The Curious Copyright Case of "It's A Wonderful Life"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ต.ค. 2024
- Please consider supporting us on Patreon: / filmmakeriq
Take the full Filmmaker IQ course on the Copyright Case of “It’s a Wonderful Life” with sauce and bonus material at: filmmakeriq.co...
It’s A Wonderful Life has become a holiday tradition bolstered by near constant plays on television as the film fell into the public domain in 1975. But in the 90s, a studio would regain control over the film and put copyright to the test.
If you have any further questions be sure to check out our questions page on Filmmaker IQ:
filmmakeriq.co...
I give this guy a thumbs up for being able to accurately explain the complexity of this situation better than a computer! Amazing talent!
We desperately need copyright reform and this video illustrates just one reason why. Great job!
Ironically we will get copyright reform by only to extend things. The Mickey Mouse effect
Another great episode! Love your channel and the topics you cover.
So basically: the copyright to "It's A Wonderful Life" is valuable . . . because it was ignored during the 20 years of television broadcast that made the movie popular.
Wait. Walt Disney fought for independent production? That is hilarious considering what his company does today! XD
+Ross Stern I saw that too and almost spit out my drink lol.
+nateo200 Before it established its own distribution arm, Disney films were released through RKO.
necro but: comcast originally fought copyright law too! cable tv was originally people hooking a big coax cable into a distant really big arial which could receive signals better than their home receivers, and thus receive things from further away too. tv networks didn't like this "unlicensed rebroadcasting" and fought tooth and nail against comcast. now look at them...
and now 2 years later, it has become an even more massive and centralized media giant.
Jackson, Minnesota had a tower on a high hill to pick up TV stations and everyone was hooked up to it by cable. It was better then TV antennas on the houses.
I think copyright of over 50 years after creation is crazy.
Correction...only a majority of the pre-1950 theatrical library was sold to what became NBCUniversal. It was solely the short subject library and “It’s A Wonderful Life” that was sold to UM&M, later NTA, and finally Republic. The theatrical side of Republic’s library went back to Paramount upon Viacom’s acquisition of the portion of Republic it did not already own. “Life” is, of course, under Paramount’s control.
95 years is nuts. That's 3 generations of people who live from something made by someone dead.
i wish they changed it from 95 years to 75 years
The American government blindly protects its corporations and their dastardly misdeeds.
Ooofff... Copyrights protect individuals more than they protect corporations. Without a copyright corporations run amuck. Corporations are the ones that mainly own the means of production and distribution and without copyright restraining them then they can do whatever they want.
And also the American copyright system follows closely European copyright system at least in term length... but you wouldn't know that because of the concentrated effort to dilute copyright by some people in America.
@@FilmmakerIQ I know that the American system follows the European, John, because you told us in a video years ago.
And that aside I still disagree with this weird comment you're making on a 5 year old comment. 95 years of copyright is absurd, it doesn't matter if it's Disney or Europeans at fault.
@@FilmmakerIQ Only individuals should own copyright, not corporations; also copyright should only be 60 years max
Great info John and thank you. I think one moral of the story is, if you care about any possible benefit from your creative works, then you should take the time to protect them now, before it becomes a problem in the future.
Amazing grace, you took an extremely complex issue and reduced it to its most relevant points. In the process, by creating a virtual mystery story worthy of Hercule Poirot, you peaked our interest and gave us writers something to discuss over the holidays rather than the our miseries we normally talk about.
I have watch this movie every Christmas since I was 18; I am 71 now! Good on ya Frank and Jimmy!
Great episode! I'm a huge film buff but I'm also into the legal system in the US and general law / law enforcement topics so this really hit the sweat spot of my interest. Interesting how the 9th and the 2nd came to their decisions (they call it a Circuit Split in the legal world when two Appellate circuits disagree, it gets messy but its a fast way to the Supreme Court). The 9th Circuit is indeed very unique, dealing with many entertainment and film related cases, one could argue it has more influence than any other Appellate court when it comes to entertainment. Alex Kosinski, former Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit was quoted as saying something like, "For better or for worse this court will be forever known as the US Court of Appeals for the Hollywood circuit".
