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]."

Comments

Mixed feelings

[FunkyRat]

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.

They let it expire, and now they complain?

[Daphnee Ewald]

The content in question was created in the last 40s/early 50s. As anyone following recent copyright law and the Eldrich case should realize, anything from that time had the potential to be copyrighted for a few more decades without incident. However the laws that existed during that period required that you could extend your copyright a given number of times. Fox did not file that paperwork.

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:

In 1948, three and a half years after the German surrender at Reims, General Dwight D. Eisenhower completed Crusade in Europe (Crusade), his written account of the allied campaign in Europe during World War II. Doubleday published Crusade and registered it with the Copyright Office in 1948. Pet. App. 9a. Doubleday granted the exclusive television rights in the book to an affiliate of respondent Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (Fox). In 1949, Fox made a television series based on Crusade, and registered the series with the Copyright Office. Id. at 8a-10a.1 In 1975, Doubleday renewed the copyright on the book as the "proprietor of copyright in a work made for hire." Id. at 9a. Fox, however, did not renew the copyright on the Crusade television series, Br. in Opp. 20-21 n.4, and that copyright expired in 1977.2

Re:They let it expire, and now they complain?

[JimDabell]

I think the fact that they didn't file for copyright extension should get this thrown out instantly.

I can think of two conspiracy theories:

1. Companies can now point to this as evidence that copyright extensions should be automatic, rather than having to register for them.
2. Any successful legal challenge would effectively destroy the concept of public domain. Kinda like the ultimate copyright extension.

That's the way

[inerte]

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.

Re:3. Profit!

[macdaddy357]

This film was in the public domain, and the edit of it was indeed produced by Dastar. They can put their names on it, but so can anyone. Disney takes fairy tales and legends from the public domain, and puts their names on them without giving credit to Hans Christain Anderson, The Brothers Grimm, or their other sources. How is this any different. The supreme court needs to tell fox F*** you, and the horse you rode in on, but they probably won't Fox is a corporate giant who can grease palms and get their way, just like Disney, and Dastar isn't.