Skip to main content

View Post [edit]

Poster: jake@archive.org Date: Jan 4, 2011 4:38pm
Forum: movies Subject: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

Alan Parker put together a list of 100 movies in the public domain on his blog, Nosey Parker, at torontosun.com http://www.torontosun.com/blogs/al_parker/2010/12/08/16480486.html Most of these are already in the archive, but I've been rounding up the ones that aren't and uploading them. I am having trouble getting a hold of these 5 films in particular. Alien Thunder (1973, AKA Dan Candy’s Law) Divorce of Lady X (1938) Man From Music Mountain (1938 and 1943) The Saturday Night Kid (1929) I thought I'd check the movie forum here to see if anyone either knew of where I could find these movies online, or if they had a copy they would like to upload. Thanks!
This post was modified by jake@archive.org on 2011-01-05 00:38:54

Reply [edit]

Poster: darkomaver Date: Jan 5, 2011 4:54pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

hi, Divorce of Lady X and Saturday Night Kid are apparently in eMule.

Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jan 6, 2011 3:13am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

Of the 100 movies quite a few are not in the public domain anymore. About 20% of them are not PD. 8 of them were never PD by any shape or form. 3. Alien Thunder (1973, AKA Dan Candy's Law) As a Canadian film it is eligible for GATT restoration. However, it was never PD - the film was released with a copyright notice and the US bilaterally respected Canadian copyrights before GATT. 9. The Blue Angel (1930) Copyright restored under GATT 15. Charade (1963) Copyright was recaptured the same way It's a Wonderful Life was (underlying coyrights) 18. Dark Journey (1937) GATT registered 21. Death Rides A Horse (1967) GATT restored 24. Diabolique (1955) GATT restored 29. Escape From Sobibor (1987) Contains a copyright notice 34. Faust (1926) GATT restored 35. Freaks (1932) Registered and renewed properly, never PD. 39. God's Gun (1976) GATT restored 41. Greed (1924) Registered and renewed properly, never PD. 47. Hercules (1958) GATT restored 64. The Lone Ranger (1955) Registered and renewed properly, never PD. 65. M (1931) GATT restored 69. Metropolis (1927) GATT restored 73. One-Eyed Jacks (1961) Registered and renewed properly, never PD. 78. The Brother From Another Planet (1984) Contains notice never PD 86. The Saturday Night Kid (1929) Properly registered and renewed. Never PD 88. Shoot The Piano Player (1962) GATT restored 93. The Tall Blond Man With One Black Shoe (1972) GATT restored 100. Zulu (1964) GATT restored I sent a message to the Blog pointing out the error.
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2011-01-06 11:13:24

Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 6, 2011 8:17pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

I don't know about Canadian law where this article was published, but there was an awful lot of talk about U.S. law. In the U.S. it was ruled in Golan v. Gonzales and Golan v. Holder that "In the United States, that body of law includes the bedrock principle that works in the public domain remain in the public domain. Removing works from the public domain violated Plaintiffs’ vested First Amendment interests." The proceeding was in reference to URAA restorations as 17 U.S.C §104A does not authorize them (true, Congressman may be illiterate and botched what was written). So these movies that were GATT restored ARE in the public domain (at least in the United States).
This post was modified by cooperway4 on 2011-01-07 04:17:01

Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jan 6, 2011 8:19pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

No. This is a very specific decision that states that people who used the previously public domain works to create new derivative works prior to implementation of the URAA provisions had THEIR speech impacted by the implementation of the new copyright provisions.

Effectively, the URAA provisons have only been ruled unconstitutional in respect of how they apply to one specific group of people in one specific jurisdiction within the US. This has neither repealed nor negated the laws in any of the other federal court jurisdictions in the US and has no impact on the use of these works by people who are not part of the specific group whose speech was impacted ("reliance parties" under the act.)

