MovieChat Forums > Forbidden Planet (1958) Discussion > Could have been in public domain today

Could have been in public domain today

posted 12 years ago by Askur
28 replies | jump to latest

This and other movies from the same year could have been in public domain in 2013 if the law hadn't been changed in the late 70s:

"The films Godzilla, King of the Monsters!, Moby Dick, The Best Things in Life Are Free, Forbidden Planet, The King and I, The Ten Commandments, and Around the World in 80 Days, the stories 101 Dalmatians, Diamonds are Forever and The Minority Report, classic Elvis Presley songs, and more …

The Best Things in Life are NOT Free

Current US law extends copyright for 70 years after the date of the author’s death, and corporate “works-for-hire” are copyrighted for 95 years after publication. But prior to the 1976 Copyright Act (which became effective in 1978), the maximum copyright term was 56 years – an initial term of 28 years, renewable for another 28 years. Under those laws, works published in 1956 would enter the public domain on January 1, 2013, where they would be “free as the air to common use.” Under current copyright law, we’ll have to wait until 2052.1 And no published works will enter our public domain until 2019. (The law in the EU is different – thousands of works from authors who died in 1942 are entering their public domain on January 1.) Even more shockingly, the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that Congress can take back works from the public domain. Could Shakespeare, Plato, or Mozart be pulled back into copyright? The Supreme Court gave no reason to think that they could not be."

"Under the law that existed until 1978 … Up to 85% of all copyrighted works from 1984 might have been entering the public domain on January 1, 2013."

What's frustrating is that the rules keeps changing, and not for the better. The copyright period after publication and the author's death keeps getting longer and longer. At least if we are talking about popular titles that are still making movies. Could you imagine Disney's Snow White as public domain in the nearest future, if ever?

Link:
http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2013/pre-1976

Then there is the problem about writers. I have heard that in US, you will need to wait till 2019 before more writers can be added to the public domain list.

In Europe, H.G. Wells would have been in public domain in 1996 if he had passed away in 1945 instead if 1946. Instead, you will have to wait 20 more years before it becomes common property.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121231/17144221531/how-supreme-cour t-helped-stomp-out-public-domain.shtml

More of the same problem about public domain:

http://wordsideasandthings.blogspot.no/2012_10_01_archive.html

[–] baheidstu-351-733122 12 years ago

So are you hoping these films are in the public domain so a bunch of fly-by-night cheapjack scam artists can profit by selling POS DVD's to the general public, instead of having the studios that created them releae good quality prints and media of them?

[–] Askur 12 years ago

The studios would still be able to release editions not available for others than those who have access to the original material and the ressoruces to add some extra material.

Besides, movies are not the only thing we are talking about here. A book is made up of letters, and those will be the same no matter how long we wait.

[–] baheidstu-351-733122 12 years ago

Books are different from films, the printed word is always the same and cannot vary in quality. Film prints can appear different depending on what generation the copy is. Frankly it would be horrible if the only available print of a film to see was some 10th generational copy from some rip-off artist like you get on those bargain bin DVD's. I'm all too happy to let the studios keep their properties in copyright for perpetuity.

[–] Askur 12 years ago

"Books are different from films, the printed word is always the same and cannot vary in quality."

That's what I'm saying. Anyway, there are far from all movies that goes through restoration and upgrading, and being in public domain would make sure they didn't disappear and faded away. Public domain would also give the companies reason to do some restorations just to be able to compete with those who can offer just the same old copies. Make the movies available for everybody after some decades, and leave the original prints to the companies. This gives them the rights to the original material and the upgrades, which true collectors and fans will still pay for, and everybody will be happy. Including those who enjoy titles that would otherway have been forgotten.

[–] baheidstu-351-733122 12 years ago

Except when it comes to movies, SOMEBODY is going to profit from the distribution of public domain releases. Where is the morality in a company who had nothing to do with the creation of a film profiting from its distribution without paying compensation to the company which created it, or at least paid for the rights to distribute it? Not only that, but profiting with a poor quality, tenth generational print that does not do justice to the artistry of the original film and its creators.

[–] wakanasakai 11 years ago

I TOTALLY agree that this movie, & a lot of other stuff, should have been in the public domain a LONG time ago.

