Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How To "Prove" a Work Is Public Domain?
New submitter eporue writes: YouTube claims that I haven't been able to prove that I have commercial rights to this video of Superman. They are asking me to submit documentation saying "We need to verify that you are authorized to commercially use all of the visual and audio elements in your video. Please confirm your material is in the public domain." I submitted a link to the Wikipedia page of the Superman cartoons from the 40s where it explains that the copyright expired, and to the Archive page from where I got it. And still is not enough to "prove" that I have the commercial rights. So, how do you "prove" public domain status ?
This video has been up for a year on Youtube. I fail to see the problem. Apparently Google accepted your explanation.
Just because the story is in the public domain, that doesn't mean you have the ability to use the trademarks.
Unless the copyright office gives out such things (and I doubt they do), I'm not sure you can get proof. The fun thing is that they've changed the rules multiple times, invented nonsense like a "common law copyright" (in NY) and otherwise revived dead copyrights by law (the Supremes have no problem with that).
Major copyright holders want to kill the public domain and the very idea that the public is granting them limited rights which revert to the public at the end as it's a threat to them owning everything.
Oh you silly person. There's no such thing as Public Domain. It's a theoretical construct at this point, and might as well be considered as mythical and unlikely now as unicorns and a third party POTUS.
Believe me, within 20 years, Homer's and Shakespeare's works will be owned by Walt Disney or Sony, and anyone putting on a production of Hamlet will have to pay royalties. This is the world that evil lawyers and culpable, retarded politicians are creating.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
the burden of proof is on you... and you need to take them to court if they're being crazy.
Yup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
RIAA Says There's No Value In The Public Domain
from the true-colors dept
While I've already written about the hearings for the Copyright Office concerning copyright on pre-1972 sound recordings, but I wanted to call out one particularly egregious and ridiculous statement from the RIAA. The RIAA's Jennifer Pariser claimed that there's no value to a work in the public domain. Apparently Pariser is unfamiliar with the works of Shakespeare. Or Beethoven. Is she serious? I mean, you could make the argument that it makes life more difficult to sell those works for the labels she represents, but those works have tremendous value. Pariser, of course, is famous for making ridiculous statements, sometimes under oath. Back when she worked for Sony-BMG she made some statements, on the stand and under oath, in the Jammie Thomas trial that were blatantly untrue. Only much later, after the jury had ruled, did the RIAA admit that Pariser "misspoke" while on the stand. One hopes she "misspoke" here as well, but I get the feeling she actually believes the blatantly incorrect statement she made.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
So, you put a video online that someone else made, onto a service that someone else pays the bandwidth fees for and you're bitching because you aren't getting any money from it?
What exactly do you think your ten minutes of time in downloading the video from one place and uploading it to another are worth?
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
Obviously another example of how jacked-up the system (and the players in the system) are. My brief lecture, as an IP lawyer in spite of the AC comment:
Everything is in the public domain until copyright law changes that. Even with Berne convention changes to US law, there is no default assumption that everything everywhere is under copyright. Why else would a prima facia copyright infringement case require proof of ownership of a valid copyright? Note that an actual registration certificate doesn't serve to do this- it merely affects the presumptions involved. That YouTube overreaches on this issue should be of no surprise: erring with respect to hundreds of small productions is of no import to their monopolization of the field, but screwing up on, say, Disney's next Star Wars could cost them hundreds of millions.
Might as well ask how to prove you're awake instead of dreaming.
It's really supposed to be the other way around: You post your Superman video to youtube, the owner of modern Superman sues you or tells Youtube to take it down, and then they have to prove that they own the copyright.
Of course, youtube could just look at the law you're showing them also.
The court ruled in Dastar v. Fox that a trademark cannot be used as an ersatz copyright.
Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp
Dastar Corp. V. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Et Al. No. 02-428, Supreme Court of United States
Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound?
But forgot to mention the guy can FLY?
Faster than a speeding bullet?
But forgot the guy can STOP a bullet?
More powerful than a locomotive?
But forgot to mention he can bend steel in his bare hands?
Did you know both TV Lois Lanes are still living? George was murdered before I was born so nothing I could do about that.
... if you are publishing anything other than primary work.
Also, for a primary work you may like to get its' content (or concept) signed, say, by a "webnotary"-like service.
