Category talk:Public domain films

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Category:Public domain films page.

Contents

[edit] Problems with inclusion

I've noticed that a number of films are being added to this category simply because they are available for download at the Internet Archive. As far as I've been able to determine, there is no evidence offered for IA's claims of these films being in the public domain. Many of them seem to be too recent to have fallen automatically into PD. Does anyone have specific information on how IA determines this? Shouldn't we require some kind of verifiable, reliable source for PD claims, just as we do for any other factual claims? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • All of the films offered on the Archive *are* indeed public domain. Another way to check is to take a look at how many DVD editions are being offered. (Ibaranoff24 16:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC))
Ibaranoff24, even if you owned the Internet Archive, your personal attestation would not be evidence that it is observing copyright law scrupulously, as Wikipedia must. Neither are the quantity of DVD releases of these supposedly PD films. How do you know the rights holders aren't cutting cheap deals for properties that have little commercial value? (A copyright holder still has control of a property's use, even if he can't get a dime for the rights. He must specifically release the property into the public domain.) Wikipedia can't afford, legally, to make assumptions, especially in light of U.S. law declaring that copyrights exist unless they are explicitly yielded, and considering the ruthless application of Digital Millennium Copyright Act to fight an ravenous market for illegal copying. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It is highly unlikely that any such copyright situation could exist. All the films offered on the Internet Archive are public domain either because their copyrights expired, or the films were never copyrighted in the United States, or are ineligable for copyright. The U.S. law only applies to new works and not to works that are already in the public domain. Once a film is public domain in the United States, this situation cannot be changed. If it has already become public domain, it will always be public domain. (Ibaranoff24 05:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC))
Not only do films return to being private property after being in the public domain, they do so in droves. Hundreds, if not thousands of foreign films had their copyrights restored as a result of the GATT treaty. http://www.copyright.gov/gatt.html The Japanese courts recently made it clear that many films made before 1954 are still under copyright. http://www.hdrjapan.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Copyright-wrangling-forces-bargain-Kurosawa-DVDs-off-the-shelves.html&Itemid=67
So I'd like to see some authorities better than archive.org. I've recently sent them messages about several non-PD films they've had posted, even a Disney feature length movie, for cryin' out loud. Disney?!? Gimme a break! The others were shown to be non-PD through documents from copyright.gov. 69.110.235.152 (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What about non-American films? I'm sure there are many non-American films which should be included here. Is there an international law which states certain films are public domain? NorthernThunder 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Third Man is listed as being public domain, however, on it's own wikipedia page it says that it is no longer in the public domain. Sono_ryuu_sochi 23:45, 14 August 2007(MTS)

HOW CAN "NORTH BY NORTHWEST" and "STRANGERS ON A TRAIN" BE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, WHEN BOTH WERE RE-RELEASED LESS THAN 2 YEARS AGO BY WARNER BROS. IN A DVD BOXSET. PLUS, "NBN" IS OWNED BY TED TURNER and SUBSEQUENTLY WARNER BROS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.37.228 (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Restorations of cinematic films, irrespective of the public domain status of the original film or its elements, are themselves copyrightable works. Thus if someone restores such a work as Birth of a Nation (1915) for a DVD release, the restoration is itself human creation even if the movie itself is not subject to copyright protection. The restoration is arguably (and necessarily) a different work from the original. Even adding a different or new sound score or performance of suggested music for a silent film makes the material subject to copyright. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pre1923 film pages

should these be tagged with the category: 'Public domain films' or just leave the date as an implication? --AlexOvShaolin 20:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre-1923 does not automatically mean public domain. The terms of copyright can last longer in many countries, so a work that's in the PD in the US may still be under copyright elsewhere... a fact that this category willfully ignores. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undefined category

This category lacks a clear, international defintion. There are films which are in the public domain in the US which are under copyright in the EU, and vice versa. And maybe neither are PD in Mexico. You can't go by the "country of origin", because that's irrelevant under international copyright treaties. In the US, the copyright status is based on the rules that apply in the US, regardless of where the film was made. In the UK, the status is based on the rules of the UK. Et cetera. The only way you can say something "is public domain" is if it is under copyright under no jurisdiction, and that requires research and citations, not just the addition of a Wikipedia category to an article. - JasonAQuest (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed in principle.
However, in most countries the law of "minimal coverage" applies: ie if the copyright has expired in the home territory the copyright expires worldwide. The big problem with this is that translated scripts are derivative works, so a dubbed or subtitled version constitutes a new work copyrightable in the region of first release. (So, for example, a Hong Kong film dubbed for release in the USA and subsequently released in the UK, Australia etc will be ruled by US law; a similar film dubbed for release in the UK will be ruled by UK law etc)
I've just added a note to that effect.
I suggest copyright status should be added to individual film pages.
In the UK, for example copyright guidelines for films state that copyright subsists for "70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last principal director, author or composer dies, or the work is made available to the public, by authorised performance, broadcast, exhibition, etc." A copyright notice for a UK film would then have to cite the year of death of the aforementioned director, author and composer with references to a reliable on-line obituary in order to justify the current status or to indicate when the work will enter into the public domain.
Prof Wrong (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
While it's correct that "most" countries observe the rule of the shorter term, the exceptions (which include the US, Canada, and China) are rather substantial, especially to the audience of the English Wikipedia. - JasonAQuest (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] even less context

Moving the article that was attached to this category (to Public domain film) just compounds the problem that this category means different things to different people, and has no internationally accepted standards. A film may be in the public domain in one country, but not in another. - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)