LOL, I shouldn't try to type without my glasses early in the morning.

Skip

Perhaps, kahless. I am not familiar with International or specific country's copyright law and all the ins and outs, I have a hard enough trying to understand US Copyright law. I am not sure about the import issue, many in the US used to import Japanese Laserdiscs once upon a time...it was the only way to obtain films such as Song of the South. However owning is not owning, the current spate of DVDs of Song of the South which have been copied from Japanese Lasers is a clear violation of Copyright as the title has never been released to DVD anywhere in the world by Disney, but hopefully will be someday. I really need to put on my glasses...but i think i will go back to bed.

Skip

Not that I'm even remotely an expect on it (or particularly clued up), but don't copyrights in the context that Skip is talking about become layered (for lack of a better term)? For example, if a company licenses the rights to a film and then carries out restoration work on it, the original licenser holds the copyright on the original film and the restorer holds the copyright on the restoration WORK, but NOT the film. In other words, a third company wanting to release the restored film would have to approach BOTH license holders, and not just the restorer. I'm sure that this could be handled somewhat by contacts (e.g. purchasing the right to distribute the restored version without permission, but it would cost more), but again, I'm not sure.

In the case of network vs. syndicate, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the network still retains their copyright to the original but the syndicate company let their 'reworked' version laps. This DOES NOT automatically mean that the reworked version is available in the public domain, so the network could choose to release either/both versions, but anybody else could release neither. Again, it probably comes down to specific contracts about exactly what is being sold.

Anyway, that's my understanding from copyright issues I've seen. I've seen cases where someone has been able to license the show but not the soundtrack (because the band set the price too high), and other cases where a company had to license both restoration and original work (as described above).

Stuart

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
It was very coomon fo older television to move into syndication while still airing on network TV. Bonanza, The Beverly Hillbillies and The Andy Griffith Show all come to mind. Once theshow moved into syndication it typically was re-edited for more commercial time, in other words the show was shortened) and the network demaded that the shows theme music be changed. For copyright purposes, the syndicating company now owned the copyright to these altered shows, while the network or whoever retained the copyright to the Original film stock. The syndicator did not apparently retain as tight control over its copyright as did the in most cases the original Owner. So many of these altered TV shows found their way into the PD. So you have the altered versions of these shows appearing on PD Distributor lists. While, in the case of Bonanza, Paramount still owns the film stock to the original and has restored the show and is running it on TV Land, they have not yet chosen to release the Original to DVD. Copyright law is far more complex that even I understood it to be, as was recently demoinstarted by the The Bionic Woman remake. UNiversal still owns the Originasl show and film stock, but they apparently went to sleep relative to the Bionic concepts the show was based on and which apparently were also copyrightable. When the rights to those concepts expired, the Weinstein Company pounced on it and pproduced the new show, but they have apparently also blocked release of the Original show to DVD because to do so would be a violation of the copyright noiw held by the Weinstein Company. So, Universal now owns film stock they can currently do nothing with, unless they can come to some sort of an agreement with the Weinsteins.

To assert a new copyright, the syndicator would need to demonstrate to a court of law that their version was a new art and not simply a trivial variation on an existing work of art. The new theme music itself would be copyrightable, but simply attaching a new theme to an existing show would not be enough to establish a new art. Shaving a few minutes off the runtime would also not do so, unless it radically changed the plot of the episode.

OK, I've done a little research, and it seems that, of the 430 episodes of Bonanza, NBC has explicitly released 31 episodes into the public domain. The other 399 episodes have never been in the public domain, and won't be any time soon. Of the 249 episodes of The Andy Griffith Show, CBS has explicitly allowed 16 episodes into the public domain. No version of the other 233 episodes (regardless of their theme music) have ever been in the public domain. If you have more than these numbers of episodes, it does not matter what the running time is or what theme music is used, their copyright is held by NBC and CBS and any release not authorised by them is a bootleg. But it also seems that they're not very proactive in chasing down violations of their copyright on these shows.

Interestingly, this laissez-faire attitude may mean that the remaining episodes become de jure public domain. Once an artwork is sufficiently ubiquitous in the public sphere and copyright has generally not been asserted, then if it ever comes to court, it may be decided that the infringer had no reasonable way of knowing that the art was still in copyright and is therefore effectively in the public domain. This has happened several times with photographs (which are easy to copy and hard to track down in order to assert copyright), but has never, so far as I know, happened with movies or TV shows. But it remains a theoretical possibility, if copyright holders do not take pains to address violations.

Oh, and Wonder Woman was originally copyrighted by Harve Bennet Productions. The copyright is now shared between ABC and NBC, who bought it from HBP after production of new episodes stopped in 1979, to ensure they would always have the rights to re-air it. The legal battle over NBC's remake mostly centred around the proportion of the profits that ABC should receive as co-licence holders. I believe it was finally settled NBC demonstrated that the new series was sufficiently different that it did not infringe on the existing copyright. ABC would be free to re-show the 1976 show as much as they want, or to develop new properties based on it, so long as they can come to an arrangement with NBC over the royalties.