So did you read the part in the entry that says " ancillary rights such as merchandising contract rights, as well as the original 35mm master elements, are owned today by Warner Bros. Entertainment. Warner has owned Superman publisher DC Comics since 1969."? Monetizing it and making money from it may be considered merchandising.
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
You can't in general prove that something published post-1923 is public domain. We do not have (any more) a requirement to register copyrights, plus we now have very long copyright terms. Either would be bad, the combination is (quite deliberately) pernicious. It means that, while you may have good reasons to assume that something is PD, you can almost never know for sure. There are two major exceptions - works that have been declared to be PD by their owner, and works by the US Government (which are PD from birth). US Government works are generally pretty safe, but works declared PD are not always (as you have no way to prove the donor actually owns them).
If you think that this implies that our copyright laws need to be changed, you are IMO correct. I would go for a term of 14 years, one renewal possible, with registration required. The wailing from the rent-seeking entertainment industries would, of course, in that case be something to behold, but that would have some entertainment value in its own right.
1. I am not a lawyer.
2. General public domain works are pre-1923 works. Works post-1923 that are in public domain are so for technical reasons, such as failure to renew copyright.
3. Wiki claims the cartoons are in the public domain by linking to page 13 in Superman vs. Hollywood in Google Books.
4. On page 13, it asserts "By the latter part of the century, Max Fleischer's Supperman cartoons had fallen into the public domain, where they were subject to all manner of ignoble treatment by third-rate video distributors." (https://books.google.com/books?id=OmYt2xaxktEC&pg=PT25#v=snippet&q=public%20domain&f=false)
5. This assertion in 3, however, is not evidence that nobody currently owns rights to the cartoons.
6. It would appear from surrounding text in Superman vs. Hollywood that Warner Brothers is likely the current rights holder to Superman.
7. To prove the cartoons in question are available for public domain use, the following (perhaps more) would likely need to occur:
- Show no current copyright on said material by showing expiration of copyright and doing exhaustive search in pre-1978 and post-1978 archives via http://copyright.gov/records/index.html
- Show statutory justification that expired copyrights in fact enter public domain
- Show that the work in question meets the aforementioned requirements
The Wikipedia article references this book as a source for the claim that the copyrights were not renewed.
But if you really want to prove it, you'd have to find the original copyright filings by Paramount, point to the expiry date, and then challenge the other party to produce a renewal application.
Who would have thought!
If you were flying with Superman wouldn't the super take off break your bones as he achieves flying speed? I don't imagine many spines being able to deal with the take off force.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The first thing to note is that while the content "might" fall under public domain if the copyright has expired, someone still had to digitize it. Even the Wikipedia article mentions that.
Also I'll note that Warner Bros. is generally heavy handed.
When you make a counter-claim, it is reviewed by the one issuing the copyright strike. In such case Warner Bros would "rightfully" be able to monetize it if you uploaded it. So complain if you want, but you're on the losing side of this.
https://copyright.cornell.edu/...
But it is high time someone took the platforms to court over this shit. They do not claim the copyright, and if they did the onus is on THEM that they own it, not on you to prove that you had an original thought.
Automated generation of DCMAs, Youtube's automagical blocking of audio, all of this shit needs to stop. If you think you own something then it's up to your lawyers to prove it.
The problem is not the law but Google/Youtube.
Google as a plattform has every right to make any stupid requirement for publishing content on their plattforms.
If you do not like that go somewhere else.
I do all day.
In the long run this will lead to a much more healthy content industry.
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
* Proof of pre-1923 publication or that it is a US Government work (neither are applicable in your case)
* Proof of a legal, authorized-by-the-rightsholder publication without the required "formalities" back when publishing without them automatically put the work into the public domain
* A court ruling that the work was in the public domain and it's obvious (or can be proven) that no quirks in the law like foreign-copyright-restoration apply
* A formal, authoritative opinion by the US Copyright Office that the work is in the public domain (fat chance getting this for any work created after 1923)
* A formal, authoritative legal opinion by the state Attorney General in the state that YouTube is legally incorporated in that the work is in the public domain (I just threw this in for completeness sake - it's almost certainly not applicable to you)
* Proof of an exhaustive search of all copyright renewals showing that none of the relevant copyrights were renewed
If you have the money, your most sure-fire bet is to either do a copyright-renewal search or to go to court to get a declaration that your work does not infringe on any of the copyrights that YouTube is alleging you might be infringing. However, for your purposes - to "monetize" the video on YouTube - this will cost you way more than it's worth unless you can get the EFF or some other entity to foot your legal bills.
