Find 277 The Film Superlist, 1940-1949 Vol. 2: Motion Pictures in the U. Public Domain Volume 2 by Hurst at over 30 bookstores. Buy, rent or sell.
![]()
The only sure way to determine current copyright status is to go to theLibrary of Congress and view the copyright files. Rob Farr has donejust that and has abused his spine and eyes at the microfilm machinesand silent comedy researchers owe him a huge debt of gratitude.I was amazed recently to learn that the Fox two-reelers from 1923 to1928 are still copyrighted. I find it amazing that Fox spent the moneyto renew copyrights on materials for which they no longer posessedprints.Tommie HicksOn Jan 2, 12:07 pm, 'idiotprogrammer' wrote: Hi, I'm posting a series of essays about public domain works and works which are not yet in the public domain.I'll be compiling a list for the years 1923-1931 and doing one post day for each of those 9 years. I'll try to include short notes when possible. I'm focusing mainly on American works-both literature and film. (You can see the introduction to the series here: will have links to each year.
I'm publishing 1923 today, 1924 tomorrow, etc. ) I'm familiar with the basic copyright rules1. IMDB is excellent in letting you search by year. But how do I know that a 1923 film is actually still under copyright and not in the public domain?
2. How caught up are sites like for digitalizing public domain stuff? 3. I know lots of lowcost DVDs are out which are early (pre-1930) but not pre-1923.
I'm guessing some are in public domain, but have no way of knowing for sure. Anyone know how to verify this? 3. Finally, I have a question about DVD remastered editions like Unseen Cinema12:44.
I think you may have a problem with using the films from Unseen Cinemawithouttheir consent. If you read thru the entire page on Amazon you will see thattheyadded new musical scores and that could create a problem for you.Personally, I would contact them and ask them about doing what you proposeto dobefore actualy doing it. Even if the films they are packaging and sellingare publicdomain, if they have added content ( such as new musical scores) then theycouldcopyright that and you could run into problems reproducing it without theirconsent.(or paying them to do so)james'idiotprogrammer' wrote in [email protected] 13:27. James wrote: I think you may have a problem with using the films from Unseen Cinema without their consent. If you read thru the entire page on Amazon you will see that they added new musical scores and that could create a problem for you. Personally, I would contact them and ask them about doing what you propose to do before actualy doing it.
Even if the films they are packaging and selling are public domain, if they have added content ( such as new musical scores) then they could copyright that and you could run into problems reproducing it without their consent. (or paying them to do so)You can of course get around a music copyright by hiring a musician toplay their own score live, if that fits your budget. It's certainly theright way to do it. There are additional possibly copyrightable items,such as translated title cards, restoration-from-a-variety-of-sources,and even tinting; so it always is safest to just do it right and getpermission.Rodney SauerMont Alto Motion Picture OrchestraDonald456402.01.07 13:40.
Wow, I was just asking hypothetically, but you've raised a lot ofissues here.I'm a public domain scholar/advocate and am trying to familiarizemyself with the process. I honestly don't know.There's a difference though between restoring a print and adding uniqueminor effects to establish 'ownership.' We get this problem a lot inthe print publishing world. New 'editions' add minor details to anedition for the sole purpose of extending copyright control.In the case you mention, claiming copyright over something merelybecause you added modern title cards seems like a trivial way to do it.On the other hand, I recognize that some restoration work addssignificant value and could be considered a significant rework. On theother hand, Bridgeman vs.
Corel case clearly said that slavishreproductions of public domain art is not copyrightable.Thanks.Robert NagleDavid P. Hayes02.01.07 18:01. Responded in messagenews.4cwx.googlegroups.com. The only sure way to determine current copyright status is to go to the Library of Congress and view the copyright files. Rob Farr has done just that and has abused his spine and eyes at the microfilm machines and silent comedy researchers owe him a huge debt of gratitude.Actually, if Rob Farr used the microfilm machines to research copyrightstatus, he made the process too difficult on himself. Most of the recordsrequired are on paper, generally in bound volumes, to a lesser extent onindex cards.'
