View Post [edit]
Poster: | yofitofu | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 1:08am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | What is a "restoration" and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
http://cartoonsonfilm.com/disclaimer.html
Here, the "collector" of these cartoons, Tom Stathe, seems to be saying that he has some "ownership" of the materials by virtue of having "restored" them, which seems to mean he has transferred them to DVD, maybe cleaned them up a bit....hard to tell what more. The films seem genuine and complete and unaltered, although well transferred with nice musical soundtracks (originals?) but only a film historian would know all of this for sure.
Do you think this is a legitimate claim of ownership in the works in question? On this website, Rick Prelinger has generously offered thousands of PD films to the general public without restriction, even though his archive clearly performed quality transfer work on them. This seems more in keeping with the spirit of PD than what cartoonsonline claims.
If I take an old, dirty print and transfer it to a digital format, clean off some dirt, denoise, de-interlace, change some aspect ratio and color correct it, can it be claimed that this "version" of it is uniquely mine and that I can effectively copyright it and "track" (implied: charge) for it's usage in other contexts? We know this worked for some colorized films when that was a fad, so where is the line drawn on "restoration" or "enhancement"?
Of slightly more concern is the fact that, according to the Film Superlist 1894-1939, quite a few of the titles offered on this website did have their copyrights renewed.
This aside, does anyone think this is a legitimate claim of ownership?
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cartoonsonfilm | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 8:59am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
On the other hand, though, I am not savvy to Rick's financial background and am assuming he can afford to do this. I am a one-man operation working in my home and cannot do the same, unfortunately. There is a large cost in obtaining this material, which I do out of a natural love for it, and I must deflect these costs by allowing researchers to purchase copies of the materials. As I mentioned before, I receive many thanks despite the exchange of money, and I'm still not coming out of this as a profiteer. Others who collect similar materials usually do nothing to make it accessible and I've tried to not fall into that category.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Nov 29, 2009 12:18am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-11-29 08:18:41
Reply [edit]
Poster: | billbarstad | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 9:33am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Nov 29, 2009 12:19am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-11-29 08:19:24
Reply [edit]
Poster: | billbarstad | Date: | Nov 29, 2009 4:55am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Propmaster | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 3:52pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
this is coming from someone who has studied intellectual properties....now, for instance..say I'm an artist,90 yrs old...the studio that I originally did work for went on fire and many of the archives were burned including all the art, except for a few pieces, then the studio folded, although certain people were attached to the studio's name(the owners or the producers)....but they're all dead, or they sold they're shares to someone else through the years, although "YOU" may have one of the last surviving pieces, doesn't make you the owner of the visual...the actual piece, yes.....it doesn't give you the right to reprint or distribute as original either.....the artist may have an estate and you would be pretty surprised the rights artists have........but then again some can care less.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Nov 29, 2009 5:11am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-11-29 13:11:00
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ThePhotoplayer | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 9:57am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
It's small, mom-and-pop outfits such as this that keep newly restored or discovered material in general distribution. If these guys constantly have their material for sale put up on Archive, how are they going to afford to put out the next release if everyone can turn around and download it for free?
I'm not against posting public domain material, because obviously everyone owns it, but then we get into a morality issue here-- aside from Mr. Prelinger's work, which is undeniably his own, how much of the material on Archive do you think is originally transferred by anyone who posts it? I would be willing to wager very few.
Instead of scapegoating cartoons-on-film, why don't *you* dig up old Kodakscopes and transfer them yourselves, only to find outfits like Alpha and no-names on the convention circuit selling your material.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Thad Komorowski | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 1:09pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
This post was modified by Thad Komorowski on 2009-11-28 21:09:26
Reply [edit]
Poster: | HappySwordsman | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 12:35pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
This is unfair. Everybody can say anything they want except me. Hey, I could post the cure for cancer and I'd still be given a heavy dose of insults and mockery.
I am often amazed by what I *can* and *can't* post on here.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cartoonsonfilm | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 12:51pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | HappySwordsman | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 1:08pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
This post was modified by The_Emperor_Of_Television on 2009-11-28 21:08:38
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Thad Komorowski | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 1:10pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | yofitofu | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 6:43pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
My question was a legitimate one, and has nothing to do with all these paranoid ravings, especially from Thad Moronski. I would not post someone's work on this site for free. Nor would I try to be a cartoon archivist as a career. Get over yourselves for just a second and see the bigger picture and the basic innocence of my question.
My question was fairly straightforward, and I think Video-Cellar answered it best, from an un-emotional point of view. Thank you Video-Cellar. A great many strange people came out after you on this thread, however. None has raised any compelling issues about public domain apart from just emotional rantings, however.
My use could well be running some of these clips in the background of a feature film which should not be disclosed. Should I still die for doing something like this, Mr. Moronski? Should I pay a license fee to Mr. Stathe? Or should I just be allowed to use it without a death sentence by just ordering a copy from Mr. Stathe?
What scare people like me is the clearly deranged attitudes of some people on here who might rather make death threats than have a reasonable conversation about issues of public domain.
Very strange group of people.
To Photoplayers assertion that person who "digs up" and transfers the film deserves complete ownership in it, I don't believe the law supports this in any case. Rick Prelinger has done fine transfers and offered them to the world for free. But he keeps the high end clients who need to go back to negative for HD transfers going through Getty. This seems like a reasonable way to make money with your archive while at the same time honoring the concept of Public Domain. And perhaps there is something left over to do additional research.
I'll await the "trackers", the hounds and the death squads.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Thad Komorowski | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 7:39pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
This post was modified by Thad Komorowski on 2009-11-29 03:39:00
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cartoonsonfilm | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 7:07pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | yofitofu | Date: | Nov 29, 2009 10:28am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
I would probably not have posted anything had the legal claim on your website not provoked me. It seemed to indicate that you track usage of PD films you have transferred but that you wouldn't pursue legal action against other people who used the PD films after finding their own prints of the films and doing the transfers themselves.
Now, before everyone blows up in anger, I understand and appreciate the hard work archivists do. And it is refreshing to see people renewing a passion for finding and developing and bringing to the public long lost films, prints and transfers. Further, I understand the costs associated with this and would like archivists to be richly rewarded for their undertakings. It seems unfair that an archivists passionate hard work on the films they find could result in someone taking their work and using it without asking permission or paying compensation.
But where I draw the line is in the presumption that the finding and developing of PD materials constitutes some kind of ownership of them. This contradicted my understanding of what the public domain is. My impression is that I can acquire anything in the public domain, remaster it, clean it up, resize, telecine, deinterlace, etc. and then resell it in any way I choose. I can enrich you by buying the materials from you, enrich myself by performing additional improvements and then reselling it if I desire, and enrich the public domain for everyone along the way by making improved materials available to everyone. It was my thinking that this "pass it forward" kind of behavior made for a vibrant and stimulating PD world and a win-win for all people along the way.
What I did not anticipate was that this discussion would devolve into death threats and insulting obscenities because I had brought out this apparently taboo subject. The legalities apart, there are apparently courtesies to be followed in this regard, such as asking the permission of the archivist for what you might intend to do with the PD materials before you order them, and obtaining permission from the archivist in advance for your plans.
While this might seem to constitute an oral or written contract between the archivist and the end user, I guess that's what the public is supposed to do, as a courtesy. From the standpoint of the archivist, this is a respectful approach and defines courtesy in this business. From a legal standpoint, it would seem improper to enter into an oral or written contract with someone over PD materials, or for an archivist to impose restrictions of usage on PD materials they are developing or selling.
There is really no way around the discussion that won't offend the archivist and cause people to think that his hard work and efforts are being devalued. Or lead to paranoid speculation about the person making the inquiry. People immediately jump to the conclusion that the archivists hard work will be sold for $1 on porn sites, sold into slavery or given away on Archive.org.
Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the risk we all take in treasure hunting in the PD. You are uncovering intellectual property that, in spite of your loving care to polish it, catalogue it and preserve it, could be claimed by anyone at any time, thrown into a basement and left to collect dust. Or it could be duplicated and sold in stores for millions, none of which would be due to you. Or it could be put in a museum for the education of children. Or 1,000 other uses. I am not advocating any of this. It is just my understanding of the law - the cold, hard facts....
The point being is that after you find it, and then sell it, you really can't control what happens next. You have been compensated monetarily by selling it - once - if you are fortunate. Your only further compensation is to see it enjoyed, and, yes, even exploited by others, in the vast resource of the PD.
I am open to reasoned and thoughtful - and UNEMOTIONAL - responses to this, because I am trying to understand if there is an error in my thinking here. I welcome a reasoned discussion.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cartoonsonfilm | Date: | Nov 29, 2009 11:38am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
There is nothing wrong with your perception of the P.D. as you explain it. I could be wrong, but I think what happened here was this:
You brought up a very valid discussion, the points of which were further explained by Video Cellar. Again, the text on my website was given to my web designed by a third party while I was unavailable to help with the creation of the site. It has now been changed since after reviewing it thanks to this topic, I don't think it properly reflected my operation and the spirit of the public domain.
I have indeed been emotional, as this questioned my personal activity, and I will not apologize for being defense and protective of my work. There was nothing wrong with your bringing up this topic. Though upon revealing that you had some commercial interests, a person like myself could interpret the worst, especially if the interest is ambiguous. If, let's say, you were simply going to use some of my PD footage in a feature film, that would be something I would love to assist with, and I still welcome you to contact me privately.
I completely understand the situation from your point of view and think you understand my position, too, since you are vocally supportive of archivists. I think the ambiguity in your interests is what caused some panic, even if you are entitled to do what you were considering doing.
Tom
Reply [edit]
Poster: | HappySwordsman | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 10:11am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cartoonsonfilm | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 12:00pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | HappySwordsman | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 12:13pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | k-otic | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 2:32am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
i never touched them because they are so many
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 7:54am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-11-28 15:54:07
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ramapith | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 10:31am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
Theoretical example: I take an average public domain cartoon: let's say the 1924 Alice Comedy ALICE GETS IN DUTCH. I transfer it freshly to video from a 16mm copy, "restoring" it: electronically cleaning it up and repairing damage to certain frames, etc. I add new music, either recorded myself or taken from a public domain, pre-1923 source.
Then I copyright my restoration of ALICE GETS IN DUTCH. This means no one else can use it...
BUT if Joe Shlabotnik down the street has his own 16mm print of the cartoon and decides to restore, re-soundtrack and release it himself, I can't stop him. When the basic source element is in the public domain, the most I can do is protect my own version.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cartoonsonfilm | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 8:32am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
Unfortunately I only have a couple minutes to address some of the concerns in this thread. I'll start with the last post.
Walt Disney's 1923-1926 Alice Comedies were distributed by M.J. Winkler, who was infamous for never copyrighting the films she distributed. There are no copyright records for these, and the Krazy Kat shorts she also handled. Likewise, there are no copyright records for the Mutt & Jeff cartoons. This was all confirmed by me on a visit to the Library of Congress' Motion Picture Reading Room.
The Bray Studios existed in some form or another until 2008, when the last remaining stock of the corporation was overturned as the last surviving owner donated the studio effects to the Library of Congress. Again, this was confirmed through another visit to the Library.
I am curious how many of the commenters here actively work with PD or "orphan" films which are no longer being commercially exploited...in many cases, not for the past 50+ years. When I was researching these films at an early age, it was highly frustrating to see images from them in books and not find the films for actual viewing. There seems to be a general consensus and 'thanks' from researchers for now being able to see them, and it's unsure to me if the posters here share that sentiment. Is it better for these films to stay hidden for decades, even if their copyright situation is murky at best?
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 3:39pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
In using public domain material, I understand that I have no legal basis to claim rights on the public domain content that I use. I can claim rights on new material I create (tinting, musical arrangements, pans and scans, etc) just not the original work, no matter how much painstaking work I have done. I have still only copied the original work and there is "no copyright in a copy of an expired work" (and the law is not grey on that).
I know that the minute I list my new transfer of X movie that I spent 6 months preparing I am opening it up to commercial exploitation. I can ask nicely for other people not to use it, but I can't enforce the request, so I don't bother asking. Ever major US PD distributor has 'borrowed' my work. It sometimes annoys me that I didn't get paid beyond the sale price of the DVD. But I just deal with it. It is the business I have chosen and thats just how it works. All I can do is undercut them or give the film away for free.
I agree with you that an individual's decision to use the product of a person's hard work is a matter of decency. But where there is no law to guide or enforce acceptable use, there is no way to control the use of your work. It is also a matter of decency whether or not the vendor misguides their customers as to the rights held in the work. Some legislation is made about this in the US and most other countries. It is usually referred to as "copyfraud." Its no more decent to misguide your customer into what legal rights you actually have as it is for them to exploit your work without credit.
Below is my standard disclaimer which attempts to be far more accurate in terms of the rights I hold in my DVDs and not to misguide my customers:
"Video Cellar DVDs are independent public domain releases. Our DVDs are made using the highest quality DVD recording media and are professionally mastered using the best available film prints. These DVDs are presented in a quality hard plastic DVD case with full colour insert. These items are sent cellophane wrapped.
We do not sell Bootlegs or counterfeit DVDs. We sell DVDs mastered with precision, care and quality from the best possible sources. We know you will enjoy viewing the classic films that we are making available through our DVD label and ebay store.
All of our films have been thoroughly researched and their public domain status has been determined. Our DVDs are produced in accordance with the Copyright Acts 1912, 1968 and Copyright (International Protection) Regulations (British films made available in accordance with Schedule 1.12(2)(e) of the UK Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988) from prints held by the Video Cellar archives. Enhanced images from the original public domain films or original public domain posters are used in cover art. Due to the age and archival nature of the film prints used, there may be some fluctuations in image and sound quality. Every care has been taken in transfering these decades old prints to DVD. Any minor imperfections present should not effect your enjoyment of the film.
Date of Publication: 1941-1943 Country: USA. Copyright not renewed. DVD released in Australia in accordance with Copyright (International Protection) Regulations. Any Trademarks used in this item listing are used for strictly descriptive purposes only. No association or endorsement is implied or inferred.
Cover Design, Menus, Artwork and Editorial content COPYRIGHT 2008 The Video Cellar, Australia."
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cartoonsonfilm | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 4:26pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
But I do thank you for your comments on decency. I think we see eye to eye on this even though the explicit wording on my website is what seems to be part of the cause for this thread. I do not mean to mislead anyone and am simply looking to protect my work, maybe in more of a vocal manner than you are.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 4:41pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
I am 28 and have been collecting films since I was in high school. I started a DVD transfer business 5 years ago which morphed into the DVD label when I mastered DVD authoring.
If I can give one bit of advice. When your using "orphaned" works as opposed to PD works keep as much documentation as you can for your searches for copyright owners. This will be your main protection in the unlikely event that someone ever claims copyright on the film. And you should change your road show poster. Disney and WB are very precious about the use of their trademark cartoon characters. I got a letter from Disney when I had a dvd with a rare "Uncle Tom" cartoon which has some Mickey-like character modelling, claiming trademark infringement for the still on the cover. If you don't do what they ask they will keep you in legal paperwork forever.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cartoonsonfilm | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 4:57pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
I have dealt with Disney's archive which bought some of my collections before obtaining their own film print materials of certain titles I have. Perhaps this has delayed their otherwise litigious nature.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | yofitofu | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 7:09pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
Very strange group of people indeed.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cartoonsonfilm | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 7:14pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | yofitofu | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 10:59am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
I initiated this post, so I will try to clarify my question and my position. I applaud you for your passion in finding and transferring these rare animations to video. Your work is laudable and I seriously intend to order quite a few of them from you shortly to help support your efforts financially. You clearly have a passion for your pursuit and it shows.
