Public Domain British films and copyright?

[MrT]

This is the point that has not yet been tested in UK law - it all depends on whether the 1996 Harmonisation of Copyright ammendment to the 1988 Act was applied retrospectively or not. If it was NOt retrospective, films made in 1934/37 would have lapsed out of copyright, and the publisher of these dvds is acting within the framework of UK law. If it was retrospective then the films are in copyright, so why are the current copyright holders not aware of this and pursuing this rather blatant infringement?



MIke (MrT)

[Ascoyne D'Ascoyne]

name='MrT']This is the point that has not yet been tested in UK law - it all depends on whether the 1996 Harmonisation of Copyright ammendment to the 1988 Act was applied retrospectively or not. If it was NOt retrospective, films made in 1934/37 would have lapsed out of copyright, and the publisher of these dvds is acting within the framework of UK law. If it was retrospective then the films are in copyright, so why are the current copyright holders not aware of this and pursuing this rather blatant infringement?



MIke (MrT)

Quite a few of the films are post-1937. To take one instance "The Bat" (1959) starring Vincent Price is not only available in the three-film issues from Classic Entertainment, but also shows up on Amazon in editions from both WHE Europe and Anchor Bay.

[DB7]

name='MrT']This is the point that has not yet been tested in UK law - it all depends on whether the 1996 Harmonisation of Copyright ammendment to the 1988 Act was applied retrospectively or not.

Was this an EU directive? If so you'll find exceptions for member states in the small print.

[ChristineCB]

My problem with art-production copyrights is that a single owner benefits solely from the work of the collective. I'd have more sympathy for copyright stances if all of the workers were continually rewarded for their efforts, not just a single owner who made some initial investment or bought it up later. I understand their legal ownership rights. They should understand the concept of moral sympathies and how that influences public behavior.



So, I end up with some moral gray areas that make me less sympathetic, and therefore not as fastidious in consumption or expenditures. If one person or entity is going to benefit, should I benefit the fascist withholders of copyrights, or those that provide me with the entertainment I enjoy?



And in particular, toward the Conde Nasty (hehe) types and BBC. Maybe I would be more sympathetic toward BBC if I was certain their future solely depended on revenue generated by 30-, 50- or 75-year old copyrighted material.



But then again, I might argue that they should be producing modern works of comparable quality or appeal.



And in both cases, when those entities refuse to make available artistic endeavors for public consumption, I have ZERO sympathy for their hue and cry when they say "Someone's leaking old copyrighted material so the public can enjoy it."



I don't know why they elect to withhold older art from public consumption. Do they think old Shadow radio programs will triple in value like old Rembrandts might? (Psst - Conde Nasty - they are NOT the same thing! Think of it more like farmers consider seeds and harvesting - if you don't plant seeds to keep interest alive, the public will find interest in other consumables. And as the older citizenry dies off, older artforms lose their long-held fan base.)

[Moor Larkin]

name='ChristineCB'] And in both cases, when those entities refuse to make available artistic endeavors for public consumption, I have ZERO sympathy for their hue and cry when they say "Someone's leaking old copyrighted material so the public can enjoy it."

I think I agree wholeheartedly with that. I have recently taken issue with an entire downloaded episode of Danger Man on Googlytube. I couldn't see any good reason to justify that, as you can easily buy the relevant episode on dvd.



On the other hand there are a few pirate suppliers of McGoohan's older movies, such as 'High Tide at Noon', which have never been released anywhere and are never on TV (apart from Australia, I've noticed... ).

I find it difficult to find it in my heart to morally condemn them.



I still cannot fathom how, (notwithstanding senior member comments on this Forum) if a piratical individual can make a copy available for a few pounds or dollars in his living-room, why any Company could not do the same thing.



It might be poor quality, as some mentioned earlier in this Thread are, but I wouldn't mind, I would just like to be able to view what I'm enthusiastic about, whatever its condition.

[DB7]

name='Moor Larkin']I think I agree wholeheartedly with that. I have recently taken issue with an entire downloaded episode of Danger Man on Googlytube. I couldn't see any good reason to justify that, as you can easily buy the relevant episode on dvd.



On the other hand there are a few pirate suppliers of McGoohan's older movies, such as 'High Tide at Noon', which have never been released anywhere and are never on TV (apart from Australia, I've noticed... ).

