coz i love movies, ive got over 700 DVD's, and the worst movie i think ive probably seen was called "busted" it was terrible.
im also into non copyrighted and public domain movies. oh i made my own blog with them on, coz they are free to use (no copyright or the copyright expired) i thought id put them all in one blog. (not as good as your site tho) its all 100% legal
QuoteEDIT BY ANDREW: URL removed
so take a look if you want
ps im not spamming im just new here :)
my favorate copyrighted film is probably dodgeball or smokey and the bandit but i did enjoy dark days, as its a docu film about the people who live underground
Care to prove that the films are not copyrighted? I ask, because your film for 27 August 2010 is a copyrighted work.
Very few people actually understand what "public domain" means or what's in it.
Rule of thumb:
Published before 1923: public domain
1923-1964: probably not in public domain but could be if the copyright holder did not renew the copyright. Status should be researched by a professional.
1964-1989: almost nothing is public domain but there are a very few technical exceptions (NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD)
After 1989: not in public domain (although in very rare cases the copyright holder allows free distribution under a creative commons-type license).
Are a lot of Roger Corman movies in the public domain? I heard that, but I'm not sure it's true.
Quote from: Dave M on August 27, 2010, 05:56:38 PM
Are a lot of Roger Corman movies in the public domain? I heard that, but I'm not sure it's true.
Yes, a number of his 50s and early 60s movies are. It seems he was too cheap to renew his copyrights, though he wound up losing a lot of money in the long run. :wink:
Quote from: Dave M on August 27, 2010, 05:56:38 PM
Are a lot of Roger Corman movies in the public domain? I heard that, but I'm not sure it's true.
I wonder if this was just an oversight on his part, I can see them sitting around saying "Peoplpe won't want to watch this stuff next week, let alone 20 years from now. Why bother?"
Quote from: Ed, Just Ed on August 31, 2010, 10:17:19 PM
Quote from: Dave M on August 27, 2010, 05:56:38 PM
Are a lot of Roger Corman movies in the public domain? I heard that, but I'm not sure it's true.
I wonder if this was just an oversight on his part, I can see them sitting around saying "Peoplpe won't want to watch this stuff next week, let alone 20 years from now. Why bother?"
That's my theory too, Ed. Corman is a notorious cheapskate and my guess is he didn't want to pay the $75 (or whatever) copyright renewal fee. He obviously didn't foresee the home video market arising 20 years later, and it cost him a lot of money.
Quote1964-1989: almost nothing is public domain but there are a very few technical exceptions (NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD)
I'd say it goes beyond almost nothing personally, because of all the chop socky and grindhouse-style foreign films that were very cheaply brought to America from that time frame without proper copyright notice. There's gotta be several hundred of those (granted, very small percentage of the total films released in that era). Because of that recent copyright change, some of those could leave the public domain, but I suspect very few of them actually will.
Also, as a small addendum, there have been a few films released by companies specializing in public domain where even they (who presumably used professionals to look into copyright status) got it wrong. Deadtime Stories, for instance, got pulled from a later release of a 50 pack I have as it is still copyrighted. So, be very careful when dealing with what you believe to be public domain.
Copyright violation punishments can be ludicrously draconian, and hosting a site (particularly a site with ad revenue or a pay site) is one of the most likely ways to get a lawsuit.
Quote from: Jim H on September 01, 2010, 11:55:01 AM
Quote1964-1989: almost nothing is public domain but there are a very few technical exceptions (NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD)
I'd say it goes beyond almost nothing personally, because of all the chop socky and grindhouse-style foreign films that were very cheaply brought to America from that time frame without proper copyright notice. There's gotta be several hundred of those (granted, very small percentage of the total films released in that era). Because of that recent copyright change, some of those could leave the public domain, but I suspect very few of them actually will.
You're right; I should have said almost no Western films. (There are some Euro-exploitation films in that category but mostly it's the Asian films that never put copyright notices on their stuff).
I know you're also aware of the recent Supreme Court decision that could allow those films that were never copyrighted in the US but copyrighted in their home countries to file their copyright notice now; I don't suppose many will take advantage of that, but it's a possibility that those chopsockies could disappear from the public domain.
Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org/details/movies) is very conscientious about verifying public domain status; if something was hosted there, I'd feel confident it was public domain, and if it wasn't I'd be skeptical. All their stuff is freely available. It's hard (though not impossible, as Mill Creek proves) to make money by selling something that's freely available elsewhere. Mill Creek and outfits like that succeed by adding the extra value of burning 50 movies at a time onto DVD for you; it's worth me paying them to do that versus doing the work myself. I'm not sure how a website could add much extra value for the user.
Internet archive is good about movies, but I would NOT trust them for music. Because of what I consider to be ludicrous extensions added after the fact, almost no recorded music is in the Public Domain. IIRC, even the Edison cylinders from the turn of the century would still be copyrighted if the rights hadn't been released by the holders.
A significant amount of pre-1930 music sourced from 78 RPMs is up there, and I believe almost all of it is still copyrighted.
I learned about all of this while trying to find public domain music to use in my own film work; it's almost impossible to find any that's truly public domain - you can't even use the audio from a public domain movie (like the music over end credits). Basically you have to find stuff made SPECIFICALLY for public domain, the only bit of which I could find was a collection of classical works (though I did find some quality creative commons license stuff). Copyright law can be ludicrous, especially in the USA.
As another related example, I have a relative who works high up for Warner music. Sometimes we talk about music copyright, and we're on basically opposite sides. I keep meaning to break it to him that his wedding video is filled with blatant "theft" (his word for copyright violation) of Warner music at the reception, but I always forget. :teddyr:
Jim H: The copyright rules are the same for music as for movies. The main difference, I think, is that music publishers were in the habit of copyrighting everything, because they sold songs to the public in the form of records. Before home video movie producers had less incentive to renew copyrights because they would make the vast majority of their money in the film's first few weeks of release, and income from later screenings would be negligible. There's also the fact that each new performance earns a separate copyright, so even though Beethoven's 5th Symphony itself isn't copyrighted, the Philadelphia Orchestra's 1939 recording of it probably is.
I do know that even though it's copyrighted there is a lot of stock incidental film music that's licensed not free but extremely cheap, though you may have to listen to hours of recordings to find something worthwhile. And many bands/composers that are just starting out, of course, are anxious to give away their music "for a song" just for the career boost. But I'm sure you went through all that.
I wouldn't bring up the copyright violation thing regarding your brother's wedding video. Typically no royalties are due on songs played at wedding receptions because it's not considered a "public performance" unless people are charged an entry fee.
I guess this is also tied to why some TV shows released on DVD have been altered from their original form because the companies no longer have rights to the music the show used ...I'm guessing they must have let them expire. Hence we get "The Fugitive" TV Series released on DVD without its much superior original music and instead given crappy new music.
QuoteTypically no royalties are due on songs played at wedding receptions because it's not considered a "public performance" unless people are charged an entry fee.
It's not about royalties exactly, it's just that there are multiple copies of the wedding video. In other words, they've duplicated the song several times without permission, and also synchronized it to video. That's not allowable under current copyright law, though to my knowledge a case like that has never been prosecuted. There's a specific workaround in British music copyright, if memory serves.
QuoteThe copyright rules are the same for music as for movies. The main difference, I think, is that music publishers were in the habit of copyrighting everything, because they sold songs to the public in the form of records
It's not just that - while the law works the same basic way (stupidly long, I think 95 years now), there was some huge retroactive extension given to old songs in, if memory serves, the late 80s. Because of this, songs in the US won't start falling into the public domain again due to copyright expiration until the 2040 or 2050s.
Here, I found what I was talking about.
http://www.pdinfo.com/record.php (http://www.pdinfo.com/record.php)
Quote from: The ArticleRecords, cassettes, CD's, and other music recordings come under a general category called Sound Recordings or Phonorecords. The publication of Sheet Music placed a song or musical work under copyright protection. Sound recordings, however, were protected by a hodge-podge tangle of state laws, but were not covered under Federal copyright law. It was even determined that there was no federal criteria to actually "publish" a sound recording. This was fixed with the 1972 US copyright act which officially "published" all sound recordings in existence on February 15, 1972, and 75 years of copyright protection was enacted for essentially every sound recording created in 1972 or earlier. (1972 + 75 years = 2047). The Sony Bono Act of 1998 extended all copyright protection an additional 20 years. Therefore, the earliest that copyright protection will expire for any sounding recording in the USA is 2067 (2047 + 20 years = 2067).