Darren' wrote in messagenews:[email protected] charges a per-incident fee or per-hour fee (depending on how manysearches are to be performed) for the use of their staff for this purpose.-David HayesRemove director name from address when responding privately.Mortilla02.01.07 19:38. Wrote: You can of course get around a music copyright by hiring a musician to play their own score live.The initial post inidcates he wants to do just that.wrote: The only sure way to determine current copyright status is to go to the Library of Congress and view the copyright files.David P. Hayes wrote: LOC charges a per-incident fee or per-hour fee (depending on how many searches are to be performed) for the use of their staff for this purpose.You can perform an initial search for free online at the LOC website.At least you can quickly see if there is a deposit registered. Titles,claimants and authors may not be where you expect, so that is not thebest way to do it and does not leave a decent paper trail to bring tocourt if you are sued, but you DO NOT necessarily need to throw moneyat a search from the start.If you are planning a commercial production, the investment is doing aproper search is cheap insurance against (and a good defense of) aninfringement suit.Darren02.01.07 20:29.
If you are planning a commercial production, the investment is doing a proper search is cheap insurance against (and a good defense of) an infringement suit.Thanks for the link.Already been there but have been told at another forum that some titles thatare known to be copyrighted don't show up in search results. That is whatwas said. May not be correct.Darren(Just thinking. One film I wonder about is Don Juan Quilligan (1945).
Itwas one of those WWII era films that had some kind of credited involvementfrom the Red Cross (?) but was produced by Twentieth Century-Fox FilmCorporation. It isn't on the site. A paidsearch would be in order here.)Mortilla02.01.07 21:26. Tommy is correct that I spent many hours in front of LoC microfilmmachines, but not to retrieve the copyright renewal info. I wanted theinformation that was part of the original deposit of record, usually apressbook, scenario or cutting continuity. I understand from the folksin the LoC Reading Room that many of the paper deposits no longer existand in fact you can see evidence of decomposition setting in as youscan through the microfilm images, particularly when the producerattached a nitrate frame (those are the black blobs that pop upoccasionally).
The Library of Congress Motion Picture Reading Room isone of the great joys for anyone who has the slightest interest in filmhistory. A must-stop if you visit Washington DC (3rd floor of theMadison building).Rob FarrJuly 19-22Early Film03.01.07 3:59. The Unseen Cinema included a LOT of copyrighted works. They madearrangements to license them so I am not sure how that helpsRule of thumb is that the VAST majority of films produced by majorstudios from 1923 onwards are still under copyright.
Some slippedthroughfor one reason or another but you need to research it title by titleand the onlyway to be SURE is to deal with a professional because even if the FILMis no longerunder copyright it may be protected by underlying literary work. Iwould tread carefullyand if you seriously need to confirm a film is PD you really shouldget some professionalhelp in terms of copyright research.Also I am confused by your list as it contains films which are PD (Hunchback, Salomeand films which are not Covered Wagon, Woman of Paris, Safety Last toname a few)[email protected] 13:52. Yeah, but there are so many things at stake here.For example, I am in the process or restoring a print of Things to Come(1936), which is public domain in the US. The original version clockedin at 92 minutes, but there was another version released in Canada thathad some different footage, was longer in some sections, but shorteroverall. By combining them to make one longer print, I am onlyrestoring versions that existed previously.HOWEVER, I am creating a new longer version that was NEVER issued inthis form and the act of doing this is itself (arguably) a newcopyrightable work of art.
You could sit and argue about it for years.Bruce Lawton recently restored a print of Buster Keaton's Convict 13with a French version that had replaced titles. He replaced the Frenchtitles with new ones that were translated back from the French titlesthat had originally been translated from English.