I can't believe I hadn't found this channel until this week.
I've been watching your videos for nearly a year now and greatly appreciate the quality, knowledge you've learned and passed on to us, as well as entertainment value. It is quite an interesting topic, this... Motion picture industry.
You did a great job with this! I love It's a Wonderful Life and have tried to read as much as I can about it, but you gave some great new stuff I didn't know before. And great presentation of material!
IAWL was supposed to be a 1947 release, but RKO insisted on moving it up to Dec. 1946 when its big Xmas release Sinbad the Sailor's Technicolor prints weren't ready. As a result, IAWL's credits read copyright 1947, rather than 1946 when it actually premiered. Didn't this mean the 28 year clock started running a year earlier than anyone thought? Did this cause confusion that resulted in failure to renew the copyright?
You may have a good answer right there :)
It's a Wonderful Life directed by F.C. Frank Capra.
Godfather directed by F.C. Francis Coppola.
Both Italian-Americans.
Both about a son taking over the business of the father.
George loses the world but gains his soul.
Michael gains the world but loses his soul.
And Half Life 3 gets confirmed.
The Sonny Bono Copyrigh Extension Act is also known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act...
Loved this one John, It's a Wonderful Life is a favorite of mine and Frank Capra is an inspiration. Everyone, where would we be without John P. Hess? Hahaha please don't stop making these videos, they're great!
Wow, Mr. Hess, thank you for that very detailed and rather convoluted tale of IAWL's copyright travails -- which you broke down so clearly and succinctly, and actually gave me a few leads on 2 matters I've been curious about and sort of close to my heart and mind for sometime now, and which are allied to this particular case. #1, and this perhaps would be more relevant to you. I think the full score of Dimitri Tiomkin's writing (which was ultimately rejected by Capra for his commercial release version) was resurrected and unveiled in all its symphonic splendor at the Closing Ceremony of the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympic Games.
It's used as the music for the number in the early part of the Ceremony in which several hundred dancers, dressed in shimmery silver outfit-blobs form the 5 Olympic rings and various formations, all to this shimmery score which commentators (in some of the broadcast versions) say was from "It's a Wonderful Life" (altho for one familiar with the film), you've never heard (i.e., they never elaborated that it was a rejected work, never given a public performance, but now was given a global debut). Now it becomes clear that it uses themes rejected from the final Capra print and then, rights were obtained and the score resurrected for the Sochi show, since Tiomkin was Russian.
The second matters is a travelogue short made by Burton Holmes in the mid-1920s which he had done for Paramount; and then (somewhere in the middle of your piece) Paramount first sold to one entity and then to another (I'll have to replay it again to find the exact name of those smaller outfits). But it again fills in a gap in article I wrote about that travelgoue which featured early films about the Philippines as a colony of the USA early in the 20th century. This is such a find. Thank you.
+mylesag2 oh wow, didn't think anything happened to that Tiomkin score... what an interesting development!
All of your videos are simply EXCELLENT !. But this one is extraordinary,..and has raised your already excellent standards even more. Hats off to you all!.
Amazin video, I love your channel, always discussing a relevant matter. Keep up the good work.
A complex but interesting story, told clearly here by the engaging John Hess.
Another great piece from one of my favorite youtube channels.
It´s kinda funny how this whole situation is. In Sweden we have had a long standing tradition of viewing a movie called Ivanhoe every new years day since the 80ies. However they have stopped showing this movie and I reckon it´s because the broadcasting rights ended, guess they signed a 20 or 25 year deal for it. What makes this funny is that the movie itself isn´t that popular at all outside Sweden and judging by the number of people that have rated it on imdb it´s like it never existed. this is the movie that I´m talking about: www.imdb.com/title/tt0084157 It´s acctually kinda alright for a TV movie tbh.
You can always make something that should be dull, really interesting. Thanks for your hard work!
"Chemical Snow" is a good name for a band.
