Slashdot Mirror
Fox Sues Over Reuse Of Public-Domain Documentary
leabre writes " Yahoo! Intellectual Property News is reporting that a small video distributer is being sued (U.S. Supreme Court) over reusing a work (WWII documentary) whose copyright had expired in the 70s, without giving credit to 20th Century Fox on the now public-domain work. What's more, Fox wants the courts to expand the copyright (which it let fall into the public domain more than 20 years ago) so they can recover damages from the distributer... " Read on for more (including several links) about this case.
favorite quote: 'Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told Cendali that her client let the copyright lapse for the documentary, in the 1970s, and now wants the court to expand copyright protection so it can recover damages from Dastar. "The defense replies 'It was in the public domain,' O'Connor said. 'Of course they had a right to copy it.'" The outcome of this should be watched closely as it has the potential to further distort our fair use rights. There are more links on EFF ,
Dept. of Justice, and the Supreme court filing (appeal)[pdf]."
End of story.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
In other news, thanks to everybody using that code I released to the public domain.
Suckers!!!
Now that it's deeply embedded in your projects, All Your Base Are Belong To Me!
Yours sincerely,
Richard Stallman
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
According to the article, the Bush administration (presumably Attorney-General Ashcroft) supports Dastar, the company being sued by Fox. Probably means that the Justice Department has filed an amicus brief saying (in legalese), "Fox is out of their minds if they think this illegal".
Slash finally supports multiple topics for stories. This is a feature I've been longing for for a long time. Bravo, slashteam!
I just read the Yahoo! News! article! and while I am a stalwart advocate for a strong and vibrant public commons, the company that used Fox's original video footage (and audio too I suppose, from the way the article reads) did something that is really sleazy.
Basically, for those who haven't read the article, this small startup video company takes an 8 hour long documentary based on Eisenhower's memoirs, cuts an hour of footage, and adds a half hour of (the article says new, but considering the way this company operates, probablly also recycled) footage then retitles it with an amazingly similar title and dumps it into discount stores' cheap video bins at a fraction of the cost the original documentary sells for.
Was it public domain? Yes. I would defend them on their right to use the footage. Was it ethical? No. I don't beleive so. They were using the work of a whole host of other people -- filmographers, recording engineers, writers, etc. -- to gain a cheap entry into the business. This is the equivalent of taking a novel by, say, Charles Dickens, editing it and perhaps adding another chapter, changing the title and claiming it as a new novel written by yourself. Really sleazy, IMHO.
Still... in no way should Fox be given another copyright on this material. It's in the public domain, and Fox allowed it to enter the public domain and that's where it should stay.
The content fell into public domain, clear and simple. It's available for anyone to do anything with it that they please, and now they're crying foul.
I think the fact that they didn't file for copyright extension should get this thrown out instantly. These guys have huge amounts of copyrighted works they own, and they are constantly extending their legally available copyright for the rest of it. When they decide not to file, it's because they think the content is no longer exploitable, so they don't bother.
In this case they were proven wrong - Dastar was able to use it in an appropriate way, and now Fox, who had abandoned it, says it's theirs? Come on, make up your minds.
Here's the history of the movie - judge for yourself if you think they have the moral high ground here:
It will be because judges can't read, or have been bought. I know Jack Valenti is out their trying to convince the world that we just mad up fair use:
JV: What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law.
Apparently he hasn't read Title 17 down to section 107. The section titled:
Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
But any one who can read that far would also hit [Title 17] section 104 which contains:
(1) ENFORCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN RESTORED WORKS IN THE ABSENCE OF A RELI- ANCE PARTY.--As against any party who is not a reliance party, the remedies pro- vided in chapter 5 of this title shall be available on or after the date of restoration of a restored copyright with respect to an act of infringement of the restored copyright that is commenced on or after the date of restoration.[emphasis mine]
Makes it pretty clear that even if Fox got their copyright restored, that damages for acts prior to that time are clearly unavailable.
I for one hope they get their bottoms spanked in court for this.
Fox does not have a case here.
The material fell out of copyright and is now public domain and they're still claiming rights to it?
Hold on, I gotta go sue the supermarket to recover the money I spent there -- because hey, it *USED* to be mine....
Yahoo! does not report anything. Yahoo! is a news portal, it's a Web site. The story has a byline
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
but I guess I am way over your head already.
