Talk:The Brain That Wouldn't Die

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

Added the trivia from my own watching experiences. Jesus On Wheels 15:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Public domain

I've removed the link to the Internet Archive page on The Brain That Wouldn't Die from the article because it claims that this film is in the public domain. No such information is suggested in the article. (U.S. copyright policy certainly wouldn't permit this for a 1962 film without explicit permission from the copyright holder.) The Archive itself is unclear on this issue to someone who is just casually visiting it. The BTWD page includes a line that says "Creative Commons license: Public Domain", but it's not obvious to me whether that refers to the film or the IA article on the film. Its "About" page says nothing about public domain, and I found nothing in five minutes of sifting through pages that explains the meaning and possible values of that licensing line. Furthermore, its FAQ page suggests that copyright protection is done on an "opt-in" basis, and the process for citing potential copyright violations (or even erroneous information about claims) is snail-mail-based, requires the presumed copyright holder to file the complaint, and still provides no explanation of or link to how they determined whether something is in the public domain.

Unless someone can provide a reliable source for the claim that this film is in the public domain, I feel we should treat this as a link to an illegal download capability. I hope someone can provide this evidence, or at least provide pointers on how to verify IA's apparent claim. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• The film is most definitely in the public domain. I've seen many low-budget DVDs of the film in stores. (Ibaranoff24 04:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC))

And exactly what is the legal connection between low-budget DVDs and public-domain source? I seriously doubt that copyright owners would expect that cut-rate deals to distributors are prima facie evidence of copyright waiving. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It is well known that this film is public domain. Main reason it was the first MST3K parody. SIckBoy 01:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is apparently not well-known that Best Brains had to obtain the rights to include the films that it mocked on Mystery Science Theater 3000. It is well-known, as can be found in the archives of official MST3K website The Satellite News, that this problem with rights is why (A) MST3K: The Movie and at least one episode are no longer available on DVD; and (B) it takes so long for new episodes to be released on DVD.

This kind of unsourced "everybody knows" common-nonsense is exactly why we can't assume that a source like the Internet Archive is a valid indication of public domain. People seem to be under the impression that as long as they think something's not protected, it's okay to copy it endlessly. I'm no fan of the crushing oppression of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, but the lawlessness of copying films just because you can is just as bad. And we STILL have no source for the PD claim for this film. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The Library of Congreses endorsment is good enough for me [1]. The Archive is is supported by both the Libray of Congress & the Smithsonian; they are all collaborating on the Archive project itself in fact. SIckBoy 03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! That's the first piece of evidence I've seen to suggest IA isn't just letting uploaders claim "public domain". It doesn't actually say whether IA's material is public domain, and one cannot infer it is just because it's mentioned on a page that talks about PD. After all, the other sections on that page make specific statements about what in their collection is and what isn't, and how to tell or ask about it. For IA, its entire statement is the following:

Provides near-unrestricted access to digitized collections of moving images. The largest collection is comprised of over 1,200 ephemeral (advertising, educational, industrial, and amateur) films made from 1927 through the present. Broadcast quality copies can be purchased through Getty Images.

Clearly, some material is for fee, and by implication some isn't. But this page makes no clear connection between its subject, "public domain films", and the organization. If I had to guess, I'd say they're making no statements whatsoever, leaving it to IA to discuss the issue for individual movies

IA does have a "public domain" tag for some films, but then we're back to my original question: who determines this for IA? I must say that the general endorsement from LoC and the Smithsonian make me hope that the IA information is correct, but supposition is a legally dangerous pasttime in copyrights. We need to know IA's policy on copyrights and how it identifies public domain films. If, as this LoC page says, a formal print publication like The Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the U.S. Public Domain and Motion Picture Copyrights & Renewals 1950-1959 itself cannot be considered a final authoritative source, how can we unquestioningly trust a website that allows anyone to upload material? (The fantastic proliferation of illegally copied music demonstrates beyond question the common practice of unrefereed uploading.) However, the LoC and Smithsonian connections give me some possible angles to ferret out this info. Thanks for the tip. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

An update: As I write this, the Internet Archive's page on The Brain That Wouldn't Die doesn't appear to have any license tag — public domain, Creative Common License, or other — in the "Download" box, which seems to be where it's supposed to be displayed. I interpret this to mean that the uploader, whoever they are, has made no assertion of their right to upload this item. (In contrast, the vast trove of material contributed by the Prelinger Archives has explicit tags — like the CCL tag for Why Study Home Economics?, another MST3K offering — that match the statements about Prelinger in the Motion Picture Archive's FAQs.) I am still trying to find out who is behind the "Feature Films" collection, which seem to be in the middle of this sloppy licensing problem. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)