He also reorderedthe film to make it more coherent and tightened the editing which hadbeen made sloppy by combining multiple takes from some scenes.Is that a new work of art? I'd argue yes, too.When some of these guys spend $20,000 removing nitrate mottling fromthe best print to make a clearer video transfer, I would AGAIN arguethat this may be restoring the film to the way it was but is in itselfa new work of art because we are in effect restoring something that nolonger exist and we can't compare it to a new un-restored print to seehow good a job they did.I'm a big proponent of public domain myself. I believe that some ofthese people who have no material on certain titles and no longer careabout the films should not own them. However, when someone lovinglyworks on these films to restore the best possible footage from severaldifferent versions, then they're doing an artistic service which shouldbe copyrighted.
Those people who want the PD stuff should be stuffwith the 'available' prints.EricIn article,David Pierce03.01.07 18:02. There is a lot of misinformation in this thread.Unfortunately, American copyright needs to be viewed by thelanguage of the U.S.
In article,David Pierce wrote: As for a copyright in restorations, the Copyright Office is very rigorous in examining the level of creativity involved in a registration application, and tinting/toning, choice of speed, and most restoration simply does not qualify. Copyright protects creativity, not effort, and a restoration that aims to match the original release will not get a new copyright registration.You're right of course, but my point was that you could make anargument that when the original no longer exists, that your version isan attempt to recreate one, and a creative act itself.How far that would go in court is an open question. I helped on arestoration of The Hands of Orlac at one point that I thought was arestoration and the original later became available, making mine avastly different work.Again, it's a squishy point for lawyers, but given the existence of thecomplete version, my cut/titles/reinterpretation of the film is highlycreative and vastly different from the original. I would submit thatmost 'restorations' that incorporate new footage are just as fanciful.The only thing is that we can't prove that the reconstruction iscreative because we don't have any original to compare it to.When you combine two (or more) vastly different edits of a film, theresultant work is necessarily highly creative, because you have toessentially make decisions that an editor would have made when he wasputting the film together initially. Your choice of placement andcontinuity will probably be different than what the original editordid.The case of speed, tints, music, tones, etc, is quite a differentstory, as these are simply augmentations of the original film.EricDarren04.01.07 1:07. There is a series of books called 'Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in theU.S.
Public Domain.' They are suppose to list titles of films that areknown to be PDEach book covers different decades.Good luck in finding one to read, however.
I've tried to get the book thatcovers the 1940s through an interlibrary loan.Noone seems to have it. These volumes list at $350+ at Amazon.comThe book that covers the silent era is this one'Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the U.S. Public Domain, 1894-1939' byWalter E.
Richard BaerDarrenDavid P. Hayes05.01.07 17:44. 'Darren' wrote in messagenews:[email protected]. There is a series of books called 'Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the U.S. Public Domain.'
They are suppose to list titles of films that are known to be PD. The book that covers the silent era is this one 'Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the U.S. Public Domain, 1894-1939' by Walter E. Richard BaerRather than stating 'They are supposed to list titles of films that areknown to be PD', it is more accurate to state that these books list(intermixed) films that are in the public domain and those that arecopyrighted, giving the status of each. The books in this series reproducethe Copyright Office publications 'Cumulative Copyright Catalog,' amended toput alongside the listings the renewal information (if any) for each item inthe listings. Renewal information is matched to the information from theoriginal registration.
(The editors of the books collated both forms ofrecords to make this possible.) Thus, the reader wanting to see what is inthe public domain looks for the ABSENCE of any addition to the listing, suchadditions being the renewal information which the editors of the book wereunable to match to any listings for renewals as published in the 'Catalog ofCopyright Entries' Renewal sections.(Although the use of the titles 'Catalog of Copyright Entries' and'Cumulative Copyright Catalog' might make the reader think these are twovery different publications, in fact they contain listings in the sameformat. The 'Catalog of Copyright Entries' are periodicals that list therecords received by the Copyright Office for a particular one-month,three-month, six-month or one-year period. The 'Cumulative CopyrightCatalog' is published far less often, and so they are much thicker and allowthe user to more easily find a record for which he does not know thecopyright date within a short period of time.
