In the public domain?

[Landon D. Parks]

I have a question. Older books such as Washington Irvings "Sleepy Hollow", "Rip Van Wrinkle" and the Edgar Allen Poe "Fall of the house of usher", are they currently in the public domain (I think thats what you call it)? I heard somewhere that after a period of time, books, ect go into the public domain. Where the copyright expires and anyone is free to use the work in most forms, including movies....

 

Anyone know? And also, is there a website where I can find all the books, stories, ect in the public domain?

 

Thanks as always guys!

 

Also, This has nothing to do with filmmaking (Well in a way it does) I was reading that any music with a copyright older than 1922 is in the public domain? Does this mean that ANY music created in 1922 or before can be used free of charge (AKA: Over the Rainbow from Wizard of Oz) or is that only if the owner don't renew the copyright?

Edited June 2, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Landon D. Parks]

Correction: Wizard of Oz was made in 1939 :rolleyes: , so It's not in the public domain yet. Nor would be the song "Over the Rainbow"... Just to clear things up.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

When it comes to authors, here it's 70 years after the death of the author, if I'm not mistaken. I think I've read it to be around 90 in America. But there's no coincidence that Hammer Films started doing a whole slew of Edgar Allan Poe films at the end of the 60's - that's because the copyright expired. Same goes for Bram Stoker's Dracula and many other books like Washinton Irving's Sleepy Hollow.

 

I don't know if the same is true for a film - someone must own the negative forever, I presume.

[David Mullen ASC]

Films falls into public domain all the time -- a good example is when you see two or three small video companies release crappy versions of the same movie, like the original "A Star is Born" or even "Citizen Kane" or some Shirley Temple movies.

 

However, I believe one can copyright a restored or reedited version, so a studio basically gets a new copyright when they restore a movie, but only for the restoration -- people who own old prints can still release them if they wanted to for public domain movies.

 

That doesn't mean that the story these movies are based on are public domain. Sometimes estates manage to keep control over material for some time after an author's death, at least until the 70 years have passed.

 

Congress recently created some loopholes that have allowed Disney to retain copyright over Mickey Mouse for some reason. Or maybe that's when it was extended from 70 to 90 years here, for Disney's sake.

 

As far as books go, a good sign that it is public domain is when it is published by several companies instead of a single one.

 

Try looking around here:

 

http://www.copyright.gov/

[Luke Prendergast]

Many public domain works here http://www.gutenberg.org Not all are PD though so read the individual licenses.

[Landon D. Parks]

That doesn't mean that the story these movies are based on are public domain. Sometimes estates manage to keep control over material for some time after an author's death, at least until the 70 years have passed.

So that could possibly put the person who re-distributed the film in breach of copyright, or no?

Edited June 3, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Landon D. Parks]

I'm just using this as an example (I have no intent to make a ramake to Journey to the center of the earth) but just for example, lets say someone was to make a movie that held true to the original Journey to the center of the earth by Jules Vern (Which is now in the public domain), but yet if you stayed to true, and the film became to much like the 1959 20th century fox version, couldn't 20th century fox turn around and sue the filmmaker for breach of copyright? Saying that your movie to closely looked like theres?

 

The counter argument would be "Yes, but if its a faithful book adaption, you have no choice but to follow the book."

 

That stumped me for along time. Always wondered, and since I had brougt the subject up, I might as well ask. :huh:

[Mark Allen]

Here is a good guideline.

 

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

 

Anything published before 1923 is public domain.

 

If you made Journey to the Center of the Earth - you would probably want to avoid any trademark images from previous adaptations. There are many characters that Disney does not own, but they sure own their version of the characters.

 

And David is dead on - Disney has been single handedly changing copyright law.

Edited June 3, 2005 by Mark Douglas

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, I think you could remake a Jules Verne story as long as you didn't borrow anything created specifically in a remade Disney version, like new characters or situations.

 

I doubt that Speilberg's "War of the Worlds" is violating Goerge Pal's copyright over his version of the H.G. Wells book or the Orson Welles radio broadcast, etc... on the other hand, the studio is big enough to slip a little money that way just in case.

[hugovillasmythe]

Copyright for DOP's.

Now that the ball is rolling on this interesting subject.

