thanks quincy
if anyone runs across an actual legal case where someone was trying to use the argument of copyright of a public domain video, i would be interested to read about it.
quincy,
you say these dvds were copyrighted ? just how were these commentaries placed on the dvds ?
i guess what i am getting at is the following - are the commentaries the only thing that is really able to be copyrighted ?
if so, if someone was able to copy those little rascal dvds, delete out the commentaries, could they legally use the rest of it, and do what they wanted ?
i understand that colorizing qualifies for copyright, because each frame of the actual film is re-done.
it still seems hazy to me, from everything i have read and heard, whether the rather costly process of transferring the film to hd quality also qualifies for copyright ?
not saying it does. not saying that it doesnt. but i suspect somewhere down the line, cases have been tried in court to establish rulings on this issue.
To address your last question first, the labor that goes into creating any work (gathering the tools or data or whatever) is not copyrightable. What is copyrightable will be the resulting work.
For example: It takes time and effort to gather up all the names and addresses and phone numbers for, say, a phone book but the time and effort are not copyrightable. And, because the names, addresses and phone numbers are facts and facts are not copyrightable either, anyone can come along and use the same names and addresses and phone numbers someone else spent the time and effort to compile and use them for their own phone book. What can be protected about a phone book are the addition of, say, maps or illustrations or trivia. That is what will set one phone book apart from the others and makes it so others cannot copy the pages, even though they can use the same facts. See
Feist Publications, Inc v Rural Telephone Service Co for the defining case.
What is also copyrightable is the selection chosen for a collection of public domain works. For example, a book that features a collection of Da Vinci drawings of his inventions can be copyright-protected even if the underlying works are in the public domain. Anyone can reproduce Da Vinci drawings and paintings but they would not be able to copy the Da Vinci inventions book by using the same selection of drawings or organized in the same way without infringing.
To be eligible for copyright protection, any collection of public domain works must have at least some creativity in the choices that are made, in the organization, in the copyrightable elements added (for example, adding text analyzing the inventions to go along with the Da Vinci drawings).
So, the
work that goes into creating a work, or into transferring a work from one format to another, should be looked at as a labor of love only
)) and the original and creative additions can be looked at as being the protectable parts.
Finally, I really don't remember how the commentaries were added to "The Little Rascals" videos (I
suppose I could view them again at some point in time to let you know - but don't hold your breath on this
), but because the videos have protection systems that cannot legally be circumvented because the Maltin commentaries are copyrighted, someone else cannot come along and copy just the public domain parts without violating the law.
What a person needs to do is find an original copy of a public domain work that no longer has any rights attached to it and where nothing has been added to make it copyrightable, and make copies of that. This can be as difficult as it sounds.
Four edits to add:
1. Here is a link to the case mentioned earlier by FlyingRon (
Stewart v Abend, 495 US 207, 1990):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=495&page=207
2. FlyingRon mentioned "It's a Wonderful Life" in an earlier post. The film
did pass into the public domain and copies were made of the film. However, the musical soundtrack to the film
is copyright-protected so the original film cannot now be copied without permission from the copyright holder (or without the musical soundtrack removed).
3. A link to
Warner Bros Entertainment, Inc v XOneX Productions, 8th Circuit, July 5, 2011:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1573132.html
4. A link to
Silverman v CBS, Inc, 870 F.2d 40 (2d Cir 1989):
http://openjurist.org/870/f2d/40/silverman-v-cbs-inc