To those who think otherwise, you have ALREADY RUINED ANY chances of somebody being able to obtain some older materials. As just one example among many thousands, I've been searching for a LONG time for any scans/PDFs/whatever of any of the "Dick & Jane" books, but guess what? I haven't found ANY! If I wanted to actually BUY one of them, I've seen some people selling individual copies of them for more than $4,000 US! & I'm told that the copyright on the very OLDEST of them STILL hasn't expired, but that the copyright on the whole series has been RE-NEWED!

So thanks for NOTHING, you copyright IDIOTS!
---
IF I want your opinion, I'll GIVE it to you.

[–] Harold_of_Whoa 11 years ago

I TOTALLY agree that this movie, & a lot of other stuff, should have been in the public domain a LONG time ago.

To those who think otherwise, you have ALREADY RUINED ANY chances of somebody being able to obtain some older materials.

Wow.

You know, just the other day, I was thinking I should develop an opinion on the durability of copyright protections, about which I have heretofore been neutral (meaning uninterested). Fortunately, I did not think any more about it and did not come up with an opinion. I say "fortunately" because at the time I had no idea that thinking the wrong way on the subject was apt to *beep* somebody else's world.

Close call, that.

"Morbius, something is approaching from the southwest. It is now quite close."

[–] wakanasakai 11 years ago

Wait, you can think? Well, if that's true, then maybe you should think about why you feel that way. Or maybe you should even think about why you think that people like us are thieves?
---
IF I want your opinion, I'll GIVE it to you.

[–] Trax-3 11 years ago

Yeah, wouldn't it be nice if you could slap some VHSrip or old 16mm print on DVD and sell it to the gullible. Even legitimate companies screw up their transfers from time to time. Even if they have access to best surviving film elements and modern first class equipment. What's the chance that public domain hacks would get it right and release a product that does any justice to the work of the people who created the film?

[–] wakanasakai 11 years ago

Sell it to people? Why would people pay for something if they could get it for free? Also, you're assuming that a public domain release of something would be of low quality. That sometimes happens, but some people who release things in the public domain know what they're doing, so "low" quality isn't guaranteed.
---
IF I want your opinion, I'll GIVE it to you.

[–] Trax-3 11 years ago

Who is going to pay for the free thing? The transfer itself costs a fair bit of money if done properly (at least 2k - minimum required to do justice to a film print). The resulting file must then be made available for free download but who is going to pay for the bandwidth and server space unless you are willing to compress the end result to hell?

[–] wakanasakai 11 years ago

Try telling all of that to the message boards at piratebay. Everybody there will wonder why you'd think that. Finding something that you want to make into a video file is your biggest obstacle.

You would need specific equipment to convert a film reel into a video file, but only the equipment itself would have to cost you any money. Alternatively, if you buy a projector that can play a film reel (finding such a projector should be easier than finding a film-reel-to-video-file convertor/equipment, because such projectors have been sold for home use for several decades), an alternative way to convert a film reel into a video file would be to use something that can record videos. Some higher-end smartphones can already record videos in 1080p, & so can some digital camcorders, but the resolution of older film reels (translation = a film reel of a movie that is old enough to be in the public domain) would be best converted into a 720p video file, as 1080p would make the result look grainier than the movie was intended to look (& 1080i is less detailed than 720p). Just set up your smartphone or digital camcorder on a tripod (or an object or stack of objects) of the needed height, use the projector to play the film reel, & have the smartphone or digital camcorder record the movie.

The editing of any video file can be done for free with lots of free programs, & with great results if you know the best settings to use for specific videos. Learning those needn't be trial-&-error if you go to sites like the message boards at piratebay & ask for advice.

As for bandwidth & server space needs, you have a few free (for you) options.
1) Upload a video file to a video streaming site like youtube, dailymotion, metacafe, or others.
You're supposed to own the copyright to something if it's not in the public domain, but I've found videos of copyrighted stuff there lots of times, & in HD of up to 1080p too. As for downloading something from those sites, there are lots of sites & browser-addons that will help you do that.
2) Upload a video file to a file-sharing site.
Yes, the government has shut down some file-sharing sites, but there are some that are still online.
3) Upload a video file to a torrent-sharing site.
The most obvious way to share a video file in a way that can let others download it.
---
IF I want your opinion, I'll GIVE it to you.