Because a Cumulative Catalogmay have ten years or even three decades of records in one volume, you onlyhave to conduct a single search to find a listing that is in any of thoseyears.)For the years 1950-59, the 'Film Superlist' for that period has competitionin the form of 'Motion Picture Copyrights and Renewals 1950-59,' by DavidPierce (Milestone & Co.).-David HayesRemove director name from address when responding privately.David P. Hayes06.01.07 6:07. In this message, I add information left out of my last.' Darren' wrote in messagenews:[email protected]. There is a series of books called 'Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the U.S.
Public Domain.' They are suppose to list titles of films that are known to be PD Each book covers different decades. Good luck in finding one to read, however. I've tried to get the book that covers the 1940s through an interlibrary loan.Darren does not say where he lives. For some readers of this newsgroup, itmay be easy to access a copy. When I lived in Los Angeles County, I knew ofthree libraries (all open to the public) where the various volumes in the'Film Superlist' series could be used. East Coast, I've comeacross them as well, albeit at greater distances from the next set.
The'Film Superlist' books can be found in surprising places. I've used them inthe main public library of a suburban county in southern New Jersey farremoved culturally from the entertainment world. Noone seems to have it.
These volumes list at $350+ at Amazon.comYou might contact the publisher (Hollywood Film Archive) directly and seewhether they will offer a discount from the Amazon price. The last time Idealt with them, they still didn't have a web site, but you can reach themby phone (area code 323). Usually, the owner answers the phone. The book that covers the silent era is this one 'Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the U.S. Public Domain, 1894-1939' by Walter E. Richard Baer-David HayesRemove director name from address when responding privately.Darren06.01.07 10:23.
(sorry if this is a duplicate posting)I wish to reopen this thread. (I was the original poster). I realizethat this post might seem like I'm trolling.The thread so far had interesting information, but really didn't getat the questions I was asking.I am not a restorer or anyone remotely in the film business. I am ascholar of the public domain with a little tech background and alittle video background. However, I would contemplate ripping/transferring old silent vids if I fully understood the legalrequirements of doing so.I recognize and appreciate that many restorers put considerable timeand effort into restoring old silents. I understand that selling DVDsis one way to finance future restoration projects. But frankly that isirrelevant to the public domain.
We may admire and respect the work ofarchivists, but the public domain is public domain.However, here's is my understanding of US copyright law (and I amcertainly not a lawyer).1. Fixed motion pictures works produced prior to 1923 are in thepublic domain. 'Darren' wrote in message There is a series of books called 'Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the U.S. Public Domain.' They are suppose to list titles of films that are known to be PD Each book covers different decades. The book that covers the silent era is this one 'Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the U.S.
Public Domain, 1894-1939' by Walter E. Richard BaerI previously responded: For some readers of this newsgroup, it may be easy to access a copy. When I lived in Los Angeles County, I knew of three libraries (all open to the public) where the various volumes in the 'Film Superlist' series could be used. East Coast, I've come across them as well, albeit at greater distances from the next set.Since writing that previous response, there has become available on theinternet a page that goes into investigations of copyright status, brings upthe two aforementioned sources of information about renewals on motionpictures, and provides illustrations of the format by which these tworesources present copyright registration and renewal information. (This page contains links toand. If you are interested in the typeof documentation found on the first page linked, you likely will also wantto see this other documentation.)These web pages and the site which goes with it, was uploaded this pastMonday, March 5.
The illustrations discussed here were actually created(scanned, cropped, digitally cleaned up, and overlaid with new text) priorto this thread being started in this newsgroup, but the illustrations havenot been made available on the net until now.-David HayesRemove director name from address when responding privately.
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |