I know that this is a Commons question but in my experience the Commons list doesn't have as many people who are familiar with or care about US copyright law. So I'm posting it here. There are a lot of stills from US movie trailers on Commons.
Example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gentlemen_Prefer_Blondes_Movie_Trail...
The movies they are from are in almost every case still copyrighted (you can look up the renewal records pretty easily).
The entire rationale that the trailers are in the public domain comes from the dubious argument on this website that the trailers constitute entirely separate copyrights since they are "published first" and weren't explicitly copyrighted or renewed: http://www.sabucat.com/?pg=copyright
Personally I find this pretty dodgy reasoning (and not written in a way which gives me any faith that said site actually got solid legal advice on the issue).
There is no case law on the subject that I have been able to find (though my effort in such was not great -- a few Google searches turned up nothing obvious, nothing that was being cited by others). This seems like definitely murky area and certainly not clear cut. I would be surprised, personally, if a US judge did not see the trailer as being a derivative work of the film itself, even if it is exhibited before the films themselves.
Some back-and-forth on a media list serv seems to support at least the point of view that this is pretty murky legal ground: http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/amia-l/2008/07/msg00124....
Do we think this reasoning is sound enough for the "freedom" of Commons (and Wikipedia)? Personally I think not. I am not a lawyer, but it's clear to me that without any case law on the subject we are probably not justified in saying that these are in the public domain.
And no, I'm not really worried about Commons or Wikipedia getting sued over it (no more than I am worried about getting sued over fair use screenshots). But Wikimedia getting sued is obviously not the border of "free". I'm not being copyright paranoid -- I just don't want Commons (and by extension, Wikipedia) advertising certain things as PD if they might not be.
If I were actually staking any financial resources into this particular question, I'd definitely need to consult a lawyer first. And if that's the case, then it's probably not free enough for Commons. So goes my reasoning.
I've nominated one of the screenshots (the one I linked to above) for deletion on Commons as being non-free (or at least, that we have insufficient reason to assert freedom). Feel free to participate in that, either way. If it does get deleted, though, there are at least 350 other such images on Commons (do a site-specific search for the sabucat page).
I'm not going to be spending any more time on this particular issue -- it's just something I noticed and thought I'd put out there. And I think it's an area where some people who are relatively well-informed on US copyright law could be useful.
FF
Well, Wikipedia is for the copyrighted- fair-use stuff. Commons needs to be as free as possible in that you can do anything you want with that media.
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I know that this is a Commons question but in my experience the Commons list doesn't have as many people who are familiar with or care about US copyright law. So I'm posting it here. There are a lot of stills from US movie trailers on Commons.
Example:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gentlemen_Prefer_Blondes_Movie_Trail...http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gentlemen_Prefer_Blondes_Movie_Trailer_Screenshot_%2834%29.jpg
The movies they are from are in almost every case still copyrighted (you can look up the renewal records pretty easily).
The entire rationale that the trailers are in the public domain comes from the dubious argument on this website that the trailers constitute entirely separate copyrights since they are "published first" and weren't explicitly copyrighted or renewed: http://www.sabucat.com/?pg=copyright
Personally I find this pretty dodgy reasoning (and not written in a way which gives me any faith that said site actually got solid legal advice on the issue).
There is no case law on the subject that I have been able to find (though my effort in such was not great -- a few Google searches turned up nothing obvious, nothing that was being cited by others). This seems like definitely murky area and certainly not clear cut. I would be surprised, personally, if a US judge did not see the trailer as being a derivative work of the film itself, even if it is exhibited before the films themselves.
Some back-and-forth on a media list serv seems to support at least the point of view that this is pretty murky legal ground:
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/amia-l/2008/07/msg00124....
Do we think this reasoning is sound enough for the "freedom" of Commons (and Wikipedia)? Personally I think not. I am not a lawyer, but it's clear to me that without any case law on the subject we are probably not justified in saying that these are in the public domain.
And no, I'm not really worried about Commons or Wikipedia getting sued over it (no more than I am worried about getting sued over fair use screenshots). But Wikimedia getting sued is obviously not the border of "free". I'm not being copyright paranoid -- I just don't want Commons (and by extension, Wikipedia) advertising certain things as PD if they might not be.
If I were actually staking any financial resources into this particular question, I'd definitely need to consult a lawyer first. And if that's the case, then it's probably not free enough for Commons. So goes my reasoning.
I've nominated one of the screenshots (the one I linked to above) for deletion on Commons as being non-free (or at least, that we have insufficient reason to assert freedom). Feel free to participate in that, either way. If it does get deleted, though, there are at least 350 other such images on Commons (do a site-specific search for the sabucat page).