It's a bunch of horse**** is what it is, created to protect corporate interests above the interests of everyone else. Copyright going way beyond the lifetime of everyone who creates products does nothing to encourage creativity. It stifles it, and does not allow us to build upon or use past great works for far too long. :thumbdown:
Quote from: Jim H on September 01, 2010, 04:51:35 PM
QuoteTypically no royalties are due on songs played at wedding receptions because it's not considered a "public performance" unless people are charged an entry fee.
It's not about royalties exactly, it's just that there are multiple copies of the wedding video. In other words, they've duplicated the song several times without permission, and also synchronized it to video. That's not allowable under current copyright law, though to my knowledge a case like that has never been prosecuted. There's a specific workaround in British music copyright, if memory serves.
Technically perhaps true, although I'm not 100% certain without doing research. But, as you point out, its impossible to prosecute because its de mininimis. It's not comparable to a commercial use or even a personal use like downloading illegal music. On the other hand, I may have misunderstood what you said. I thought you were talking about a tape of the band or DJ playing at the reception, but if he added the music (if that's what you mean by 'synchronized to music') to create a sort of montage video, then yes, that is definitely copyright infringement.
QuoteThe copyright rules are the same for music as for movies. The main difference, I think, is that music publishers were in the habit of copyrighting everything, because they sold songs to the public in the form of records
Quote
It's not just that - while the law works the same basic way (stupidly long, I think 95 years now), there was some huge retroactive extension given to old songs in, if memory serves, the late 80s. Because of this, songs in the US won't start falling into the public domain again due to copyright expiration until the 2040 or 2050s.
Here, I found what I was talking about.
http://www.pdinfo.com/record.php (http://www.pdinfo.com/record.php)
Quote from: The ArticleRecords, cassettes, CD's, and other music recordings come under a general category called Sound Recordings or Phonorecords. The publication of Sheet Music placed a song or musical work under copyright protection. Sound recordings, however, were protected by a hodge-podge tangle of state laws, but were not covered under Federal copyright law. It was even determined that there was no federal criteria to actually "publish" a sound recording. This was fixed with the 1972 US copyright act which officially "published" all sound recordings in existence on February 15, 1972, and 75 years of copyright protection was enacted for essentially every sound recording created in 1972 or earlier. (1972 + 75 years = 2047). The Sony Bono Act of 1998 extended all copyright protection an additional 20 years. Therefore, the earliest that copyright protection will expire for any sounding recording in the USA is 2067 (2047 + 20 years = 2067).
That's interesting, I did not know that. That's one reason you should never speak in absolutes without doing research first.
Quote
It's a bunch of horse**** is what it is, created to protect corporate interests above the interests of everyone else. Copyright going way beyond the lifetime of everyone who creates products does nothing to encourage creativity. It stifles it, and does not allow us to build upon or use past great works for far too long. :thumbdown:
I agree that the current terms are too long. The older formulations, which were lifetime of the creator plus some amount of years, made more sense. (The reason the right extends beyond the creators death at all is so he can will the exploitation rights to his heirs; for example, a surviving spouse wouldn't lose her husband's income). A 75 year term (from the
actual time of creation) seems fair to me. (But the big corporate interests (*cough* Disney *cough*) have lobbied for the extensions and will probably do so again once the next round of copyrights are set to expire, unless the public organizes to oppose them.
Quote from: xJaseSFx on September 01, 2010, 04:30:30 PM
I guess this is also tied to why some TV shows released on DVD have been altered from their original form because the companies no longer have rights to the music the show used ...I'm guessing they must have let them expire. Hence we get "The Fugitive" TV Series released on DVD without its much superior original music and instead given crappy new music.
Yep, the copyright to the underlying music and other elements (i.e. subtitles/translations/dubs for foreign movies) are often separate from the copyright for the film, another reason that almost nothing can be assumed to be pd without legal research.