Thank you... you actually answered a lot of questions I've collected over the years... clear and precise, WELL DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sounds like greed to me....Guess they didn't watch the movie
+impassable Amazing that with the millions upon millions they sink into contemporary movies that stink, that they need to charge folks to see the old classics.
Really enjoyed this informative explanation of some of the complexities of copyright law--thanks!
had to stop for breath at 11:53 - let me see if I've got this straight..so the flagon with the dragon holds the pellet with the poison while the challis from the palace holds the brew that is true...so far so good...
YES! I got that reference!
Jonathan Peden - Jonathan that is BRILLIANT!! KAN
It's the "chalice", not "challis". Let's keep this thing straight, for heaven's sake.
Whoever loses, the lawyers will always win. EXCELLENT video! Thanks for your hard work!
You know it's USA when every other sentence contains "sue".
Nice video! Your videos are always informative and entertaining.
Well researched and informative video.
if the media did that much research on the news the world would be a better place.. great job ands thanks
Great video and a comprehensive explanation for anyone like myself who wondered how IAWL left the ranks of public domain.
BTW, isn't that a picture of George Cukor, who it should be noted was often mistaken for his pal David O. Selznick?
Lots of great info,,I knew some of the story,, but not this much,,,, And just a little bit of trivia on "Its A Wonderful Life".It is said that director Frank Capra based Bedford Falls on the town of Seneca Falls NY, which is said he once visited.And every year the town has the "Its A Wondeful Life" festival, and this year 2016, the Bailey kids. are scheduled to appear,,
Thank you for making this. I always wondered about this.
I really like your videos, always so informative and profesional
greetings from colombia
Fantastic video, very informative, thank you.
Very interesting! Thank you for your in depth explanation.
WOW...That was fantastic. So much work was put into this....that's what I call Research Excellences. THank you.
Extremely detailed, yet the visuals really help it all make sense! One small tip/suggestion regarding the green screen though: If you duplicate the layer, apply the chromakey to one of them, and then make it an alpha matte for the other one, you suddenly have much more control of those fringing edges by using levels. I'd guess that also would make you less in need of that much smoothing :)
Wow, I messed up. Of course you precomposite/nest the keyed level, check that the unwanted areas are completely transparent, and make the precomposite a luma key for the other layer.
Your video made for interesting discussion on reddit today. Good job!
That was great! I really enjoyed watching that and learned a lot of interesting information! Great job! :-)
I remember clips from "It's A Wonderful Life" being used in music videos while it was still public domain.
Your video started me on some independent research, and for what it's worth, UMM/NTA may not have been the original buyer of "It's A Wonderful Life." A trade paper article (Billboard, May 28, 1955) announces the purchase of "worldwide rights" to the film by M & A Alexander, Inc, another early TV syndicator, with prints to be available by December 1, 1955, presumably for Christmas showings. Of course, UMM/NTA may have either bought the film from the Alexander brothers (Max and Arthur) or bought the Alexander company itself, but as far as I know, the only Paramount features involved in the UMM purchase were Max Fleischer's "Gulliver's Travels" and "Hoppity Goes To Town," which were included in the studio's cartoon inventory. Here's the search data I used to find the Alexander article:
books.google.com/books?id=CxwEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=sale+of+it%27s+a+wonderful+life+to+nta&source=bl&ots=Bt4d2j8hth&sig=Qx5nLTNYyYJ0nw1Sdg21iDXy5AI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dNKXVKHIOY31yATL-YCgAw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=sale%20of%20it's%20a%20wonderful%20life%20to%20nta&f=false
Really good find there!
Filmmaker IQ Many thanks; it means a lot to hear this from a real expert. It's not really relevant to this, but I should mention that the UMM/NTA cartoon purchase was originally to include at least the pre-1949 Popeye cartoons, but a complaint by the Hearst newspapers and their King Feature Syndicate (who own Popeye) forced Paramount to take them out of the deal. Several years later, the TV rights to the entire Popeye catalog, even those then currently in theatres, were sold to AAP; and Paramount stopped producing new episodes. Paramount retained theatrical and 16mm rental rights, and the conflicts between them, King, and Turner (AAP's ultimate successors) kept the Popeyes off of home video until fairly recently, except for...you guessed it...public domain titles.