[–] Trax-3 11 years ago

You would need specific equipment to convert a film reel into a video file, but only the equipment itself would have to cost you any money. Alternatively, if you buy a projector that can play a film reel (finding such a projector should be easier than finding a film-reel-to-video-file convertor/equipment, because such projectors have been sold for home use for several decades), an alternative way to convert a film reel into a video file would be to use something that can record videos. Some higher-end smartphones can already record videos in 1080p, & so can some digital camcorders, but the resolution of older film reels (translation = a film reel of a movie that is old enough to be in the public domain) would be best converted into a 720p video file, as 1080p would make the result look grainier than the movie was intended to look (& 1080i is less detailed than 720p). Just set up your smartphone or digital camcorder on a tripod (or an object or stack of objects) of the needed height, use the projector to play the film reel, & have the smartphone or digital camcorder record the movie.

This is all pure nonsense, you can't film something off the screen and expect it to look even a half as good as what the human eye would see on that same screen. You need actual motion picture film scanner and good ones cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And 720p - Are you kidding? Were talking about 35mm photography here. 720p is a joke. The higher resolution the transfer, the higher quality the end result will be, grain is part of the photography, it is not something undesirable, sharp fully resolved grain is a sign of a quality scanning job. In this day and era all 35mm material should be ideally transferred at 4k, maybe even 6k for anamorphic photography like Forbidden Planet.

[–] jordan-131 12 years ago

Copyright Maximumlists and Patent Trolls.............two things I really hate.And I have been Boycotting all Big Content putting what money I can spend into Local and Indie Non-Big Content Art.
The Mickey Mouse Principle is every time Mickey could become "Public Domain" we must run to the Government and have them extend the Copyright.
The Dinosaur Industry needs to go extinct.
This and many other things should of been Public Domain by now.

[–] Askur 12 years ago

The whole Mickey Mouse thing, like Steamboat Willie, is pissing me off. The cartoon is not the best I have seen, it's about the principle. Because Disney have money and influence, they know how to prevent it from slipping into public domain again and again. And of course others will take advantage of it, and use the same arguments as well. Today when old cartoons are available for downloading and on youtube 24 hours, people are gonna see them without paying anyway if that's what they want. Why not share your old creations with the rest of the world? It would do wonders for Disney's (and other companies') image. I guess those who are born in 2013 will never live to see Snow White enter public domain.
One can always hope that times will change for the better in this regard, but I have my doubts.

[–] jordan-131 12 years ago

Askur:

Although I fully understand you by now you are aware of how the people do not understand what we talk about.To them people like us are just thieves.
We are a lot smarter than they will ever know.
A typical response to our knowledge is the Comment left by the other person.Sure that person has no idea at all about the extension over and over of Copyright.

[–] Askur 12 years ago

Yeah, it shouldn't be possible to profit on other people's work (through copyright) when the products were created decades or more than a century ago, and has become a part of our commen past and present. The way I see it, that's more criminal than the kind of "stealing" they blame others for.
(Once Disney even sued a pre-school for painting Mickey Mouse and Snow White on the walls.)

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Yeah, it shouldn't be possible to profit on other people's work (through copyright) when the products were created decades or more than a century ago, and has become a part of our commen past and present. The way I see it, that's more criminal than the kind of "stealing" they blame others for.

What?

What do you think companies that specialize in public domain stuff are doing? You think they're not making profits? In or out of public domain there are a limited number of people that can produce and sell copies of anything. Quality issues aside, they're in it to make money. The idea that only the original copyright holders are greedy or driven by profits is idiotic. Public domain people are money-grubbing parasites. What right do they have to make money off of someone else's work?

You sound simply like one of those people who believe the world owes them everything for free. I'd like to see how you'd feel about it if you had the talent to make a movie or record a song or write a book, only to see a lot of quick-buck artists grab it and make all the money out of it because you didn't have a copyright.

You also misspelled "common".

[–] Askur 10 years ago

Sorry, but I don't give a *beep* what you think.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Then why are you posting your opinions on a public forum? You certainly had no problem with people who agreed with you -- their opinions you cared about. But it's not surprising a freeloader can't take criticism.

[–] Askur 10 years ago

I can take criticism, but stupidity in combination with obnoxiousness is something else. Do you really think you hit bullseye or something?

What do you think companies that specialize in public domain stuff are doing? You think they're not making profits? In or out of public domain there are a limited number of people that can produce and sell copies of anything. Quality issues aside, they're in it to make money.

You don't say? Who would have guessed something obvious like that?

The idea that only the original copyright holders are greedy or driven by profits is idiotic. Public domain people are money-grubbing parasites. What right do they have to make money off of someone else's work?