The statement that "In the United States, that body of law includes the bedrock principle that works in the public domain remain in the public domain" is somewhat misleading because there is no such statute that reflects this. The idea that once PD always PD is based soley on historical principles and practices and not on specific laws.

Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 7, 2011 12:51am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

ok there is a definition for restored works:

(6) The term “restored work” means an original work of authorship that —

(A) is protected under subsection (a);

(B) is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection;

(C) is in the public domain in the United States due to —

(i) noncompliance with formalities imposed at any time by United States copyright law, including failure of renewal, lack of proper notice, or failure to comply with any manufacturing requirements;

(ii) lack of subject matter protection in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972; or

(iii) lack of national eligibility;

(D) has at least one author or rightholder who was, at the time the work was created, a national or domiciliary of an eligible country, and if published, was first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country; and

(E) if the source country for the work is an eligible country solely by virtue of its adherence to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, is a sound recording.

Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 6, 2011 9:25pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

17 U.S.C §104A (e) (B)(i) The Register of Copyrights shall publish in the Federal Register, commencing not later than 4 months after the date of restoration for a particular nation and every 4 months thereafter for a period of 2 years, lists identifying restored works and the ownership thereof if a notice of intent to enforce a restored copyright has been filed.

So even assuming that the ruling is only jurisdictional or appealed, there would still have to exist a notice of intent.

And since neither restored work nor restoration have been defined, it makes the law useless.

What gets me is - why would someone care if the supposed rights' holders haven't even cared for well over a decade whether these movies are being viewed as public domain?

Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jan 7, 2011 12:57am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

The notice of intent register was a blanket notice to all reliance parties that could be made in the first two years after restoration. After the 2 year period an individual GATT/URAA copyright registration or individual notices to reliance parties were the course for copyright owners of works restored by the legislation, as mentioned in 17 USC §104A (e) (2) Restoration of copyright was automatic. NIEs were the way the copyright owners notified all "reliance parties" at the same time that they would be enforcing their restored copyright. All of the quarterly registers including the thousands of works that NIEs were lodged for in the first two years are available at the USCO site here GATT/URAA registrations from after that date are available in the copyright database on the same site. And, for the record, people who commenced using the work after 1 Jan 1996 are NOT "reliance parties". Instead, they are infringers of the restored copyright. There are many users of the Internet Archive who are concerned that the movies that they watch and download here are free from copyright. Many of them do not like the idea of becoming copyright infringers, even by accident. 17 USC §104A (d)Remedies for infringement of restored copyrights. (1)Enforcement of copyright in restored works in the absence of a reliance party. As against any party who is not a reliance party, the remedies provided in chapter 5 of this title [17 USC § §501 et seq.] shall be available on or after the date of restoration of a restored copyright with respect to an act of infringement of the restored copyright that is commenced on or after the date of restoration. And I am sorry but "restored work" is clearly defined in the law. A restored work is defined as being the original works to which restored copyright is being applied under the act. 17 USC §104A (h) (5) The term "restored copyright" means copyright in a restored work under this section. (6) The term "restored work" means an original work of authorship that-- (A) is protected under subsection (a); (B) is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection; (C) is in the public domain in the United States due to-- (i) noncompliance with formalities imposed at any time by United States copyright law, including failure of renewal, lack of proper notice, or failure to comply with any manufacturing requirements; (ii) lack of subject matter protection in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972; or (iii) lack of national eligibility; (D) has at least one author or rightholder who was, at the time the work was created, a national or domiciliary of an eligible country, and if published, was first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country; and (E) if the source country for the work is an eligible country solely by virtue of its adherence to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, is a sound recording.
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2011-01-07 08:57:01

Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 7, 2011 1:19am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

Beat you to that by 5 minutes.

Again I wonder - why would you care if the supposed rights' holders haven't even cared for well over a decade whether these movies are being viewed as public domain?

Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jan 7, 2011 1:45am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

No you are about 5 hours behind

And the answer to your question is in my post immeadiately above.