I find it difficult to find it in my heart to morally condemn them.



I still cannot fathom how, (notwithstanding senior member comments on this Forum) if a piratical individual can make a copy available for a few pounds or dollars in his living-room, why any Company could not do the same thing.



It might be poor quality, as some mentioned earlier in this Thread are, but I wouldn't mind, I would just like to be able to view what I'm enthusiastic about, whatever its condition.

I tend to agree but the problem is where do you draw a line in the sand on OUP titles. Some like A Home of Your Own and The Ghost Train were most wanted titles and ebay favorites for years before gaining a commercial release but there's also the popular Will Hay or Norman Wisdom films that are often released commercially in small numbers and go OUP within months. How do you judge which titles are 'fair game' for the dvdr and which aren't.



Making them legally available for download from a vendor's website might help as it would cut down on production costs and ensure the title is always obtainable.

[penfold]

I can't help but think that each time we discuss a recently departed - or not - director or star and bemoan the way they have been living in relative poverty for the last decades of their life, that, though we have remained loyal fans of their work, we have been cheerfully undermining their royalty cheques.....

[Steve Crook]

name='ChristineCB']My problem with art-production copyrights is that a single owner benefits solely from the work of the collective. I'd have more sympathy for copyright stances if all of the workers were continually rewarded for their efforts, not just a single owner who made some initial investment or bought it up later. I understand their legal ownership rights. They should understand the concept of moral sympathies and how that influences public behavior.

That's meant to be taken care of by agreements between the copyright holder and those others involved. But it usually just applies to the actual performers who get a residual fee every time it is shown.



Steve

[Moor Larkin]

name='penfold']I can't help but think that each time we discuss a recently departed - or not - director or star and bemoan the way they have been living in relative poverty for the last decades of their life, that, though we have remained loyal fans of their work, we have been cheerfully undermining their royalty cheques.....

Quite take that point and you are potentially correct...........



Personally I would NEVER buy a pirate version of anything.......... if it was available as an original - even a second-hand one; although I have noted some "Terms & Conditions" on my recent purchases that appear to prohibit my ever "selling on" the copy I have bought (much like the 'not for resale' condition on multipack chocolate bars!).



On the other hand, some while ago an e-bay had several canisters of film for sale. The vendor had found them on waste ground near Borehamwood. The canisters were sealed apparently (the vendor advised he would not break the seal) and labelled 'Danger Man'................... The original owners of these precious items do not seem to take very good care of them do they?



As the 'Missing, Believed Swiped' campaign has proved: Enthusiasts are often a safer pair of hands than the copyright-holders...........



Piracy is almost reversed from the old days. Pirates used to undercut overly expensive video-releases. Nowadays, Pirates would be entirely undercut by the proper release of unavailable material.............

[ChristineCB]

name='penfold']I can't help but think that each time we discuss a recently departed - or not - director or star and bemoan the way they have been living in relative poverty for the last decades of their life, that, though we have remained loyal fans of their work, we have been cheerfully undermining their royalty cheques.....

Absolutely agree with poverty status. Unfortunately, I believe their caretakers - the producers, owners of copyrights - have far more to do with the artists' and workers' economic downturns than consumers. I have ZERO trust that accurate accounting and proper royalties are ever paid to artists (of course, there are only a kajillion lawsuits against studios and corporate holders to support this argument). That's why I stand very firm in the pay-per-download process because those can be accurately monitored, which is one of the original fears that launched the anti-Kazaa campaigns several years ago - the downloaders could give an artist an accurate interest-level of monetary flow - the record-companies and distributors could always hide and confuse figures.



So, if I have a choice between depleting the reserves of Sony BMI or helping Stan Laurel, you can bet I'll always give Stanley my money and all of my UP YERS to Sony-BMI types. When the Corporate Entities demonstrate consistent caring for their artists, they can change my mind.



The Out-Of-Print issues are more confused. Disney is one of the few companies that prints a little, then withdraws a product intentionally - maybe sooner if the sales aren't high, maybe a little longer if the sales exceed projections. But they can be trusted to withdraw any product at any time. But they also have a history (unlike Conde Nasty) of putting the products back out there every few years. I appreciate Disney's point of view far more than outright refusal to provide.