Remarkably concise summary. I wish you had included a tangent about work-made-for-hire than gives corporations the authorship rights retroactively.
Great video.
I had heard about the current copyright laws in America a while ago, and it really doesn't sit right with me. Why does a dead person need money for 20 years? I don't think it seems fair. I understand the concern of family, but the authors kids don't deserve any of the money unless they are still under aged.
I think the new law should be something like: "30 years or the life of the author whichever is longer" and include some clause allowing the authors spouse to attain all rights until death.
This allows for any orphans to still be able to lay claim to their parents work for 30 years )(which is plenty of time to establish themselves), and it would allow any widow or widower to still benefit as well. All the family is take care of, and the public gets access a whole lot sooner (in most cases).
A lot of this is tied to times when the male was the sole breadwinner of a household - an early untimely death of a professional writer could leave a family devastated.
As far as how people inherit the copyright - Intellectual property is a form of property - it may not be tangible but if we're going to treat it as property it should be able to be handed down just like real property.
Here's another hypothetical reasoning regarding the life +70 years bit. Say you're negotiating with the creator of a popular comic book hero and you option the rights for a film - then the creator dies. If the copyright was only for life of the author, the character would fall into the public domain at time of death - and you just got screwed. This would also make it really hard for older authors to negotiate deals because the thought would be that you just wait a few years and wait for them to pass on and swoop in and take the property.
Filmmaker IQ I always thought when a corporation bought the rights to something they owned it for the agreed upon time; therefore if the author died he would miss out on royalties, but the corporation would still attain the rights to whatever they bought.
But if creative control is based solely on the life of the author then maybe that should be changed as well.
Batman well it gets a little complicated - when someone buys the rights, what they are doing is getting the right to use the material in someway - they are not creating a new copyright. The copyright belongs to the original author and the author is saying, I'm going to allow this company the exclusive right to make a movie based on my story... So a movie company may buy rights to a comic book to make a movie, but they're not necessarily buying the rights to print more copies of the books (although that can be negotiated as well). Rights can be territorial too.
But to draw a real world comparison - if you lease an apartment for 12 months from your landlord. 2 months in the landlord dies - can you get out of that obligation to pay the rest of the lease? No, it gets handled by the estate. The same thing should happen with intellectual property. The question is... for how long..
Filmmaker IQ Thanks for clearing that up, but it does pose a very interesting question. I can now see why it's not so cut and dry.
Filmmaker IQ But the analogy we are looking at here is not the one you stated, but would be better shown as - You sign a lease for 12 months, and 2 months in the landlord dies, so the estate can now choose to kick you out? The whole contract/agreement process is supposed to work both ways, protecting both parties. I do not see how this is fair to the person on the other end of the lease.
I reckon Copyright will get extended and extended....the corps won't be denied. Great, informative piece.
Another great video, Mr. Hess! I never knew any of this about the movie. Kinda makes me wish I could have seen it in theaters. And since it involved Capra and Stewart I just assumed it was a success, so thanks for sharing!
Your history lessons are simply amazing WOW
I love how Capra strikes out on his own and makes a great film on his by himself.
... but the his studio immediately collapsed and he never made another critically acclaimed movie :(
Amazing research and very interesting. It's a wonderful life a true legend of a film.
Great explanation of what actually happened. Makes me want to know how the music industry is handling the copyright infringement of songs written and recorded by James Brown and how his estate is compensated for the illegal use of his songs through samples etc.
Really great and informative video, thank you.
"The rebroadcasts made it part of happy holiday memories - its innocence and optimism in the human spirit fit so perfectly in the yule-tide tradition." Yes the Christmas tradition. :)
You forgot to talk about how the rest of the pre-1949 Paramount library went to Universal by Paramount selling it to MCA in the '50s
NTA in general sucked at renewing copyrights.