In Mexican legislation DOP's are considered as creators of intellectual content on movies and, therfore, have to express consent of use and release of material shot by them for a movie.

As such, you retain some very vague "blocking" rights on the material so you can prenevt their missuse.

It is forseeable that you might object to some producer using "non corrected" rushes of your material to "nip-and-tuck" into someonelse's flick, or you might (I would) want to prevent release of a film you did on a DVD version if you can prove that "image cropping" devices prevent the full dramatic power of the images you shot to be seen.

As I said, issues dear to our hearts, but mostly vague and hard to sustain in court. So far no one has filed a complaint on this matter.

It sounds better then it actually is because you're not entitled to additional "residuals" for your credits such as DGA directors or even Mexican Director's Union members.

Does anyone know of similar statutes on other countries and how they work.

[Guest Charlie Seper]

Generally speaking, anything IN AMERICA is PD before 1923. However, that's if you're an American releasing work in America. Copyrights differ with nearly ever country. For instance, you'll find books at Gutenberg's Australian site that you won't find on their American servers because Australia only recognizes copyrights for 50 years. But technically you aren't allowed by law to even view something on a web server in Australia if you're viewing it in America and its still under copyright protection here.

 

Also, I want to do a biography of Scotish writer, George MacDonald. He died in 1905 and all of his works are in public domain. His son Greville also did a biography of his dad that came out before 1923, so its also in PD here. And the bio has around 20-photos I want to use. I can legally use those photos, HOWEVER, I must scan them from a book edition before 1923 to do so. That is, if I use a reprint of the book after 1923, then that reprinted book's pages are still under copyright. I know you're probably thinking that I could scan the images from a newer copy of the book and no one would know the difference, and this is true. I'm just telling you how the law works.

 

With International copyrights things get especially complex.

[Alex Ellerman]

I believe J-Lo got in trouble for recreating some of the "Flashdance" sequences in one of her music videos. Thought some of you may find that relevant!

theturnaround

[Landon D. Parks]

Tim Burtons sleepy hollow was released in other counries im sure, so how did they get by with using Washington Irvings work there? It certainly cant imagine other countries having a more strict copyright system than we in america have. Although thats just an un-educated guess.

[David Mullen ASC]

Tim Burtons sleepy hollow was released in other counries im sure, so how did they get by with using Washington Irvings work there? It certainly cant imagine other countries having a more strict copyright system than we in america have. Although thats just an un-educated guess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I assume the Washington Irving's works are public domain everywhere, but if they weren't, I'm sure then that the studio would have purchased the rights from the estate so they could distribute it worldwide.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

As for authorship of images - I wish that was true even here. Instead, here they get to misuse, reframe, re-color and generally f**k your images up - and you still have to chase them down and hear all the moaning when you want a copy for your reel!

 

Stills photographers have it differently - they own the copyright to their images and just license that for a given amount of time to the client. Why can't we have it the same? I mean, what's the intellectual difference between a moving photo or a still photo?

 

Never got that.

[Landon D. Parks]

I see it like this: If your making the for someone, then your doing work for hire. In witch case the copyright belongs to the person your doing thr work for in the first place. This applies even to still photograpghy, writing, ect. However, if you go out and shoot a film for yourself, it would seem the copyright would belong to you.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's an ethical gray area. I was talking to screenwriter Dale Launer about the Broadway version of his screenplay "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels", now up for some Tony's tonight.

 

This was a screenplay that he wrote based on a movie he remembered seeing in his youth called "Bedtime Stories" (1964), and the author of that old movie is credited with Dale for "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels."

 

Since Dale later sold the screenplay to the studio under a "work for hire" clause, they assumed all rights to the script, including now it seems the right to make a Broadway musical out of it -- and include scenes from his script that were never shot. And yet Dale doesn't get anything from the Broadway version. It seems to me to be a form of intellectual theft even though the studio did acquire the rights.

[Guest Charlie Seper]

FYI,

 

Last months issue of Film Maker (the one with Rebecca Miller on the cover) had a pretty good and lengthy article on copyright issues and documentary filmmaking. A lot of it would pertain to filmmaking in general though. Well worth looking for. You might find a magazine stand somewhere that still has a copy of last month's issue.