I too am surprised that the Outright-Refusal companies don't sell what they have NOW. So many films have a primordal nostalgic value for an ever-aging audience. I think Cary Grant Films will be a known commodity in 50 years, long after all of his original big-screen viewers are dead and gone.



But I've met a few folks here who don't know that Orson Welles' success with the THIRD MAN film started him working on a prequel radio series two years later. A great and wonderful series, but few of the movie's fans know about it. I don't see how any of those series owners chose not to benefit from it.



Now, it's a legitimate public domain product, althought BBC still drives a stake thru the foot of their broadcast episodes, which are identical to the legally PD versions of the American episodes, sans the Brit commercials and voice-over intro's.



I wonder how long Paul and Yoko will withhold LET IT BE from the market as well. Do they think the Beatles' next few albums will make LET IT BE even more highly-sought after? Will 30-40-50 more years of ugly divorces place Beatles' films in higher acclaim? I have to admit obtaining a copy of that DVD-R-from-out of sync 16mm prints, but when the Product Owners make it available for sale, yes, I'll buy it. Until then, they can suck on their thumbs while crying about piracy. When the Market is there and they refuse to Supply, they should celebrate the other side of Capitalism.

[ChristineCB]

name='Steve Crook']That's meant to be taken care of by agreements between the copyright holder and those others involved. But it usually just applies to the actual performers who get a residual fee every time it is shown.

Yes, absolutely. I wish residual fees for performers were more certainly paid to them. Some American TV series have been running constantly from the '50s on, and reading memoirs from their major supporting actors shows they lived in poverty because they could never negotiate access to residuals. This "you were paid $100 per episode for your 7 years of service, so shut up" attitude makes me wish those performers had written books and made TV-talk show circuits long ago to identify the incongruity by distributors.

[Moor Larkin]

Now. Here's something to cheer everyone up. It's made available from BFI so is as kosher as 'Public Domain' can be. My download link requires Quicktime and takes a minute or two to download.

http://media.creative.bfi.org.uk/fil...672-cabfi0.mov





If you haven't got Quicktime, you'll have to go to: bfi | Creative Archive Licence Group | Free Video Clips

and sort it out for yourself.......

[Steve Crook]

name='Moor Larkin']Now. Here's something to cheer everyone up. It's made available from BFI so is as kosher as 'Public Domain' can be. My download link requires Quicktime and takes a minute or two to download.

http://media.creative.bfi.org.uk/fil...672-cabfi0.mov

And then in the next scene, the young, virile handyman at their school discovers the girls frolicking in the woods ...



Steve

[image45]

It does seem to causes issues and gets in the way of people using ebay to make rare silent films available to other collectors that would never be able to see this!

[MrT]

Today's Sunday newspapers report the excellent news that the Treasury Committee looking into the copyright period applied to commercially released sound recordings recommend that it should remain at 50 years. Some performers such as Sir Cliff Richard had been lobbying hard for an increase in the copyright period to 95 years which would have done for music tracks what the 1996 Act did to film - consign the vast majority of the music to the archives never to be heard again for fear of contravening "copyright". Fortunately the Government has at least seen sense on this issue, realising that only a tiny fraction of music released over 50 years ago retains any great commercial value, and thus they saw no reason for extending the copyright period. If only they could now look again at Film copyright in the UK - remember that before 1st January 1996 the 1988 Copyright Act treated Film and Sound recordings in the same way - ie gave them protection for 50 years after their date of release to the public. The law was only changed in respect of films in the 1996 Act to bring us in line with other EC countries to give us the ridiculous current laws that keep the majority of films made before 1956 unseen and rotting in the vaults.



Mike (MrT)



Maybe we could start lobbying our MPs asking the government to look again at this absurd piece of legislation? The fact that so many hundreds and hundreds of films lie forgotten suggests that the current copyright holders (if they exist) have no interest in making any money from their holdings, so what sense is there to keep them locked away?

[DB7]

Not sure it's that simple. In ten years time that rule will envelop many 60s recordings and I'm sure the labels will say the profits from popular Greatest Hits packages (Beatles, Stones etc) goes into funding new artists.