Anyone is free to make a story about a bionic woman, and even to use the title "The Bionic Woman" (so long as you can convince a court that you aren't attempting to mislead people into thinking that it has anything to do with the existing property), as the baisc concept is not copyrightable; only its expression as a work of art.

Quote:
And a copyright can absolutely be "purchased", it happens all the time. You evidently don't track Hollywood as closely as i do and are unaware of such transactions. Sometimes a film is picked up for restoration purposes and as soon as that process is complete the company then establishes the Copyright to the restored film, see El Cid for an example of this. El Cid is now owned by the Weinstein Company, a company that did not exist at the time El Cid was filmed.

Yes, copyrights can be bought and sold; of course they can. However, a restored film cannot be considered a new work deserving its own copyright, unless the restoring party can demonstrate that the restored work is sufficiently different to be considered a new artwork. This would require significant changes be made to the story and not merely cleaning up the negative. As an example, the recent Final Cut of Blade Runner bears a copyright date of 1982, because it is not a new art work, and cannot be copyrighted on its own merits; it instead has the same copyright as the original version of the film that was first published in 1982.

A company may assert copyright on a public domain film that they have restored, but that does not mean that they own it. If it was sufficiently different to merit a new copyright upheld by a court of law, I doubt you would consider it to be the same film and want it in your collection.

And what you claimed was that a film in the public domain could have its copyright purchased. This is a laughable claim. Your example of El Cid is a red herring. Its copyright was established in 1961 by Samuel Bronston Productions, was renewed in 1985 by The Rank Corporation and has never left copyright. It has never been in the public domain, and will not enter the public domain until 2037 (70 years after the director's death). While that copyright exists, it is a commodity that can be bought and sold, but in 2037 (assuming no more extensions to the term), it will have no ownership and no-one will have the right to sell it. Which, by corollary, will mean that no-one will be able to buy it.

Quote:
It's a very complex field and has taken me many years to learn what I know wabout it, but The Bionic Woman affair tought me something new, concepts copyrightable? Wow.

No, concepts not copyrightable, unless they're so detailed that they are basically an expression of that concept. Suppose I have the concept of a story about a German secret agent in Britain during WWI, and I mail that concept off to the copyright office in order to ensure that it has the strongest possible legal status. Suppose that someone else then, independently, creates an actual story about a German secret agent in Britain in WWI. Dowuld my copyright do me any good? No, because it doesn't describe an expression of art. Of course, if it could be shown that the story was based explicitly and deliberately on my concept, then I might have a leg to stand on; but (unless the concept is far more detailed that given here, and includes specific, identifiable details) it wouldn't even get to court.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Perhaps, kahless. I am not familiar with International or specific country's copyright law and all the ins and outs, I have a hard enough trying to understand US Copyright law. I am not sure about the import issue, many in the US used to import Japanese Laserdiscs once upon a time...it was the only way to obtain films such as Song of the South. However owning is not owning, the current spate of DVDs of Song of the South which have been copied from Japanese Lasers is a clear violation of Copyright as the title has never been released to DVD anywhere in the world by Disney, but hopefully will be someday. I really need to put on my glasses...but i think i will go back to bed.

Skip

You have the right to make a backup of a work in any medium you like for your own use, so long as you ensure that only one version of it is used at a time. No violation is involved in copying it to DVD. laserdiscs were not region coded, so the DMCA's rules against circumventing region coding do not apply.

If you bought a copy that was properly licensed by Disney and imported it, and copied it (onto DVD, VHS or punched tape) for your own personal use, this would be entirely legal under US copyright law. If you then sold on the original laserdisc to a third party, that would be a violation of copyright. If you sold copies of of the DVD, that would also be a violation of copyright (this is what you're talking about, right?), but no more so than if it had been copied from a DVD in the first place.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
many in the US used to import Japanese Laserdiscs once upon a time...it was the only way to obtain films such as Song of the South.

<off topic>Actually there was also a legit Hong Kong laserdisc of Song of the South.</off topic>

What about the Berne act?

I'd be the first to admit I don't know very much about copyright law, but this thread made me curious and I did some research. I came across this little tidbit:

Quote:
The section of American copyright law known as "The Berne Act" clearly states: films unreleased in the United States, including original version of films altered and/or edited for release in the United States, are not protected by American copyright; thus, they are considered public domain.

Does anyone know more about this?

KM

Quoting wintermute115:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
many in the US used to import Japanese Laserdiscs once upon a time...it was the only way to obtain films such as Song of the South.

<off topic>Actually there was also a legit Hong Kong laserdisc of Song of the South.</off topic>

And it's been released in Europe on VHS, and broadcast on TV, but Skip's basic point that it was only available in America by importing it is sound.

Indeed, thus the <off topic>