If Fox wins this, then the estate of Rudyard Kipling can sue Disney for their Jungle Book movies, or the estate of Robert Louis Stevenson can sue over the various versions of Treasure Island. Both of these were in the public domain when Disney made thier movies so if works can be brought back out of the public domain it could spell the end of some major corporations.
The dogcow says "Moof!"
That it's suppose to work. If we consider "can't use because it's the labor of someone else", goodbye public domain.
It is not only a right, it is a Good Thing (tm). It expands our culture.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
Fox had better hope if it wins that it never used any public domain works in any of it's creations... Once word gets out that you can post-copyright pulic works and collect damages, people all over the world will be looking to copyight everything that they can even margially claim owndership of and bleed these big media corporations dry.
I disagree. I don't think it's sleazy at all for three reasons:
I would not have guessed that anyone on /. would object to distributing a labeled derivative of a work in the public domain.
But I look forward to seeing what new limitations on deriving new works from works in the public domain the SCOTUS will impose on us. The way I see it, this case is only a copyright case in that it has the chance to severely curtail our freedoms with PD works.
Referring to your comment about Charles Dickens' works: I wonder how much money is Dickens' estate is out from all the productions of his stories that are in the PD? Society generally doesn't think it's bad if Masterpiece Theatre, say, decides to air a new movie based on some Dickens work (copying even the dialogue and character names) without prepending "Charles Dickens'" to the name of the movie. Similarly, lots of people make new works based on Shakespeare's stories and characters without explicitly acknowledging where the story or characters come from. Welcome to the PD.
Digital Citizen
Public domain is exactly that: you can very well do whatever you fscking like with it!
That is the whole bloddy stupid fscking point!
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
This is the equivalent of taking a novel by, say, Charles Dickens, editing it and perhaps adding another chapter, changing the title and claiming it as a new novel written by yourself.
I would say it's more like taking Charles Dickens, rewriting the most common of introductions, then reselling it for a fraction of the cost of a new copy.
Something that Barnes&Nobles does all the time with classic novels.
Here is the Statement of the Case, telling the facts, from the perspective of Dastar:
More interesting quotes from that interview:
(please mod parent up)
By mistaking this for a copyright case, many are ignoring the most dangerous part of Fox's claim: trademarks don't expire as long as they're defended.
Another poster pointed out that there won't be any new works entering the public domain for a while (2018).
Even then there may be problems. Suppose the Harry Potter books enter the public domain in 2123. If "Harry Potter" and "Hogwarts" haven't become generic terms, can AOL/T-W come after you if you publish your own edition or make your own H-P toy or movie?
If Fox has now noticed that there is a market for that film...Fox can reissue their own product and sell the whole thing themselves.
Just because it's in the public domain does not mean the creator can't try to make money with it.
Fox does have an advantage. They can indicate on the new product that they made the thing in the first place, and imply that theirs is the whole and better thing.
Oh, good. I can mine my ancestors and get my share of the current profits from their creations.
I'll also bet it's not hard to show a relationship to the founder of the Mormon Church. I should get my share of the income which the church gets from the Prophet's writings...
This happened to the Frank Capra movie It's a Wonderful Life. In the 70's, Republic Pictures let the copyright on the movie lapse. Because of this, lots of TV stations started showing the movie, because they didn't have to pay to do so, like with most movies. It gradually developed quite a following and became a holiday tradition for a lot of people.
.
Ted Turner colorized the movie in the 80's, during the colorization fad, and copyrighted the colorized version, believe it or not.
Then, in the early 90's, Republic saw a chance to get paid. The Supreme Court had made some interesting rulings regarding the derivative nature of movies. They are derived from screenplays or books, and if you have a copyright to the screenplay or book, then you have some rights to derivative works, whether the copyright on the derivative works has lapsed or not. So Republic had the copyrights to the screenplay and the original score of the movie, and used that to re-assert copyright over the movie. Technically, they don't have copyright to the movie, and someone could take scenes from it and use it to tell a different story with different music.
Here's a long explanation from a movie industry law firm: http://www.film-center.com/canishow.html
It seems that Fox is trying to use the copyright of the book or screenplay to re-assert the copyright on the movie. But it also seems that Dastar re-cut the footage so it doesn't follow the book so closely, so it should be exempt from the derivate copyright argument. If they lose, it will be a severe increase in copyright protection for derivative works.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.