However, I want to make it clear that if I order these films from you, I am under no obligation to you in any way as to how I use them, provided they are verifiably in the public domain (many on your list are not). Thus you can claim "ownership" of the "restorations" of these films on your site, http://cartoonsonfilm.com/disclaimer.html, but it is not enforceable in any way, unless you can show me which aspects of the work you have creatively altered to make them unique and copyrightable.
I could post them on Archive.org if I wanted to, but I won't as I have a different commercial application for them, but again the only profit you can make off of them is in the initial sale of the DVD to me. That's the nature of the PD marketplace. If there are others reading this post who disagree with me, please let me here from you, because this is the assumption I make and have always made about PD.
My second concern is that, as another person pointed out, you have quite a few titles offered which clearly have renewed their copyrights. My Bible on this is the Film Superlist 1894-1939 by Walter Hurst (a $600 investment but well worth it) which reprints all copyrights on every title ever registered during this time period and whether or not they were renewed. This book is a more efficient, handy and reliable authority than even a visit to the Library of Congress.
US films before 1923 are generally considered PD, but many after 1923, like most Felix The Cats, Koko and Paul Terry (and quite a few others on your list) are shown as having their copyright renewed. My intent here is not to dampen your enthusiasm or keep these films away from the public eye, but to protect you from a copyright infringement suit at some point in the future - which is not unlikely when you are dealing with Disney titles....and others. Please check out this invaluable book to determine which of your titles are yours to resell.
So, as I said, I do intend to support you with an order shortly. Please let me know if you disagree with my position that your public domain materials are mine to do as I choose with once I have paid you to deliver them to me on DVD.
Thanks. Yofitofu.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cartoonsonfilm | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 11:35am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | yofitofu | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 12:15pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
I don't feel compelled to put my business plan in writing in a public forum, but suffice it to say that it doesn't involve selling DVD compilations which would directly compete with your enterprise with these PD materials, although I presume others could do this should they desire, which is a risk you take when you make them available to the public.
I can understand that as an archivist and lover of these films, you feel a deep attachment to them and a sense of ownership of them. You have worked hard to bring them to the public and it seems unfair that anyone could just take them and also use them with a $20 fee to you. It is inherent in the phrase - "because I am involved in this field on a daily basis and stay in touch with most individuals who buy my material" - but I think it is important to understand that, respectfully, Public Domain materials are not your materials. They belong to the public and you cannot control other individual's ability to copy them (the copyright). You can copy them freely and resell them and so can anyone else who buys them from you. Your profit is in the initial sale of them, not in the ongoing control and administration of what happens to them after they leave your hands. This may seem harsh or legalistic, but it is a fundamental aspect of the public domain as I understand it.
So can you say what kind of restoration work you have done on these cartoons which makes them your exclusive property to enforce copyright on?That's my fundamental question which started this thread.
Thanks. yofitofu
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cartoonsonfilm | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 12:54pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
My questioning your business plans were akin to your asking for me to publicly state some of the technical sides of this endeavor. In both areas, some of these things are not topics the public are privy to and this is to protect those individuals working with the material, just as it would be a protective measure for a business person not to post his or her business plan on the internet.
While it is true that I do not "own" said material in a copyright sense and that buyers can copy the material is a moot point. Some have done this, tried replicating my operation and did not catch on for a simple reason. They are not the same multi-faceted individual making connections with other collectors, archives, researching, or doing many of the other things necessary to really be recognized in the preservation field. They indeed wrote a check and tried recouping their loss and I'm sure in time they realized that they could not start being a person like myself just by doing this. I am not going anywhere and will continue to be an active figure in this niche so long as I am breathing. The same cannot be said for those copycats I've encountered.
