logo Sign In

Info Wanted: A question about public domain works... — Page 2

Author
Time

ElectricTriangle said:

Absolutely nothing. Most of the edits here remain 100% illegal under our terrible copyright laws. This thread is about movies that are currently public domain.

I thought that since the theatricals officially don’t exist to Lucasfilm that they counted. Am I right or wrong?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

They are still very much under copyright. Why do you think Disney bought Lucasfilm for billions? Distribution has nothing to to do with a work’s copyright status (it should, as currently their are tons of pieces of art and literature that are under copyright with no one distributing them-so called “orphan works”). Lucasfilm has thankfully ignored the existence of edits on here (and the rules stress that you should buy the official blurays), but fan-works still exist at the whims of Disney’s legal department.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture DE - The Anti-DNR Fanedit
Duel (1971) - The Hybrid Cut
The Phantom of the Opera - 1925 Version Reconstruction - Rare Scores Collection - Roy Budd Score

Author
Time

ElectricTriangle said:

They are still very much under copyright. Why do you think Disney bought Lucasfilm for billions? Distribution has nothing to to do with a work’s copyright status (it should, as currently, their are tons of pieces of art and literature that are under copyright with no one distributing them-so called “orphan works”). Lucasfilm has thankfully ignored the existence of edits on here (and the rules stress that you should buy the official blurays), but fan-works still exist at the whims of Disney’s legal department.

I think its odd that they haven’t released them yet. especially when the market is more than primed.

Author
Time

As I understand, the new transfer features some things that were not in the original theatrical Version? In this case it may be under copyright law.

http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/PublicDomain.html:

Whenever you rely on the PD status of a work, it is important to make sure that the particular version you want to use is actually in the public domain.
Later versions or adaptations (e.g., translations, revisions, annotated and illustrated editions) of PD works may be protected by a separate copyright.

"I kill Gandalf." - Igor, Dork Tower

Author
Time

MrBrown said:

As I understand, the new transfer features some things that were not in the original theatrical Version? In this case it may be under copyright law.

http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/PublicDomain.html:

Whenever you rely on the PD status of a work, it is important to make sure that the particular version you want to use is actually in the public domain.
Later versions or adaptations (e.g., translations, revisions, annotated and illustrated editions) of PD works may be protected by a separate copyright.

That’s what they did for Beneath the 12 Mile Reef, the restored release is an extended cut, and of course they’ve yet to bother restoring the original.

Author
Time

Essentially when dealing with PD titles it is the new restoration or version that can be copyrighted but anyone else is free to make their own release or version from the non-restored still PD materials or whatever they get a hold of. However if so inclined and it is within a certain time frame there are instances of original holders or studios re-obtaining rights to items that were PD for some time-such as Republic re-aquiring It’s a Wonderful Life before Paramount took it over.

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader

Author
Time
 (Edited)

captainsolo said:

Essentially when dealing with PD titles it is the new restoration or version that can be copyrighted but anyone else is free to make their own release or version from the non-restored still PD materials or whatever they get a hold of.

Again, in the US at least, there is ample legal precedent that establishes that you can’t re-copyright a restoration, because the basis of copyright is originality. Now, you can re-copyright a remixed soundtrack or an extended cut of a PD film, because those are creative decisions, but a faithful restoration, no matter how much work is involved, cannot be copyrighted. It is not a new creative work or a derivative work. Some restoration houses register their restorations with the copyright office, but based on current legal precedent those copyrights would not hold up in court.
Here are some examples from earlier in the thread:
http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1186550/action/topic#1186550
http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1186553/action/topic#1186553

Star Trek: The Motion Picture DE - The Anti-DNR Fanedit
Duel (1971) - The Hybrid Cut
The Phantom of the Opera - 1925 Version Reconstruction - Rare Scores Collection - Roy Budd Score

Author
Time

It is arguable, if scanning and remastering a video could be called creative work.

If a judge decides that putting days to work as creative work, the specific version could be qualify as copyrighted, while the movie itself is not, so everyone could still share the old not copyrighted masters.

I think I read somewhere that companies who have a license to release a movie, still needs specific video master licenses, if they don’t want to make their own.

We could make a test: you upload it, share it, and then we call criterion, and see what happens… 😄 (just a joke)

"I kill Gandalf." - Igor, Dork Tower