Skip to main content

View Post [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jul 21, 2010 7:13am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Another list of movies in question

Not sure what the "Australian History teacher" thing is supposed to mean. I think I have explained many times that I studied law and have had years working with public domain film on video and TV. I don't claim to be an expert. I just try to put the information I have into an easy format and help people out with their copyright research when I can. I don't know of the qualifications of the people who contribute to copyrightdata.org but I have found that some of the analysis can be narrow. I have found it to be a good starting point on some issues I didn't understand, but further reading was always required. These are the only requirements for copyright protection of a US work in the USA I know. My sources, as always, are years of studying copyright legislation, copyright office documents, scholarly legal articles and working with PD material. These are the requirements I use to judge whether a US film is PD. Before 1950: Correct Notice Timely registration (within 3 months of publication) Timely renewal (within the 27th-28th anniversary year window*) copyright could be forfeited if published without correct notice or not timely registered and renewed 1950 (this is the transitional year for the effects of the 1976 act to come in): Correct Notice Timely registration (within 3 months of publication) OR Late Term Registration (at any time during the 28 year term) Timely renewal (within the 27th-28th anniversary year window* or the 28th calandar year window*) copyright could be forfeited if published without correct notice or not timely renewed 1950-1963 Correct Notice Registration (at any time during the first 28 year term) Timely renewal (within the 28th calandar year window*) copyright could be forfeited if published without correct notice or not timely renewed 1964-1977 Correct Notice copyright could be forfeited if published without correct notice. Registration is only required for evidentiary purposes in pursuing damages actions against infringers 1978-1989 Notice copyright could be forfeited if published without notice provided steps were not taken to rectify the ommission within 5 years from publication (this could include including notices in later editions or registration.). If a notice was included registration is only required for evidentiary purposes in pursuing damages actions against infringers 1989-present: Work is created and or published work is covered by copyright unless dedicated to the public domain or released through an alternative licence. *based on the year-in-notice.
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2010-07-21 14:13:37

Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Jul 21, 2010 8:09am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Another list of movies in question

Thanks for this useful summary. I've bookmarked it!

Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Oct 29, 2011 8:40am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Another list of movies in question

I would love to see a concrete example for the case where the year in notice is a year earlier than the year of registration for movies where the year in notice is 1950 or earlier. How would the anniversary year window be defined? Specifically, do you just substitute the year in notice year for that in the registration date and go from there, or does the anniversary year window become Jan. 1 of the year before the year in notice to Dec. 31 of the year in notice, or something else entirely? Copyrightdata.com and Circular 15 from the copyright office skirt this case. At least I can't find the information. Help!

Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Oct 29, 2011 1:46pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Another list of movies in question

The movie DOA was registered with the copyright office in 1950 as below:

D.O.A. Harry M. Popkin Production. Released
through United Artists, 1950. 83
min., sd., b&w, 35mm. Cardinal Pictures,
Inc.; 21Apr50 (in notice: 1949);
LP63.

As 1950 was the transitional year, if the date in notice was 1950 the renewal window would be either the anniversary window (22 April 1977 - 21 April 1978) or the 28th anniversary calendar year window (1 January 1978 - 31 December 1978). However, the date-in-notice was 1949 so the windows are calculated from 1949 not 1950. Consequently when the owner filed a renewal registration in August 1978, it was cancelled because it was late:

DOA;a feature photoplay. By Cardinal Pictures, Inc.

Type of Work: Cancelled Registration
Cancelled Registration Number: RE0000005723
Registration canceled--in notice 1949, too late for renewal registration.
Title: DOA;a feature photoplay. By Cardinal Pictures, Inc.

Variant title: DOA
Names: Cardinal Pictures, Inc.

Other examples:
- Renewals lodged in 1979 for MGMs 1951 releases "Father's Little Dividend", "Three Guys Named Mike", "Going For Broke", "Royal Wedding", "The Painted Hills" and a number of others were rejected due to 1950 dates-in-notice.
- A 1983 renewal for MGMs "The Last Time I Saw Paris" was rejected because the notice read 1945 not 1954.

Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Oct 29, 2011 4:31pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Another list of movies in question

Yes, those examples make sense. It's quite clear that renewals must be based on the year in notice.

Am I correct that when you wrote: "However, the date-in-notice was 1949 so the windows are calculated from 1949 not 1950." for D.O.A. to have a valid renewal, you seem to imply that substitution of the year in notice year for that in the registration date is how the anniversary year window is calculated in a case like this? That is, did D.O.A. have an anniversary year renewal window of 22 April 1976 - 21 April 1977? Would there really be a calendar year renewal window for D.O.A., too, because it was registered in 1950? Can I pin you down?

Thanks again!

Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Oct 29, 2011 5:18pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Another list of movies in question

Yes, there would not be a calendar year renewal period for D.O.A because 1949 movies were had to be renewed based on the anniversary year window. Effectively the year-in-notice is the official publication year as far a copyright goes. If a 1966 film accidently had a 1942 year-in-notice had to be renewed by the registration anniversary date in 1970 to be renewed regardless of the actual date of publication. Effectively a film could be pre-dated up to 28 years and be effectively copyrighted (of course, post dating of more than one year rendered the notice invalid).

Many copyright owners fell into this trap when the took up late registrations in the 1980s for 1950s and 60s movies. They thought they had 28 years from registration to renew and not 28 years from date in notice.