The sad reality is that if you aren't able to throw lots of money at the issue, you can't afford to do what it takes to win. On the other hand, if you were making a movie with a 9-figure budget it might be cheaper in the long run to do a copyright-renewal search or get a court to declare your works non-infringing than to pay the dane-geld to everyone who came to you claiming you owe them money for copyright clearances. Of course, getting a court to declare your work non-infringing from a copyright stance would do nothing to protect you from trademark-related lawsuits.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
This might help: https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki...
And, the updated "Rule 6 How-To" at https://copy.pglaf.org/
For something published in the US after 1923 and before 1964, renewal of copyright was necessary to get a further 28-year extension. (Term extensions in 1998 extended copyright of items published in 1964 onward, and removed the need to renew.)
The Rule 6 how-to has a template for non-renewal research that might satisfy YouTube, if you do the research and send it in.
Only around 10% of items published from 1923 onwards were renewed. (It's no longer required, but you can still renew today.) The US Library of Congress has records of copyright registrations and renewals, and the Rule 6 How-To describes where to get the records. For items from 1923-1963, the renewals for printed items are comprehensive.
Serialization is sometimes a problem. Items might have been published, then published in another form (say, a magazine article that was published as a book), and if the timing is close enough one renewal might cover both items.
Proving something is in the public domain in the US, for printed items, is not that hard for items published from 1923-1963. It takes some time and expertise, and there is always a chance there is a renewal that you didn't find. Proving it is still copyrighted is also easy: show me the renewal.
- Greg
Considering that several people passed me doing at least 15 over on the interstate, the speed limit is axiomatically incorrect?
but, because you did, my advice is to hire a lawyer that specializes in intellectual property cases.
True... kind of... but only because he would have entered the public domain if Disney didn't keep lobbying Congress for more copyright extension laws. And they will do it again. And again. And again. The mouse is pure gold. If all it takes are some phone calls to sympathetic congressmen why wouldn't they? http://www.washingtonpost.com/... http://artlawjournal.com/micke... but hypocritical because Disney swooped on Kipling's Jungle Book as soon as that fell into public domain https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
A video of a game I made was refused.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As evidence - I submitted the link to android market place, where I am selling the game - offered source code, source assets, etc. Several times, along with asking what would do for valid evidence.
150k views later, lots of evidence and questions from me... "monetization rejected" and still ignored.
And that's with A video I made, of a Game I made!
So you're asking us how to prove it's public domain so you can make money with it?
That ofcourse is ridiculous.. If it's public domain, you shouldn't be able to make money off it by republishing it on youtube you lame bastard...
For over 2 years I've had a somewhat successful channel on YouTube (60k subscribers) and can tell you this: don't release a video that doesn't show a monetized flag. No amount of emailing with YouTube will fix it. Your only choice is to reencode the video (it can't be the exact same file), re-upload it and try again. They tell you not to do this.. but of course that's because it works.
At the end of the day (as with any web service), you are a guest in their house and subject to their whims. They will say "we follow these rules", but if they happen to be negotiating with Warner Bros for content for their new pay music service, no logical argument for public domain is going to convince them to release your Superman video.
Not really.. copyright protects a specific expression of ideas: the printed page, the piano roll, the long playing record, etc.
So the mere "idea" of something like "superman has the ability to genetically modify yeast to produce opiates" cannot be copyrighted. You can write a story with this idea, and the story (the specific words in a particular sequence) is copyrighted, but then, I could go out and write a song about Superman's GMO capability and copyright in that song would belong to me.
Now, trademark rules mean that I probably couldn't sell my "Superman brand heroin - made from yeast, not poppies", although the courts would look to whether the average consumer of heroin (or Superman) would be confused by my use of superman. (assuming I did not use the iconic man in blue tights with a red cape in my materials).
And even if you had written a story about superman, yeast, and opiate production, I could probably write a similar set of words that describes my production processes. Not exactly word for word (unless you were particularly prescient in your writing, and you had a really good knowledge of bioengineering).