Look at Gulliver's Travels, and the dozens of old cartoons that didn't get renewed.
Excellent episode with an impressive story :)
WHY do I believe from previous investigation, that this film was indeed initially RELEASED in JULY??? Are you sure you are correct?
In any case, I found this vignette fascinating.My deepest thanks to Filmmaker IQ. Interesting and insightful. Capra always stood for the (if you're familiar with the music of Aaron Copeland) "Fanfare for the Common Man."
But I still need proof that this was released as you stated, Dec. 26, 1946. I see conflicting information. Perhaps it premiered in small local CA. theaters in July and re-released to the National Public in December?
Again, I truly enjoyed this. Good stuff!
+bravaLiz Maybe you're getting it mixed up with another Christmas movie "Miracle on 34th Street" which was released on May 2, 1947.
It had it's premiere at Globe Theatre in New York on December 20, 1946 and went into general release in January of the following year.
www.imdb.com/title/tt0038650/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_ql_9
A tension will always exist in the bargain between consumers and content creators. Though they draw their raw material from what came before and belongs to us all, we grant them an exclusive monopoly for a limited time that they might have incentive to create their transformative works. The tension arises from the fact that once a work is released into the collective experience it lives in this strange quantum state like Schrodinger's cat. It is both a part of our collective consciousness while at the same time the creator's exclusive property.
People become impatient after some time passes to claim that work as their own, since it is now in fact a part of our cultural heritage. Other creators cannot help but scoop up a piece of that work when they reach into the collective consciousness to obtain raw material for their own work, and thus may come into conflict with the original creator.
Granting the monopoly in the first place is not sufficient. Government resources need to be allocated to enforce the rights given the author. Courts need to be provided to adjudicate any disputes that may arise. It is not an easy bargain. We pay dearly for the expectation of the creations we hope to enjoy in return.
Actually, calling it a "bargain" made between the consumer and producer would give the false impression that some kind of direct negotiation needs to take place. The term's use is metaphorical. There is no such thing in actuality, as the content producers have no inherent right to negotiate terms. They only have a take it or leave it proposition. If they like the terms we set, they will likely take advantage of our offer and be fruitful, but only the people can decide how much they are willing to sacrifice for what they hope to receive in return.
In the "bargain" between the copyright holders and us, our politicians should be representing the people. Instead, they are representing the copyright owners and giving away the store! For just one example, in the USA and many other countries, copyright duration has expanded from the original 14 years to life plus 70 years. With an average life expectancy of 78 years and a work created at age 28, that would mean 120 years that work is withheld from the public domain. Do creators of transformative works require this as an incentive before they will create their works? Of course not!
To put the rights groups in control is to have the tail wag the dog. This can only cause people to become upset and act impulsively to the detriment of all. A civil society depends on respect for the law in order to function. The only alternative is a police state. When politicians start representing the special interests groups who fill their campaign coffers people lose respect for the laws they create and civil society begins to break down. Political corruption is a very, very serious issue with far ranging implications.
Copyrights legislation has become an out of control freight train on a downward grade. The power of the corporate lobbies needs to be curbed and their voices muted. The people must be heard.
I remember IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE being shown on Christmas before 1974.
*All of this "legalize" left my head a-spinning! I think I'll just wait until next Christmas and enjoy "It's a Wonderful Life," as a humble owner of the video!*
John Hess, I love movies and I love your channel😀😀
Every time a film gets popular, a company pulls some strings...
And gets the copyright renewed so they can make money off it.
In the mid 1990s over a disagreement re the renewed copyright of "It's A Wonderful Life," The Stanford Theatre of Palo Alto CA charged 1947 prices for tickets for its Christmas Eve show. Normally, they would have charged $5 or $6. LOL.
The movie was based on a town in NY called Sennica Falls NY..... I am fortunate to have a big no 33 church bell made by Goulds Mfg now ITT Corp..... Our church has one identical to mine made by Rumsey&Co I tell folks that my bell came from where that movie was suppose to be.