To summarize the rules for renewals:
-1923-1949 (inclusive): 28th anniversary window based on the date of registration and the year in notice.

-1950: 28th anniversary window based on the date of registration and the year in notice OR 28th Calandar year window based on the year in notice.

-1951-1963 (inclusive): 28th Caledar year renewal window based on the year in notice.

Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Oct 29, 2011 6:58pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Another list of movies in question

Thanks much!

Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Jul 22, 2010 1:30am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Another list of movies in question

Some clarification, as different people seem to take my post differently. @elmagno: The Harvard Review, founded in 1887, is one of the most respected legal publications in the USA. Its members are selected based on excellence in legal scholarship. Former members of the Harvard Law Review include Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Roberts and President of the USA, Barack Obama. I say evidence indicates" because I once saw a website related to video cellar that contained this information. However, I don't know anything else about him. I say "he is apparently" because when I google the name of the owner of copyrightdata.org the only match I get is an IP lawyer at a Silicon valley law firm who was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. I have no quick and easy way of knowing if it is the same person. I wrote copyrightdata.org but it should be copyrightdata.com So I'm just trying to state facts as facts and stuff that is not verified as something I found but have not verified. So I have two sources of free legal advice. One comes from copyrightdata.com whose editor is apparently a practicing IP lawyer who was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. The other source is from Video Cellar a smart, knowledgeable and helpful guy who states that he is not an expert. I further added that he is a history teacher (e.g. Law is not his professional area of expertise) and that he is probably Australian (so I assume he is less familiar with American law than an American trained legal professional). Lacking other information I assume that people are most familiar with the laws of their own country. An example: Once my company was ready to sign a US distribution deal for the product of a British company. When I gave my US law firm a copy of the contract for review they said, "We can't review this because it is UK law. So we don't know what it means". To the point: The discrepancy I have always found between several available sources concerning copyright law on US films is for films published between 1964-1977. http://chart.copyrightdata.com/index.php says: Prior to 1978, accurate registration was required to secure a copyright after publication. Furthermore, filing was required to be prompt. After 1978, timeliness was not required. From March 1989, registration is optional. However many other sources indicate that prior to 1978 the registration was optional as well That's what I asked my FCC lawyer friend (who is now an IP lawyer in the private sector) about because I couldn't really resolve the discrepancy. So maybe the discrepancy comes from the fact that pre-1978 filing is optional due to a retroactive clause in the 1976 law which allowed films published after 1964 to be registered anytime during the first 28 years. That is stated in the circ 15 link posted by Moongleam: "In cases where no original registration or renewal registration is made before the expiration of the 28th year, important benefits can still be secured by filing a renewal registration at any time during the renewal term" That alone means that non-registration would not make them PD (because once the go in to the Public Domain they can't come out -- unless they are GATT eligible), but it doesn't give them statutory copyright unless they are registered either. So this may be a special case. Do such films have common law copyright? That's my question. As Video Cellar correctly points out, in the US the case law is important (it tells you what the law means). Maybe copyrightdata.com says filing is required because of some case that ruled on this, but I don't see any evidence of that. Anyway, it's nothing to get worked up about. Most of the "law" cited above is from summaries for laymen and their are always many exceptions. Even judges frequently seem unable to find common ground concerning public domain law. I just wrote that post because Video Cellar has become somewhat the authority on this site, but lately has not been around much to answer questions or correct misinterpretations of his posts. In that case there are higher authorities available. but hopefully Video Cellar will come around a bit more ;-) and it's good to have everything all in one thread.
This post was modified by HektorT on 2010-07-22 08:30:15

Reply [edit]

Poster: Detective John Carter of Mars Date: Jul 22, 2010 3:46am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Another list of movies in question

@because when I google the name of the owner of copyrightdata.org the only match I get is an IP lawyer at a Silicon valley law firm who was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. I have no quick and easy way of knowing if it is the same person.

@I wrote copyrightdata.org but it should be copyrightdata.com

http://whois.domaintools.com/copyrightdata.com

quick and easy but there are a lot of David Hayes, how did you get only 1 hit in google

Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Jul 22, 2010 4:06am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Another list of movies in question

"how did you get one hit in google" (I really said 'the only match i get') q=David Hayes copyright law results in one relevant answer
This post was modified by HektorT on 2010-07-22 11:06:12

Reply [edit]

Poster: Detective John Carter of Mars Date: Jul 22, 2010 4:09am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Another list of movies in question

you found David L. Hayes but the site owner is David P. Hayes

Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Jul 22, 2010 4:46am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Another list of movies in question

Good find on your part! As I said it was a quick and easy search. Now you know why I said apparently. Precision is important! checking the address, however, since he uses a private domain registration, I'm only about 90% convinced it's not the same person. In any event the discrepancy still stands. But since Mr. Hayes is not so esteemed as I had thought, I am more likely to consider the source of the discrepancy to be an error on the part of copyrightdata.com. I'll write copyrightdata.com sometime to see what they say and when I do I'll let you know what the answer is.
This post was modified by HektorT on 2010-07-22 11:20:42
This post was modified by HektorT on 2010-07-22 11:46:53

Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Jul 22, 2010 11:44am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Another list of movies in question

The fact remains. In the U.S., the copyright on a film released after 1963 will not expire after 28 years, because renewal is optional.

Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Jul 23, 2010 1:39am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Another list of movies in question

That was not my question. But let's say it's beyond the scope of this discussion