Dan Medakovic

Hi

I am a Canadian distributor of classic American films in the public domain. Some of my customers (video store owners) are asking me to provide them with similar titles from Britain.

Anyone know of a list of classic British films in the public domain? Or of any site (or service) that allows you to verifty current copyright status for British films?
Any resources or referals would be greatly appreciated. My internet searches have not turned up anything.

Thanks

Dan

Hugo

A good place to start would be the British Film Institute's "Facts on Film" website at www.bfi.org.uk/facts/

DB7

Classics tv over here shows mostly public domain films, there's a list of available European films here: http://www.inviewmedia.com/FILMLIST.html

Dan Medakovic

thanks!

randy

I don't really understand the original post.

If you are a Canadian shouldn't you distribute films in the Canadian public domain? Otherwise you should pay licensing fees.

Canada does not follow the rule of shorter term, so films in the American public domain will often not be in the public domain in Canada. British public domain rules are more similiar to Canadian ones, so the few films in the British public domain might be in the Canadian public domain.

You should see Rules for public domain movies, but you really should consult a Canadian intellectual property attorney before you get sued by your litigious neighbors to the South.

daisymum

Of possible interest & opportunity for input:

http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr3739.html

Federal Register: January 26, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 16)]
[Notices]
[Page 3739-3743]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
Orphan Works
AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress

ACTION: Notice of inquiry


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:
The Copyright Office seeks to examine the issues raised by "orphan works," i.e., copyrighted works whose owners are
difficult or even impossible to locate. Concerns have been raised that the uncertainty surrounding ownership of such
works might needlessly discourage subsequent creators and users from incorporating such works in new creative efforts or
making such works available to the public. This notice requests written comments from all interested parties.
Specifically, the Office is seeking comments on whether there are compelling concerns raised by orphan works that merit
a legislative, regulatory or other solution, and what type of solution could effectively address these concerns without
conflicting with the legitimate interests of authors and right holders.

DATES:
Written comments must be received in the Copyright Office on or before 5 p.m. EST on March 25, 2005. Interested parties
may submit written reply comments in direct response to the written comments on or before 5 p.m. on May 9, 2005.

. . .

Concerns have been raised, however, as to whether current copyright law imposes inappropriate burdens on users, including subsequent creators, of works for which the copyright owner cannot be located (hereinafter referred to as “orphan”' works). The issue is whether orphan works are being needlessly removed from public access and their dissemination inhibited. If no one claims the copyright in a work, it appears likely that the public benefit of having access to the work would outweigh whatever copyright interest there might be. Such concerns were raised in connection with the adoption of the life plus 50 copyright term with the 1976 Act and the 20-year term extension enacted with the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.

Prior to the 1976 Act, the term of protection was limited to 28 years if the copyright was not renewed. Under this system, if the copyright owner was no longer interested in exploiting the work, or a corporate owner no longer existed, or, in the case of individual copyright owners, there were no interested heirs to claim the copyright, then the work entered the public domain. Of course, it also meant that some copyrights were unintentionally allowed to enter the public domain, for instance, where the claimant was unaware that renewal had to occur within the one year window at the end of the first term or that the copyright was up for renewal. The legislative history to the 1976 Act reflects Congress' recognition of the concern raised by some that eliminating renewal requirements would take a large number of works out of the public domain and that for a number of those older works it might be difficult or impossible to identify the copyright owner in order to obtain permissions. Congress nevertheless determined that the renewal system should be discarded, in part, because of the “inadvertent and unjust loss of copyright” it in some cases caused.2 More recently, in the mid-1990s, Congress heard concerns that the Copyright Term Extension Act would exacerbate problems in film preservation by maintaining copyright protection for older motion pictures for which the copyright owner is difficult to identify.3 Also, in our study on Digital Distance Education published in 1999, the Copyright Office identified several “problems with licensing” that educators asserted in attempting to use copyrighted materials in digital formats, including that “it can be time-consuming, difficult or even impossible to locate the copyright owner or owners.” 4
. . .