I'm not going to be spending any more time on this particular issue -- it's just something I noticed and thought I'd put out there. And I think it's an area where some people who are relatively well-informed on US copyright law could be useful.
FF _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/9/7 Kevin Wong wikipedianmarlith@gmail.com:
Well, Wikipedia is for the copyrighted- fair-use stuff. Commons needs to be as free as possible in that you can do anything you want with that media.
The image is free see the deletion debate.
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 10:23 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/9/7 Kevin Wong wikipedianmarlith@gmail.com:
Well, Wikipedia is for the copyrighted- fair-use stuff. Commons needs to be as free as possible in that you can do anything you want with that media.
The image is free see the deletion debate.
I think the argument here is based on the fact that some feel the deletion debate does not entirely consist of people familiar with the wrinkles of US copyright law.
My experience with this kind of thing tells me that US copyright law is horribly unclear on this kind of topic, especially since there is little case law. Many Internet arguments about this kind of thing face off people who apply mathematical logic to the law and conclude that something is legal against those who say "Wait a minute, law is not logic and statute is not case law; this could go either way".
-Matt
2008/9/8 Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com:
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 10:23 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/9/7 Kevin Wong wikipedianmarlith@gmail.com:
Well, Wikipedia is for the copyrighted- fair-use stuff. Commons needs to be as free as possible in that you can do anything you want with that media.
The image is free see the deletion debate.
I think the argument here is based on the fact that some feel the deletion debate does not entirely consist of people familiar with the wrinkles of US copyright law.
My experience with this kind of thing tells me that US copyright law is horribly unclear on this kind of topic, especially since there is little case law. Many Internet arguments about this kind of thing face off people who apply mathematical logic to the law and conclude that something is legal against those who say "Wait a minute, law is not logic and statute is not case law; this could go either way".
-Matt
It could but until we find some case law that goes against statute law we accept state law.
This falling into the public domain due to failure to include a copyright notice is hardly some obscure oddity with no previous application. Entire films have hit the public domain due to that. No reason to think that trailers are any different.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 3:00 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
This falling into the public domain due to failure to include a copyright notice is hardly some obscure oddity with no previous application. Entire films have hit the public domain due to that. No reason to think that trailers are any different.
However, such a falling into the public domain may not include anything in the work that is a derivative work of another. There's one movie, for instance (I forget the title) that fell into the public domain (I think through non-renewal) and was shown by many TV stations under the assumption that it could be done without permission; however, the novel on which the movie was based was properly renewed, and a court ruled that such of the derivative work that was based on the original, and still copyrighted, work was still under copyright.
That, I think, is the argument here. Is the trailer a completely separate beast as regards copyright law or is it a derivative of the movie?
-Matt
On 9/8/08, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
However, such a falling into the public domain may not include anything in the work that is a derivative work of another. There's one movie, for instance (I forget the title) that fell into the public domain (I think through non-renewal) and was shown by many TV stations under the assumption that it could be done without permission; however, the novel on which the movie was based was properly renewed, and a court ruled that such of the derivative work that was based on the original, and still copyrighted, work was still under copyright.
The one you're thinking of is the Christmas classic "It's a Wonderful Life", which was a movie adaptation of the story "The Greatest Gift" by Philip Van Doren Stern.
That, I think, is the argument here. Is the trailer a completely
separate beast as regards copyright law or is it a derivative of the movie?
I may be misremembering but I thought that film trailers are normally copyrighted, but that the copyright owner licences use in any context in order to promote the film.
2008/9/8 Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com:
However, such a falling into the public domain may not include anything in the work that is a derivative work of another. There's one movie, for instance (I forget the title) that fell into the public domain (I think through non-renewal) and was shown by many TV stations under the assumption that it could be done without permission; however, the novel on which the movie was based was properly renewed, and a court ruled that such of the derivative work that was based on the original, and still copyrighted, work was still under copyright.
It's a wonderful life. And you are over simplifying. The film is PD. The book isn't so any elements of the film taken from the book are protected as they come under the book's copyright. This means plot elements. Screenshots of the film however tend to be PD. However in this case the book was very firmly published first.
Not however decisive case law since generally the copyright on a trailer and on a film would be held by the same company.
That, I think, is the argument here. Is the trailer a completely separate beast as regards copyright law or is it a derivative of the movie?
Neither.
We can probably all agree that screenshots from advertisements will be non-free while their copyrights are in effect.
Judging from early comments at the deletion debate, however, the phrase "while their copyrights are in effect" may be of particular importance in this specific case. This one looks to be over my head, frankly.
-Luna