"And, for the record, people who commenced using the work after 1 Jan 1996 are NOT "reliance parties". Instead, they are infringers of the restored copyright. There are many users of the Internet Archive who are concerned that the movies that they watch and download here are free from copyright. Many of them do not like the idea of becoming copyright infringers, even by accident."


Reply [edit]

Poster: fedup Date: Jan 7, 2011 3:27pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

another snitch

Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 6, 2011 10:26pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

M (1931) never qualified for copyright in the U.S. pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §104 (b).

Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jan 7, 2011 1:02am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

The section you'd like to rely on: (b) Published Works. The works specified by sections 102 and 103, when published, are subject to protection under this title if— (1) on the date of first publication, one or more of the authors is a national or domiciliary of the United States, or is a national, domiciliary, or sovereign authority of a treaty party, or is a stateless person, wherever that person may be domiciled; or (2) the work is first published in the United States or in a foreign nation that, on the date of first publication, is a treaty party; or (3) the work is a sound recording that was first fixed in a treaty party; or (4) the work is a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work that is incorporated in a building or other structure, or an architectural work that is embodied in a building and the building or structure is located in the United States or a treaty party; or (5) the work is first published by the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies, or by the Organization of American States; or (6) the work comes within the scope of a Presidential proclamation. Whenever the President finds that a particular foreign nation extends, to works by authors who are nationals or domiciliaries of the United States or to works that are first published in the United States, copyright protection on substantially the same basis as that on which the foreign nation extends protection to works of its own nationals and domiciliaries and works first published in that nation, the President may by proclamation extend protection under this title to works of which one or more of the authors is, on the date of first publication, a national, domiciliary, or sovereign authority of that nation, or which was first published in that nation. The President may revise, suspend, or revoke any such proclamation or impose any conditions or limitations on protection under a proclamation. For purposes of paragraph (2), a work that is published in the United States or a treaty party within 30 days after publication in a foreign nation that is not a treaty party shall be considered to be first published in the United States or such treaty party, as the case may be. M seems to qualify for (1), (2), and (6) M was released in the USA more than 30 days after it was in Germany so it qualifies as a work originally published outside the USA. As, at the time of publication, the US had a bilateral copyright treaty in force with Germany, which began in December 1910, the authors' and work's country of origin was a "treaty party" and so copyright was extended to the work. It was registered for copyright properly: M. Nero Films, AG., Berlin. 1931. 9 reels sd Authors: Director, Fritz Lang; scenario, Thea Von Harbou Copyright Foremco Pictures Corp. and Nassau Films, inc (Nero Films, Author); 11May31; LP3800 When renewal came up it was not renewed and fell into the public domain in the USA. However, after the URAA was passed, the successors of the copyright registered a NIE on the film: M. Additional title: Murderer among us, Morder Unter Uns, A town is looking... Type of Work: Recorded Document Document Number: V8007P558 Date of Recordation: 1997-12-31 Entire Copyright Document: V8007P558 (Single page document) Title: M. Additional title: Murderer among us, Morder Unter Uns, A town is looking for a murderer. Notes: Motion picture. Filed for all rights. Notice of intent to enforce a copyright restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Owner: Atlantic-Film, SA. Via Resore 6; Postfach 137; 6949 Comano, Switzerland. PHONE: (41) 1 422-3832. FAX: (41) 1 422-3793. Author: Fritz Lang. Date of Publication: 1998-04-17 Variant title: M. Murderer among us Morder Unter Uns A town is looking for a murderer. Names: Lang, Fritz Atlantic-Film, SA.
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2011-01-07 08:23:41
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2011-01-07 09:02:05

Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 7, 2011 12:48am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

Owner: Atlantic-Film, SA. Via Resore 6; Postfach 137; 6949 Comano, Switzerland

17 U.S.C. § 104A (b) Ownership of Restored Copyright. — A restored work vests initially in the author or initial rightholder of the work as determined by the law of the source country of the work.

Were they the original rights holder?

Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jan 7, 2011 1:02am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

Looking at the registration it appears that they are successor in interest to the original copyright owner and registering on behalf of or as the successors-in-interest to the author. URAA does not explicitly prevent assignment, transfer or third party management of the restored copyright. Most works were registered by successors-in-interest to the original copyright owners, which was perfectly legal and proper as copyright continues to endure after the deaths of the original owners.
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2011-01-07 09:02:55

Reply [edit]

Poster: Mystic550 Date: Jan 6, 2011 3:50pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

No 18. Dark Journey (1937) was a U.K. film if it's the same one I'm thinking about. Wouldn't that film have been PD in the U.K. and ineligible for Gatt renewal?

Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jan 6, 2011 8:14pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

It's based on a copyright protected play by the screenwriter.
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2011-01-07 04:14:20

Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 6, 2011 8:23pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

One-Eyed Jacks (1961)
144 min - Sep 17, 2006
video.google.com

I find it hard to believe that this has been available for over 4 years and no rights claimer has sought it's removal. So it's obvious that Warner doesn't own the rights even though they own the master print because anything they have rights to is caught faster than you can shake a stick.

Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jan 6, 2011 8:37pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

This was an independent feature which was not owned by the major studios. The copyright was renewed properly-

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000409372 / 1988-12-29
Renewal registration for: LP0000019590 / 1960-12-31
Title: One-eyed jacks. By Pennebaker, Inc.
Copyright Claimant: David R. Baer (PWH)

Variant title: One-eyed jacks.
Names: Baer, David R.
Pennebaker, Inc.

Why hasn't the Google video version been removed by the copyright owner? Maybe because they put it there so people visiting the film's official website can watch it.

Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 8, 2011 6:45pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

David R. Bear has made false copyright claims before. Take Hatari! (1962) for example:

Title: Hatari. By Malabar Productions.
Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000459859 / 1989-12-27
Renewal registration for: LP0000022962 / 1961-12-31
Title: Hatari. By Malabar Productions.
Copyright Claimant: David R. Baer (PWH)

Variant title: Hatari.
Names: Baer, David R.
Malabar Productions.


is a fraudulent renewal while

Hatari. By Paramount Pictures Corporation and Malabar Productions, Inc.
Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000479374 / 1990-01-02
Renewal registration for: LP0000022962 / 1961-12-31
Title: Hatari. By Paramount Pictures Corporation and Malabar Productions, Inc.
Copyright Claimant: Paramount Pictures Corporation (PWH)
Copyright Note: Entered under 17 USC sec. 703 C.O. correspondence.

Variant title: Hatari.
Names: Malabar Productions, Inc.
Paramount Pictures Corporation

is the real one. Maybe you should do more research first before claiming widely accepted public domain movies aren't.

Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jan 8, 2011 7:29pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

Do some research before you claim that movies containing copyright material are public domain.

One eyed jacks; love theme. m Paramount Pictures Corporation, employer for...
Type of Work: Music
Registration Number / Date: RE0000366164 / 1988-01-05
Renewal registration for: EU0000630122 / 1960-06-30
Title: One eyed jacks; love theme. m Paramount Pictures Corporation, employer for hire of Hugo W. Friedhofer.
Copyright Claimant: Famous Music Corporation (PWH)

Variant title: One eyed jacks
Names: Friedhofer, Hugo W.
Paramount Pictures Corporation
Famous Music Corporation

Love theme from One eyed jacks. m Hugo W. Friedhofer.
Type of Work: Music
Registration Number / Date: RE0000423771 / 1989-01-05
Renewal registration for: EP0000150281 / 1961-03-24
Title: Love theme from One eyed jacks. m Hugo W. Friedhofer.
Copyright Claimant: Famous Music Corporation (PWH)
Basis of Claim: New Matter: piano arr.