This uncertainty created by copyright in orphan works has the potential to harm an important public policy behind
copyright: To promote the dissemination of works by creating incentives for their creation and dissemination to the
public. First, the economic incentive to create may be undermined by the imposition of additional costs on subsequent
creators wishing to use material from existing works. Subsequent creators may be dissuaded from creating new works
incorporating existing works for which the owner cannot be found because they cannot afford the risk of potential
liability or even of litigation. Second, the public interest may be harmed when works cannot be made available to the
public due to uncertainty over its copyright ownership and status, even when there is no longer any living person or
legal entity claiming ownership of the copyright or the owner no longer has any objection to such use.

Empirical analysis of data on trends in copyright registrations and renewals over the last century suggests that a large
number of works may fall into the category of orphan works.5 Based on data of registrations of claims to copyright and
their subsequent renewal under the 1909 Act, it appears that, overall, well less than half of all registered copyrighted
works were renewed under the old copyright system. Because renewal was required to maintain protection of a work, this
data suggests that, at least in many cases, there was insufficient interest a mere 28 years later to maintain copyright
protection. The empirical data does not indicate why any particular works were not renewed, and no doubt, a certain
portion of those works were not renewed due to inadvertence, mistake or ignorance on the part of the owner.6 With
respect to many of these works, however, particularly those owned by legal entities or other sophisticated copyright
owners, it can be assumed that the work no longer had sufficient economic value to the copyright claimant to merit
renewal. Libraries and scholars have argued that those works that have so little economic value that they fail to merit
the small expense and effort of renewal may nevertheless have scholarly or educational value and should not be
needlessly barred from such use.

DB7

That's US law. The UK laws are here.

Steve Crook

Note especially (for this forum) Copyright in a film expires 70 years after the end of the year in which the death occurs of the last to survive of the principal director, the authors of the screenplay and dialogue, and the composer of any music specially created for the film.

So something like Michael Powell's Two Crowded Hours (1931) doesn't get out of copyright until the end of the year 2060! 129 years after it was made.

Steve

Steve Crook

PaPAS

DB7

Wouldn't there also be an opportunity for the executors of MP's will oto renew the copyright?

Steve Crook

I think (I'm not a lawyer) that only applies when the copyright is extended or nevived because it had expired but now falls under copyright again because of that latest change. I don't think you can generally keep renewing copyright. You can keep renewing patents.

But I could be wrong. I've been wrong before, I remember it well, it was a Tuesday ...

Steve Crook

PaPAS

Steve Crook

There was a special exception made for Peter Pan so that a part of the proceeds could still be used to support Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children (as Barrie originally wanted).
See Wikipedia entry.

Steve

Steve Crook

PaPAS

JamesM

I like the idea of having the ccpoyright holder be required to express their wish to hold onto the copyright. This would prevent works of art, such as film, being lost due to the owner taking interest in the work they own. Let us say that beyond 30 years, copyright owners need to re-register their interest for some paltry sum of £5 every five years. If they forget they could have five years grace and could re-register their ownership. If they could manage not do this how could they possibly be expected to look after the work they own. This registry could be public then those who want to find the copyright holder of such work can still apply to use that work by means of license lets say.

If you leave land or property unnattended and it is then looked after by another party, that party becomes the owner of the said land or property after seven years (I think it is seven years). If only this could apply to film. Maybe it could, as a commercial property?

Steve Crook

Some good ideas there - but with film, the daft thing is that the section on "How long does copyright last?" says that the copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the director, writer or composer. But the section on "Who owns copyright?" says that the initial copyright is owned by the director or producer. And possibly only the producer (or production company) if the director is employed by them.

It's a can of worms. No wonder the lawyers get rich from sorting it all out.

Steve

Steve Crook

PaPAS

ollie

Jammes M said,
If you leave land or property unnattended and it is then looked after by another party, that party becomes the owner of the said land or property after seven years (I think it is seven years). If only this could apply to film. Maybe it could, as a commercial property?

it is actually 12 years now,reviewed after 10 years,theres a two year grace period where it can be contested by a potential owner.

cheers Ollie.

"Bullseye !!"

The Duke

I am after some help. I was looking on eBay for some Will Hay DVD's when I found you can get all his films very cheapily. They are obviously copies and the sellers make you aware, but they also state that due to copyright laws, Wills films are in the public domain so you can buy them legally. Can anyone advise me over this?