Like you said, I cannot control the films once they are purchased by someone. But to have them become profitable outside of my hands, if at all possible, would put a direct financial damper on my ability to locate more of these films. That is the most important task, here, and anyone who wants to attempt the same would be directly competing with me. You are also not buying the original prints in this case. Why try to reinvent the wheel?
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Ray Pointer | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 2:37pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
While in theory the PD issue leaves a lot of issue wide open for varying interpretations, these matters may not be as simple and wide open for exploitation as may be assumed here. It is indeed the perogative of an individual who has made the investment of restoring an otherwise orphaned film to register a "new version copyright" on that version, as this is an aspect of copyright law that is recognized and sustained by The Library of Congress. Such new versions can contain restoration work that includes the cleaning up of the film, restoring or re-creating lost or damaged titles, and/or making editorial revisions that include the use of music, sound effects, or subtle editing of content.
It is a mistaken concept to assume that the picture content alone from a "new version copyrighted" PD film is free to exploit since it is this version of the restoration work and editorial content that makes it unique from the original untreated PD film. It is abudantly clear that anyone wishing to exploit a "new version" that contains the investment and labor of someone else is doing so because it is easier than doing the work themselves. But the question is why bother when it's already been done better than the small time profiter whose motivation may be questionable?
So long as the public interested in these old films and cartoons, and knows the reputation of the originator, it stands to reason that they will buy from the source, not a "Johnny-come-lately."
Reply [edit]
Poster: | gestroud | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 1:48pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
Is the original question:
If A
1. Takes a public domain work and does some enhancements/restorations on it,
2. Adds his/her credits to it (Copyright John Doe's DVD Restoration),
3. claims exclusive ownership of the "new" work,
4. Sells it either separately or as/with part of a similar collection of Public Domain works,
can B legally
1. Purchase it,
2. redistribute it for free or for profit - either in part, as a whole or part of a new collection
because,
A's legal claim of ownership either
1. has no legal standing,
2. isn't in the spirit of public domain,
3. enters into a gray area?
-------------------------------
Sorry for sounding clueless, but I started going cross-eyed 3/5ths of the way into the thread. :-(
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cartoonsonfilm | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 2:20pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Nov 29, 2009 12:46am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-11-29 08:46:07
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ramapith | Date: | Nov 29, 2009 10:46am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
I don't think anyone here has even considered claiming anything that silly. But I'm aware of at least one big studio having tried. Truth is stranger than fiction, Doc...
Reply [edit]
Poster: | yofitofu | Date: | Nov 29, 2009 11:35am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
I wonder on the "b frame" issue, since that is an exact duplicate of a pre-existing frame, if this would constitute original creative work. If so, it could be a huge loophole which would allow archivists some latitude to claim copyright.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Nov 29, 2009 4:02pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-11-30 00:02:50
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Operateme | Date: | Jan 18, 2010 9:54am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
http://www.momyweb.com/forums/index.php
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Ray Pointer | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 3:09pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials? |
While in theory the PD issue leaves a lot of issue wide open for varying interpretations, these matters may not be as simple and wide open for exploitation as may be assumed here. It is indeed the perogative of an individual who has made the investment of restoring an otherwise orphaned film to register a "new version copyright" on that version, as this is an aspect of copyright law that is recognized and sustained by The Library of Congress. Such new versions can contain restoration work that includes the cleaning up of the film, restoring or re-creating lost or damaged titles, and/or making editorial revisions that include the use of music, sound effects, or subtle editing of content.
It is a mistaken concept to assume that the picture content alone from a "new version copyrighted" PD film is free to exploit since it is this version of the restoration work and editorial content that makes it unique from the original untreated PD film. It is abudantly clear that anyone wishing to exploit a "new version" that contains the investment and labor of someone else is doing so because it is easier than doing the work themselves. But the question is why bother when it's already been done better than the small time profiter whose motivation may be questionable?
So long as the public interested in these old films and cartoons, and knows the reputation of the originator, it stands to reason that they will buy from the source, not a "Johnny-come-lately."