Of course people are selling it to make money. Because there are buyers who are willing to buy. That's the whole point about public domain; to make something available. Digitally restored releases will benefit those who have restored them, usually the original studio. But a lot of titles, both novels, short stories and movies, are not available because only those who have the rights can sell them and often they have apparently no interest in doing so. Especially "forgotten" works.

You sound simply like one of those people who believe the world owes them everything for free.

Because I don't want movies and literature to be locked up forever? Sure.

I'd like to see how you'd feel about it if you used your amazing talent to make a movie or record a song or write a book, only to see a lot of quick-buck artists grab it and make all the money out of it because you didn't have a copyright.

Probably dislike it just as much as if someone made money on my work for an unlimited amount of years after my death, instead of letting the whole world having access to it while it was still remembered.

You also misspelled "common".

And you just embarrassed yourself.

[–] melnar1 10 years ago

You seem to forget, or be unaware, that copyrights are renewable.

The movie studios jealously guard those copyrights and take great care that they don't allow the copyrights of their properties to lapse. They employ legal staff especially to ensure this.

Of course, over time, mistakes have been made - for example when MGM failed to renew the copyright of Till The Clouds Roll By. As soon as it had lapsed, in immediately became public domain. There are many such instances, but in the main their vast catalogue has been kept protected.

Ignore Twitter’s incessant, mindless chatter.

[–] Trax-3 10 years ago

Till The Clouds Roll By could probably be brought back to copyright if the studio would find it worth the trouble to fight off the bootleggers. Kern's music is probably not in the public domain and the film is full of it.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

MGM failed to renew the copyrights on several of their films made between 1946 and 1954 when they came due in the late 70s and early 80s. I suspect this may have been due to the corporate mayhem then reigning at the studio.

Besides Till the Clouds Roll By, other unrenewed MGM films included Royal Wedding, Father's Little Dividend, Go for Broke, Cause for Alarm, The Last Time I Saw Paris and a few others. All fell into public domain.

Of course, many people forget that even though a film may be in p.d., that doesn't bar the original studio from issuing its own copy; they have the same right to do so as anybody else. In VHS days MGM/UA did indeed put most of these titles out on their label, but since DVD and Blu-ray came in this has become rarer. Still, Warner Home Video, which now controls most of the MGM library, has issued a few of these titles on its label.

The same thing happened with a few Fox films of the same era: Three Came Home, The Big Lift, The Snows of Kilimanjaro, Beneath the 12-Mile Reef. All have been issued by p.d. outfits, but Fox itself has now released all but the second title on their own label.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] asherp 9 years ago

Im not really sure who is hurt by a specific movie NOT being public domain. Public Domain wasn't created so that a different company/person from the creator could make money...It was created so that items of general public good couldn't be held and hidden from use by an owner.

What isn't available these days from public use even when you look at copyrighted items? If the thought is that you have to pay $5 to watch a specific movie...that is so remarkably close to public domain in reality.

Where is really comes up is with items that have been added to the core of society's functionality...like Shakespeare or Happy Birthday...or The Constitution...or a National Anthem....Those items are where it really matters. As for whether a movie from 100 years ago should be protected....Well if the company which created it (or its descendants) are still around, let them have their money.

[–] Askur 9 years ago

For every work that is famous, there are countless others less known that is worth to remember, but when nobody knows who owns the rights and the limits for when a work is released to public domain keeps getting pushed, a lot of great stuff is probably doomed to eternal oblivion. And no, it's not right that the descendants should keep the rights forever just because a tiny drop of DNA in their blood.

[–] asherp 9 years ago

Im not really sure as to what countless other work is being squirreled away and doomed to oblivion because the holder of the rights are unknown. If a notable work was found, im sure there would be a mechanism for getting it to the public.

As for the DNA question of descendants keeping rights...Its an interesting question, but not entirely a justifiable one. The descendants question comes down to money and nothing else. Should descendants be able to profit from a work made 200 years ago multiple generations before they were born? In a lot of cases we think they should....family trusts which pay for the Vanderbilts and the Rockefellers or even the Waltons are a pretty good example of that.

I'd just love to understand which document/movie/book/song isn't available to the general public these days. Im just not sure why a stranger should be able to publish a work for profit even though the descendants of the original author may already be deriving profit from it.

And yes, there may be a general good to free up items from copyright with unprovable ownership...But what's unprovable anymore?