Are any movies really in the public domain?

[pacman000]

In the 90's Viacom filed some paperwork a bit late, & a few episodes of The Andy Griffith Show fell into the public domain, or so it seemed. In 2006, CBS, who merged with Viacom decided to start suing: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-3_06-cv-00588/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-3_06-cv-00588-0.pdf

Apparently the courts decided The Andy Griffith Show episodes weren't really in the public domain because the characters & other elements were still copyrighted.

The 16 Middle Episodes concern the same characters as the pre-existing copyrighted first
seventy-nine episodes, namely, Sheriff Andy Taylor, Deputy Barney Fife, Aunt Bee and Opie
Taylor. Reel Media has stipulated that the characters, such as Andy Taylor and Barney Fife, are
sufficiently distinctive and delineated to be independently copyrightable.6
 Further, the 16 Middle
Episodes contain the same film footage and soundtrack for the opening sequence (showing Andy
and Opie walking to the fishing hole while a tune is whistled in the background). The16 Middle
Episodes contain many of the same recurring themes from the initial seventy-nine episodes,
including among others: the theme of Andy Taylor as a single father raising his son, Opie, and Aunt
Bee as a sort of surrogate mother, both teaching Opie moral lessons; and the relationship between
Sheriff Andy Taylor and Deputy Barney Fife, where, to borrow Plaintiff’s apt description, Andy is
“laid back” and Barney is his “high-strung overzealous deputy.” Pl. Brief at 4. Finally, the primary
settings and sets are the same, namely, the Sheriff’s office, the jail and Andy’s living room. [Emphasis added]

That last line bugs me; didn't studios regulary reuse sets & props, either ones they created, or ones they rented? If so, could any film really be in the public domain?

[Trevor]

In the 90's Viacom filed some paperwork a bit late, & a few episodes of The Andy Griffith Show fell into the public domain, or so it seemed. In 2006, CBS, who merged with Viacom decided to start suing: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-3_06-cv-00588/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-3_06-cv-00588-0.pdf

Apparently the courts decided The Andy Griffith Show episodes weren't really in the public domain because the characters & other elements were still copyrighted.

The 16 Middle Episodes concern the same characters as the pre-existing copyrighted first
seventy-nine episodes, namely, Sheriff Andy Taylor, Deputy Barney Fife, Aunt Bee and Opie
Taylor. Reel Media has stipulated that the characters, such as Andy Taylor and Barney Fife, are
sufficiently distinctive and delineated to be independently copyrightable.6
 Further, the 16 Middle
Episodes contain the same film footage and soundtrack for the opening sequence (showing Andy
and Opie walking to the fishing hole while a tune is whistled in the background). The16 Middle
Episodes contain many of the same recurring themes from the initial seventy-nine episodes,
including among others: the theme of Andy Taylor as a single father raising his son, Opie, and Aunt
Bee as a sort of surrogate mother, both teaching Opie moral lessons; and the relationship between
Sheriff Andy Taylor and Deputy Barney Fife, where, to borrow Plaintiff’s apt description, Andy is
“laid back” and Barney is his “high-strung overzealous deputy.” Pl. Brief at 4. Finally, the primary
settings and sets are the same, namely, the Sheriff’s office, the jail and Andy’s living room. [Emphasis added]

That last line bugs me; didn't studios regulary reuse sets & props, either ones they created, or ones they rented? If so, could any film really be in the public domain?

In South Africa, copyright in movies lasts for a period of 50 years from the time of first release: copyright can't be renewed here, at least, not just yet.

[Rev. Powell]

American copyright law is complex and the owners are often big corporations with lobbyists and high-priced lawyers. That said, yeah, lots of stuff is public domain, though not as much as should be (thanks to corporations lobbying for unreasonable copyright extensions).

Don't take that last line out of context, it's just one element (a minor one) in the court's reasoning. The dispute is about a continuing episodic TV series where some episodes are under copyright and other episodes could be argued to be public domain. The ruling basically says the series is under copyright as a whole, or public domain as a whole.

[claws]

If a movie is in "public domain" what happens to the source material or original film elements?

To my understanding "public domain" movies are free to download, but aren't they usually of poor quality?

Romero's Night of the Living Dead is in public domain. Criterion's restored Night of the Living Dead is licensed from a copyright holder. Does this mean that only grainy poor quality copies of NOTLD are up for grabs?

As a movie lover, would you download the poor quality NOTLD because it is in public domain and free, or would you rather pay for a pristine restored version on physical media?

I never understood the appeal of public domain movies and why people are so thirsty for public domain movies.

[Trevor]

If a movie is in "public domain" what happens to the source material or original film elements?

To my understanding "public domain" movies are free to download, but aren't they usually of poor quality?