Variant title: Love theme from One eyed jacks
Other Title: One eyed jacks
Names: Friedhofer, Hugo W.
Famous Music Corporation

One eyed jacks. m Paramount Pictures Corporation, employer for hire of...
Type of Work: Music
Registration Number / Date: RE0000423694 / 1989-01-05
Renewal registration for: EU0000662308 / 1961-03-13
Title: One eyed jacks. m Paramount Pictures Corporation, employer for hire of Hugo W. Friedhofer.
Notes: Score.
Copyright Claimant: Famous Music Corporation (PWH)

Variant title: One eyed jacks
Names: Friedhofer, Hugo W.
Paramount Pictures Corporation
Famous Music Corporation

Louisa; love theme from One eyed jacks. w McKayla Morgan, m Paramount...
Type of Work: Music
Registration Number / Date: RE0000423734 / 1989-01-05
Renewal registration for: EU0000681187 / 1961-08-02
Title: Louisa; love theme from One eyed jacks. w McKayla Morgan, m Paramount Pictures Corporation, employer for hire of Hugo Friedhofer.
Copyright Claimant: Famous Music Corporation (PWH of Hugo Friedhofer)

Variant title: Louisa
Other Title: One eyed jacks
Names: Morgan, McKayla
Friedhofer, Hugo
Paramount Pictures Corporation
Famous Music Corporation

Louisa; love theme from One eyed jacks. w McKayla Morgan, m Paramount...
Type of Work: Music
Registration Number / Date: RE0000423733 / 1989-01-05
Renewal registration for: EU0000681187 / 1961-08-02
Title: Louisa; love theme from One eyed jacks. w McKayla Morgan, m Paramount Pictures Corporation, employer for hire of Hugo Friedhofer.
Copyright Claimant: McKayla Morgan (A)

Variant title: Louisa
Other Title: One eyed jacks
Names: Morgan, McKayla
Friedhofer, Hugo
Paramount Pictures Corporation

Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 6, 2011 10:49pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

http://www.theoutlawmovie.bravehost.com/

Here's another so-called official movie site. This guy has tons of them (okay, at least three). It appears he put movies he believes are public domain in them.

Not to mention all these people think One-Eyed Jacks is public domain: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/256423/one-eyed-jacks-will-paramount-ever-rescue-it-from-public-domain-hell

And once again I ask - why would someone care if the supposed rights' holders haven't even cared for well over a decade whether these movies are being viewed as public domain?

Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jan 7, 2011 12:23am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

Doesn't change that the film was renewed and all of the music and underlying copyrights were renewed. The neglect might make it an orphan work, but it is not in the public domain.

Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 7, 2011 12:45am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

I agree. My point was that's not a very official movie site.

Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Jan 23, 2011 4:07pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

One Eyed Jacks was released without a valid notice, that is why it's PD. When you know the history of that film, it's no surprise that an omission was made. It's also why there are more than a dozen DVD versions of it available. Brother from Another Planet is also legitimate PD based on a proprietary list published by one of the most reputable PD houses. There are others noted above as not PD that are questionable as well. Perhaps they don't pass the "acid-tests" promoted here, but those are not the only rules.
This post was modified by HektorT on 2011-01-24 00:07:22

Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jan 23, 2011 5:37pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

One Eyed Jacks

The copyright notice on original prints was "COPYRIGHT © 1960 by PENNEBAKER,INC." see below attachment.


Brother From Another Planet.

The film is covered by copyright, because it carried a valid notice, and could not be termed "Public Domain". However, as it was not registered, statutory damages are not available to the copyright owner. Many PD distributors are willing to take the risk on these films. However, that does not change the fact that they are copyright, not public domain, regardless to the limited penalties for use (the penalties are limited to actual damages and legal fees, which could be substantial if an infringement was taken to court).

Attachment: OEJ_Copy_Notice_1.jpg
Attachment: OEJ_Copy_Notice_2.jpg

Reply [edit]

Poster: Dupenhagen Moonbat Date: Jan 9, 2011 5:22pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

Has anyone considered performing a Turing test on Video-Cellar? Just a thought...