[penfold]

name='MrT']

Maybe we could start lobbying our MPs asking the government to look again at this absurd piece of legislation? The fact that so many hundreds and hundreds of films lie forgotten suggests that the current copyright holders (if they exist) have no interest in making any money from their holdings, so what sense is there to keep them locked away?

The rights holders always exist, it's just a question of whether, as you say, they're bothered. Even if the law was changed, it wouldn't alter the fact that the film archives don't have the money to do those things we would all like them to be able to do....

If you want to lobby your MP, lobby for direct governmental funding, as happens in Denmark for instance, and not via the Film Council that takes it all and passes on very little. Denmark restores 8-10 silent features and countless shorts per year... the UK; one, perhaps, if they can find a sponsor or a donor to fund it. The National Gallery, I think it was, just bought an obscure italian painting, 'Saved For The Nation' from going to the US... (Why? It's not British and the Americans weren't going to burn it) at a cost equivalent to five years of the National Archive's budget. And yes, those films are rotting, not through neglect of the staff, but through lack of funding...

[Steve Crook]

name='MrT']Today's Sunday newspapers report the excellent news that the Treasury Committee looking into the copyright period applied to commercially released sound recordings recommend that it should remain at 50 years. Some performers such as Sir Cliff Richard had been lobbying hard for an increase in the copyright period to 95 years which would have done for music tracks what the 1996 Act did to film - consign the vast majority of the music to the archives never to be heard again for fear of contravening "copyright". Fortunately the Government has at least seen sense on this issue, realising that only a tiny fraction of music released over 50 years ago retains any great commercial value, and thus they saw no reason for extending the copyright period. If only they could now look again at Film copyright in the UK - remember that before 1st January 1996 the 1988 Copyright Act treated Film and Sound recordings in the same way - ie gave them protection for 50 years after their date of release to the public. The law was only changed in respect of films in the 1996 Act to bring us in line with other EC countries to give us the ridiculous current laws that keep the majority of films made before 1956 unseen and rotting in the vaults.



Mike (MrT)



Maybe we could start lobbying our MPs asking the government to look again at this absurd piece of legislation? The fact that so many hundreds and hundreds of films lie forgotten suggests that the current copyright holders (if they exist) have no interest in making any money from their holdings, so what sense is there to keep them locked away?

This campaign by Cliff Richard has been running for some time - and has puzzled me for just as long. He's not the copyright holder to most of his songs. The copyright is held by the composer & lyricist. Cliff was just the performer.



Maybe he has an agreement with the copyright holder that only ran for 50 years whereby he gets some fee every time one of his early songs is played. But that's between him and the copyright holder(s). Or maybe he's lobbying on behalf of the composers & lyricists, but it's usually reported as his trying to protect his own copyright. He has copyright over recordings of any live performances, but not of any recordings.



The 1996 act doesn't extend the copyright of films to 95 or any other fixed number of years. It's 70 years after the death of the longest lived copyright holder. For films, that's the producer & director. It used to be 50 years after the death of the longest lived copyright holder.



Copyright law is always a mess. That's why lawyers are the only people that really make any money out of it. See the article on copyright law of the United Kingdom on the Wikipedia to get an idea of its complexity.



Steve

[DB7]

name='Steve Crook']This campaign by Cliff Richard has been running for some time - and has puzzled me for just as long. He's not the copyright holder to most of his songs. The copyright is held by the composer & lyricist. Cliff was just the performer.

The composer's copyright is identical to that of film - 70yrs post death. Cliff, the producer and record company fall under the 50yr rule. What their cut is probably depends on the contract drawn up at the time. I think it's the contract that has sent the likes of George Michael and Prince to the courts; probably to gain greater control over their music.



What might be miffing Cliff is that as well as money, he may lose any influence on the recordings future use. So the Church of Scientology could use Move It as the soundtrack to an advert.

[Steve Crook]

name='DB7']The composer's copyright is identical to that of film - 70yrs post death. Cliff, the producer and record company fall under the 50yr rule. What their cut is probably depends on the contract drawn up at the time. I think it's the contract that has sent the likes of George Michael and Prince to the courts; probably to gain greater control over their music.



What might be miffing Cliff is that as well as money, he may lose any influence on the recordings future use. So the Church of Scientology could use Move It as the soundtrack to an advert.

That'd be good

Although as the performer he never had any influence to prevent that anyway.



Steve