want with them.
Astrobiochemist
>> that are based upon the original short stories are also an issue.
>> However, if you decided to take the entirety of the footage and redub
>> it to tell a different story, that would be legally allowed, which is
>> not true of films which aren't in the public domain.
>
> That would get the party sued real good and quick. Basically, the
> film is a derivative work of a copyrighted short story -- hence, the
> rights to the film, if they are no longer with the filmmakers (for
> whatever reason) fall to the owners of the derivative work. Else,
> this entire discussion would never have happened.
Original aspects of a derivative work do not revert to the copyright
holder of the original work if the derivative work passes into the
public domain. There is no reason that it would under title 17 (the
part of the US Code involving copyright). This is why the aspects of
"It's a Wonderful Life" that are independent of "The Greatest Gift"
are in the public domain, because those aspects never belonged to the
copyright owner of the short story. However, the reason why the
movie
isn't free to be aired is because the aspects of the movie which are
derivative of the original short story belong to the copyright owner
of "The Greatest Gift."
> I'd be very interested to see how you could get away (short of parody
> or other recognized fair-uses) with doing as you propose and not
> having a judge slap it down, _because the work you are taking is
> recognized as a derivative of a copyrighted work).
>
> If you were right, why the mess in the first place?
Because the film is a combination of elements of the short story and
original elements. Only the elements from the short story are
derivative and only those elements belong to Trifecta. All the
original elements are in the public domain and anyone can do anything
they want with them. However, it's important to note that the
derivative elements don't give ownership of the film to Trifecta, it
only gives Trifecta limited control over the film. Unfortunately,
this includes control over airing of the film as it is currently put
together. If the film were re-cut as to not include the derivative
elements, which is what I described above, then the film would not
fall under the control of Trifecta.
It is very important to differentiate between ownership and control.
While they are property rights that often belong to the same people,
that's not always the case and that's what's happening in this
situation.