This is a really cool piece of copyright history. Thanks for sharing (:
I think the copyright story is way better than the movie itself. Thanks!
Great videos. Correction: In your description you have "sauce" it should be "source"
No, it's suppose to be sauce.
First-excellent video!
Second I personally don't believe in copyright going too far past the life of the creator. I think 20 or 30 years even is way more than long enough, and I certainly don't believe It's A Wonderful Life should have been pulled out of the public domain like it was. They had a chance to renew it. They didn't care enough about it to. It become something millions of people found special.
Right now it's just a way for some corporation to milk it for money.
wow, this opened my eyes to the copyright system. thanks!
OMG this is complicated!
Interesting ideas about copyright laws and history of copyrights for the film It's a Wonderful Life. Current law gives authors very long copyrights to protect them and grant them income from their production.
Educational. Thank you for posting. Wonder how many lawyers were representing Abend at the Supreme court.
Mon Tage I'm sure the real winners were the lawyers ;)You can listen to the oral arguments here: www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_2102
My understanding was that once a creative work became public domain, that legal status was forever and the original version could never regain copyright. That's what happened to Night Of The Living Dead.
The film is what the argument made was that the Story and the soundtrack were still under copyright
Excellent overview on copyright protection as it relates to films. A little surprised the courts would give protection to vultures. Giving protection to the original writers and their families makes perfect sense but not to those who bought up the rights for a pittance. Completely different scenario.
Well if you search Abend - you will find his name in several cases - you could make an argument that he is a copyright vulture.But don't forget - 10% of proceeds was suppose to go to benefit Columbia University, so "It Had To Be Murder" wasn't taken for a total pittance.
But... one of the tenets of our legal system is the fair and unbiased application of law. There is no legal difference between acquiring the copyrights through sale (as Abend did) or through inheritance. We wouldn't treat the sale of a parcel of land differently if it was bought or inherited - what makes intellectual property so different?
If you read the Supreme Court documents and look at the dissenting opinions (it was 6-3), you'll find the dissenting judges were not questioning the validity of the ownership of the rights - the dissent was based on how much a derivative work owes to it's original story.
What I think you find in practice is that the families tend to be more vulturous than agents like Abend. The people that handle copyright make it their business to license - they have no emotional connection - they can be negotiated with. Family members are much more closely attached and tend to be much more protective.
Filmmaker IQ A classic present-day example of your remarks about family members might be Ross Bagdasarian, Jr., whose father originated Alvin and the Chipmunks.
If you do a search on the father (Ross Sr., aka "David Seville,") you'll find a list of songs he wrote and movies he acted in. Do a search on Junior and the first thing you'll see is a list of his law suits.
What an interesting story!!!
Thank you!!
11:27 I do hope Capra at least knew by then that he actually had made an immortal classic, and one of the best Christmas motion pictures ever made
Great vid. Subscribed.
Thanks for the show
Those who pushed copyright extension promoted it as a way of protecting individual artists, but it usually ends up helping corporations, which usually have had nothing to do with the creation of the work that they own. In music, one of the craziest cases is with Happy Birthday to You. The melody was first published by a pair of school teacher sisters in the late 1800s under the title, Good Morning to You. In the late 1920s, the tune was used in a Broadway show, this time with the words we all know and love. Well, the niece of one of the sisters (both had passed away by this time) sued and won the rights to the song. Well, ninety-something years later through a corporate shell game similar to It's a Wonderful Life, Warner Music now owns the rights to the song (when sung with the happy birthday lyrics). Why? It's a melody that is probably well over a hundred years old, and the lyrics are about ninety years old. If the corporate environment that we have today existed 200 years ago, Warner Music would be the owners of all of Beethoven's works.
O'Brien Gerald Just because it helps corporations, doesn't mean it doesn't protect individuals as well.