And, of course, I would be heading off to the US Patent and Trademark Office to file a patent on my "method and system for producing useful pharmaceuticals using Saccharomyces spp." (I'm sure someone has already done it, but hey, I'll write mine so it doesn't totally read on their claims)
At this point in time Superman will not fall into the Public Domain until 2033. You can be assured that Congress will extend Copyright again before then.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
YouTube claims that I haven't been able to prove that I have commercial rights to this video of Superman.
I've never heard of YouTube doing this. If this is the US, then something is missing here.
If YouTube wants safe harbor under the DMCA, my understanding is that they can't require that you prove you own the copyright. Instead, they have to let you publish the content, then wait for someone to file a DMCA complaint against you. Then, once you file a counter to it, YouTube must allow the video to go back up. I'm not aware of any point in the process where YouTube gets to determine who owns the copyright.
You didn't mention anything about anyone filing a DMCA claim against you, so I'm totally confused where this requires to prove your commercial rights comes from. Ultimately, the answer here is probably "get a lawyer." Especially since you mention "commercial."
Go to the archive.org link posted in TFA, download the movie for freebies, and let this goom solve his OWN legal problems?
Why should anybody do his work for him?
"But I used a wiki page for fact checking!" Legit.
Your question: How do you prove something is in the Public Domain?
The answer: you prepare a brief, the same way a lawyer would.
Start with the work in question. Locate its copyright certificate. Ascertain the length of copyright protection that was afforded under the copyright statutes that existed at the time. Review any changes in the law between then and now to determine whether that period of protection was extended. Accumulate all of that information, with supporting documentation, and there you go: proof.
For extra credit, consider the possibility that the work you're intending to post was a actually derivative work, created some time after the original work, thus granting it a later copyright date (and a longer copyright protection period). You'll have to canvass copyright records to see if there are multiple registrations for what seems to be the same work, and might have to hire an expert to differentiate between the original and subsequent versions of what might appear to be the same work.
You know what isn't sufficient proof of anything? Posting a link to Wikipedia.
Ask a lawyer,not us armchair lawyers. BUT IMO as an armchair lawyer,Superman maybe still under copyright he is still being ..used so to speak.. Its a damn good question that really don't have a real answer unless you go to court that is unfortunate. What is questionable is why is google asking this? I though Google/ANY web site owner was NOT legally required/responsable to police any laws,copyrights. Are they not soposta act on complaints? If they now start to police then are they not making a president if they DON'T?
Jack of all trades,master of none
These cartoons were published in the 1940s. That means that unless they were renewed in a timely manner with the Copyright Office they are in the public domain. So you just need evidence that no renewal was filed for these cartoon films. This can sometimes be a bit of a pain in the butt to find, but in this case you are lucky. As it so happens, it took me about 10 seconds to find the following Copyright Office search reports, which demonstrate that the cartoon you posted--the Underground World--along with numerous other cartoons were never renewed.
See https://archive.org/stream/Copyright_Search_Reports_Superman_1940s_cartoon_short_films/The_Underground_World_1943_-_Superman#page/n0/mode/1up
See also https://archive.org/details/Copyright_Search_Reports_Superman_1940s_cartoon_short_films
Here's what a friendly law professor wrote (and he specifically checked for the superman image): You check to see if the copyright was renewed. If it wasn’t then it is in the public domain. Took me about 10 seconds to find a document from the copyright office showing that no renewal exists for this copyright: https://archive.org/stream/Cop... For all the films: see https://archive.org/details/Co...
I believe that this issue has at least two potential solutions:
1. Legalized (by court, notary, certified officer or etc. ) affidavit from you; or / and
2. Court decision saying the same.
It should be enough for their compliance department ... once you or court is taking responsibility.
"Wiki" is recognized expert opinion which shall be taken without any doubt - this is another possible court decision which might affect this issue :)
You're describing the legal reality. He's describing the actual practices. Copyright is something granted by law, and it is entirely correct to consider it as something which does not exist except at the determination of our legal system. Public domain is the natural state of all creative works. Jefferson gives a more eloquent statement:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Copyright infringement is in no way analogous to theft; I'm afraid you're the person with the profound misunderstanding.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The good folks who put together this document and the folks who contributed to the pages uses as reference material deserve the credit.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Upload to the Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard - SZERVÁC Attila
Thank you, this was very helpful
It's always hard to prove your innocence, when somebody implies you're just hiding something.
So fill in a dmca counter notice and then wait until somebody tries to sue you ... they would need to prove their copyright.