Romero's Night of the Living Dead is in public domain. Criterion's restored Night of the Living Dead is licensed from a copyright holder. Does this mean that only grainy poor quality copies of NOTLD are up for grabs?

As a movie lover, would you download the poor quality NOTLD because it is in public domain and free, or would you rather pay for a pristine restored version on physical media?

I never understood the appeal of public domain movies and why people are so thirsty for public domain movies.

In our case, if we have elements of a public domain film and someone wants access to them, they have to bring us a lawyers letter showing that every effort has been made to locate local rights holders and that they will protect us from any 💩 arising from the use of the released material.

[Rev. Powell]

If a movie is in "public domain" what happens to the source material or original film elements?

To my understanding "public domain" movies are free to download, but aren't they usually of poor quality?

Romero's Night of the Living Dead is in public domain. Criterion's restored Night of the Living Dead is licensed from a copyright holder. Does this mean that only grainy poor quality copies of NOTLD are up for grabs?

As a movie lover, would you download the poor quality NOTLD because it is in public domain and free, or would you rather pay for a pristine restored version on physical media?

I never understood the appeal of public domain movies and why people are so thirsty for public domain movies.

Source elements are physical property and their ownership is under regular property rules. No one has to give up the reels of film their grandfather shot just because the intellectual property content has entered the public domain.

Public domain copies are usually of poor quality because they are hard to profit from, so no one has much interest in preserving or restoring them. Also you get people selling copies of copies, since anyone that wants to can copy and resell it.

Not sure about Criterion's deal but I suspect/theorize that they paid out a little in order not to have to pay lawyers to go to court (even though they would probably win) and to give themselves a leg up as official licensee of the restored version. The restorers argue that restorations should get special copyright status, but I don't think it's been challenged in court. I haven't followed legal developments in that area. Basically, NOTLD is public domain and anyone can copy it---or make their own restoration---but if they tried to rip and distribute the Criterion edition, they might have to go to court.

[Allhallowsday]

Reuse of sets and props and scripts has long been endemic to film and radio and TV.  It almost certainly has nothing to do with copyright if the property is owned by producers or leased.  
NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is in the public domain.  

[Jim H]

If a movie is in "public domain" what happens to the source material or original film elements?

To my understanding "public domain" movies are free to download, but aren't they usually of poor quality?

Romero's Night of the Living Dead is in public domain. Criterion's restored Night of the Living Dead is licensed from a copyright holder. Does this mean that only grainy poor quality copies of NOTLD are up for grabs?

As a movie lover, would you download the poor quality NOTLD because it is in public domain and free, or would you rather pay for a pristine restored version on physical media?

I never understood the appeal of public domain movies and why people are so thirsty for public domain movies.

Source elements are physical property and their ownership is under regular property rules. No one has to give up the reels of film their grandfather shot just because the intellectual property content has entered the public domain.

Public domain copies are usually of poor quality because they are hard to profit from, so no one has much interest in preserving or restoring them. Also you get people selling copies of copies, since anyone that wants to can copy and resell it.

Not sure about Criterion's deal but I suspect/theorize that they paid out a little in order not to have to pay lawyers to go to court (even though they would probably win) and to give themselves a leg up as official licensee of the restored version. The restorers argue that restorations should get special copyright status, but I don't think it's been challenged in court. I haven't followed legal developments in that area. Basically, NOTLD is public domain and anyone can copy it---or make their own restoration---but if they tried to rip and distribute the Criterion edition, they might have to go to court.

I'm not a lawyer, but I remember talking about this once with an IP lawyer who spoke to my class, though I don't have a ton to add.  It was maybe four or five years ago, when I was in library school.  If I remember right, he said at the time the rule was it has to involve creative decisions to grant new copyright; in general, film restoration wouldn't qualify as it is mostly simply things like cleaning and scanning, and this isn't considered creative work.  But, there are newer, more extensive forms of digital restoration where the picture might actually be digitally patched up or color corrected; the equivalent of removing pin holes/fading and other damage in an old photograph with photoshop, where you are essentially redrawing over some of the image.  This is, debatably, making creative decisions and alterations to the work.  This MIGHT be enough to confer new copyright on the restoration, but to date nobody has tested it in a courtroom - so we still don't really know, as you say. 

It's also in a weird grey area even if it does confer new copyright - how much work do you have to do to get it, and what exactly is covered?  What if you just drew a smiley face on one frame of your restoration and otherwise it was just a cleaning job?  Could someone just remove the smiley face frame and then sell your restoration themselves, since the "cleaned" part wasn't otherwise creatively altered?  What if you ONLY used the sound from the transfer, which was just a clean transfer, but the picture was heavily digitally touched up?  It's weirdly untested waters, seems like.