It does help individuals, but once you get to the point when a piece of work is close to 100 years old and it's still copyrighted, you are not helping the individuals who actually created it. By that time, the artist is more than likely dead, and the only persons who have an interest in keeping the copyright going are the owners of the work, who in most cases had nothing to do with the creation of the work. Just you wait. If the current climate continues, copyrights will continue to be extended, and in the case of music, someone 100 years from now will own the rights to all the Beatles' music, and it won't be the descendants of any of the Beatles. The same will be said for all the Walt Disney characters.
O'Brien Gerald The extension after death of the author is to protect the families of the creators. Sure a copyright can last over a hundred years for some one that lives a very long life, but what if the author dies right after creating the work?
As far as ownership - there's no legal distinction between the person that made it and the person that bought the property fairly and squarely (the rights holder). If I build a bicycle and sell it to you - it's your bicycle now. You can ride that bike, repaint it, sell it to a third party - whatever you want without consulting me. I can't come in and say, well I don't like it painted red, paint it back to blue, or that if you sell it for a profit, you need to give me some of that profit. Intellectual property works in similar way (although there are a lot of nuances) - the original owner starts with the copyright but he/she can sell to whoever and that new person can do whatever (as stipulated in their contract). These are the legal basis of how a society operates - without it, everything collapses.
Filmmaker IQ I'm sorry but a work of art, especially music, cannot be treated the same way as something like a bicycle. I agree with what Batman says: 30 years or the life of the author, whatever is longer. Because whatever money the author is going to make off the deal, it's going to be made within the first ten years after creation. After that, the only people making money off of the work will be corporations, and a corporation should make money off the work if it was the original investor, which is not the case of Republic Pictures. They were not the original investors, and by the 1970s they wanted nothing to do with that film until it got a lot of publicity, and it was not from any effort on their part. It came from the film's public domain status. The case of Its a wonderful life is kind of like if I sell a bicycle of mine to somebody, and then that person sells it to someone else, and then later on the manufacturer of the bicycle demands to have it back because they were the ones who originally designed it. Republic Pictures and every other holder of copyright knew exactly what they were getting into when they purchased different properties; 28 years with an option to renew. If they didn't like it, they shouldn't have bought the films in the first place. You should not be able to change the rules as you go along. I know I'm rambling, but I still believe that fifty years after a work has been created, people who had nothing to do with its creation should not be the owners. At that point it should belong to the culture.
Creators make money off works a lot older than 30 years. Sometimes an artist can create a lot of great work but be an unknown - then for some reason strike it big in later life, bringing a lot of attention to earlier works - making them hits. I think most creators would hate to wake up one morning to find that a book they wrote when they were just starting off was suddenly going to become a multimillion dollar movie this coming summer.
As far as chain of ownership - it HAS TO work that way. You can't have a functioning media society if only the original creators aren't allowed to transfer ownership of property to other parties and those parties treated equally under the law.
It's a Wonderful Life would not have been made because the original author of the short story doesn't have a movie studio capable of creating the film. He HAS to sell the rights to get it made. Distribution deals would all but be impossible - because you have to be able to allow certain companies to operate the reproduction and sale of media.
The length is the only thing really up for argument - the transfer of rights is essential to our society.
Granted, creators are due some recompense ('the fruits of their labours', as you put it), but where is the labour in getting some lawyer to buy the rights to a piece of work? That's like saying the present owner of the Mona Lisa is owed something for DaVinci's act of putting paint on canvas. Copyright should fall to public domain when the original creator(s) have died, if there are no familial dependents.
+Beachcomber Bob but what happens when the Creator dies very suddenly and there are family dependents? That's why there is a few years tacked on after life of the author.
But as far as lawyers buying up rights, they wouldn't be buying rights if the rights didn't have value. For authors to make money from their rights, they HAVE to be transferable. Then transferring to third and fourth parties is just fair and equal treatment under the law.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Thank you for this.
In the Beginning, people danced and sang and told their stories, and nobody ever dreamed of saying "You can't sing my song" or "You can't tell my story". Fast forward a few hundred years since copyright began... Most likely, nearly every book you read, every song you sing, every poem, play, movie, audio recording, painting, drawing, sculpture, web photo, radio and television broadcast "belongs" to somebody. All our academic knowledge is locked behind paywalls. Your entire culture has been commercialized and sold to the highest bidder. How did this ever happen? Did anybody ask you if this is what you wanted?
A copyright length of 28 years with the opportunity to renew for a second 28 year term is what we need to go back to. That way more works can go public domain and be legally adapted sooner and fan fiction based on it won't possibly get fans sued.
Fan fiction is still legal just don't try to sell it. Besides even with your system it's 56 years before fan fiction becomes legal and most fanfiction is about popular contemporary works not 56 year old works.
I believe our current copyright system is pretty fair. Two of the biggest bombs to come out this year were based on public domain properties: Robin Hood and Sherlock and Holmes. Public domain status is key in the long term but it has little impact on current creative output.
Love movies love to know the secrets behind the movies enjoyed this thanks greetings from.ireland
This is pretty good work, but the narrator makes one mistake. He mentions that Paramont gained the rights to "I Remember Mama." Not true. If you look, "Mama" is a "Dore Schary presents" line under RKO Aegis. Looking closely at the copyright on this film, it says, "Copyright, 1948, RKO Radio Pictures, Inc."
+William Snyder Just because RKO held distribution rights with George Stevens doesn't mean it wasn't free from Paramount's deal with Liberty Films. From TCM: www.tcm.com/this-month/article/182340%7C18950/I-Remember-Mama.html
"I Remember Mama began production under the Liberty umbrella, with distribution rights going to RKO. Only a couple of years after its inception, however, Liberty Films fell on hard times and was bought out by Paramount in 1947, which took over 25 percent of the grosses for I Remember Mama. "
Wow that was well done. I bet that took a lot of takes. You were word perfect.
We will see copyrights extended again in the next 5 years. Disney will spend a lot of money to keep Steamboat Willie from going in to the public domain.
I don't think you even watched the video. Even if Steamboat Willie is PD, You're going to have a bad time if you try to use Mickey without authorization.
Mickey is not the reason copyright was extended.
A test? OMG, I didn't know there were tests about youtube videos. Do you I have to learn all the studionames?
Movie become popular because become public domain, maybe government should revoke its copyright (privilege). Copyright Extension Act also call Mickey Mouse Protection (Control) Act because Di$ney give corruption money for politician in US Congress. "Authors of a piece of art are entitle to the fruits of their labor", not true, set builders, actors, script writers, story board people, janitors, security people, film editors, camera people, engineers, (and their kids) get no money. Copyright is for help creativity, not become lazy and collect rent (like make new version). Maybe need copyright property tax every year (1 month window), fail pay tax become public domain.
You do pay tax on royalties. It's called income tax.
Property tax is different. Income tax is tax for income like rent/royalty, property tax is tax for own/use/control property like land even NO HAVE income form property, like land, house, car (some country no have this tax but some country not have income too). Tax have good reason, help find owner easy, fix abandonware/abandon work problem (fail pay tax become public domain), help pay for court costs for IP trolls.
That's not a very good idea, that would clearly stifle people from creating works.
Trolls are an issue but they will exist in any system you create.
Well done!
Good job, John
fantastic story, thanx!
13:25, bit noticeable for a channel that recently made a video on ADR ;)
And this is one reason why copyright laws are so obscure today.
+Nathanael McDaniel Actually I think it's much less obscure today - especially since copyright is automatic now and valid for lifetime.
True. My thoughts lie in cases with extensive patent trolls (or better yet Apple v. Samsung, vice-versa) and the abuse of DMCA on creative persons on sites such as TH-cam and content piracy on Facebook. As you said, however, our laws are still being fleshed out. The problem is in lawmakers not understanding digital mediums and confusing piracy for theft.
GREAT WORK
So could someone then in theory use the video of It’s a Wonderful Life without the score for video production?
Technically yes, as long as you don't use the story or the music. But it would get a little hairy - so be careful.