How Do You Infringe The Copyright Of Public Domain Works?
from the strange-legal-rulings dept
And here's another fun copyright mystery from William Patry: it turns out that some courts have constructed a rather convoluted rationale for how you can still be found to be infringing copyrights, even on material that everyone admits is public domain. While it's rare, he cites two such cases, suggesting that both have rather tortured logic behind them. The first involves a play which was later turned into a movie. While the play remained under copyright, the separate copyright of the movie was not renewed in a timely manner, allowing it to fall into the public domain. Yet, because of the remaining copyright on the play, a court determined that the movie could not be distributed, since it retained some elements directly from the play.Even if you can sort of understand the reasoning for that one, it's hard to figure out the reasoning behind the second case. In this one, a bunch of episodes from "The Andy Griffith" show fell into the public domain. However, it was just a bunch of episodes from later seasons. Earlier seasons remained under copyright. The court ruled that since the later shows were based on the earlier shows that were still covered by copyright, the later shows could not be distributed freely. This seems like a rather perverse interpretation of copyright law.
But, of course, when you have people viewing copyrights not as an incentive to create, but as a kind of "property" over which you have total control, these types of rulings are bound to occur. The default is quite often going to be to lean towards more control, even if the sensible decision both under the law and for society is to allow the content to really become a part of the public domain.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, infringement, public domain
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How?
we say it is. We're judges, the unanointed
can not possibly understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I say it again and again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I say it again and again
That picture was not theirs, but from someone else, they had just grabbed it from someone's Flickr account without attributing the source, nor asking for the rights to use it.
IIRC, the cost of starting a lawsuit against that station did not weigh up to the 'damages' incurred by use of that image.
Another instance I remember was from (I believe) Nokia, which had taken a picture of a building from someone's Flickr feed to use in one of their business websites and other promotional material. Without asking for permission.
In both cases I have forgotten where I read it, though I suspect the latter story was featured here on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why such a result?
Academics and practitioners alike have expressed for many years the apparent inequities that can arise in situations such as those described in the article.
While the noted situations are fully consistent with federal copyright law, one does have to ask if this is one area of the rights afforded holders of copyright that should be re-examined and a more equitable approach incorporated into copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Therefore it would seem it is unnecessary for a musician, author etc to gain copywright protections from any future works as long as they recieved protection on at least one piece of work in the past as all future work is in some way shape or for based on previous work.
Faulty logic at its best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyers Can Argue Anything
But this sort of thing has been used before. RKO Pictures got the rights back to It's a Wonderful Life, which had fallen into the public domain, by finding out that the music was still under copyright, and they used this technicality to take the public domain versions off the market.
Another example is Tarzan. The early books are in the public domain, but the character is trademarked. Therefore, public domain publishers can't feature the character on the book cover or in any illustration. They skirt the issue by showing a picture of a jungle or an abstract logo, making the public domain book harder to market.
But there are plenty of other examples. For example, an unborn baby doesn't have any rights until it's born, so a mother can have an abortion right up to the time of birth. However, the newest twist is if a criminal kills a pregnant woman, he's then charged with two homicides. Suddenly the unborn baby has rights.
Likewise some social services departments have been able to have women locked up for abusing the health of their unborn babies if the women are taking drugs or are not taking care of themselves, yet the women can legally have abortions and not be considered murderers.
The best one was where a husband was found guilty of statutory rape because his legally married wife got pregnant. She was 15 and he was 16, and the parents gave permission for the marriage, and it was legal in the state. But the DA argued that birth of the baby proved she had had sex when she was a minor. And minors can't consent to have sex. So therefore, she was raped. The husband was found guilty and got locked up for a year, couldn't provide for his family, who then had to go on welfare. The argument won over common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawyers Can Argue Anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
meh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawyers Can Argue Anything...
How the hell does abortion and rape have anything to do with copyright law. You really should find another forum...
By the way, the husband rape thing sounds like urban legend to me...but then again I am pro-choice so what do I know right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How does this affect Disney
Does anyone know if Disney even now owns the copyright to Snow White? Obviously they own the distinct likeness, but what about the names of the characters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How does this affect Disney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How does this affect Disney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How does this affect Disney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How does this affect Disney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not so implausible
So these works lapsed - apparently by accident - into the public domain. But the artists had intended to still have copyright over them, and would have, if their agents had remembered to send in the paperwork. Should we really be pissed off if they successfully used, even if convoluted, logic to get their copyrights back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not so implausible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not so implausible
Yes because the law says that those works should be in the public domain and, as many IP maximists argue, following the law is important.
Unless you're arguing that obedience to law is not important, in which case it's not important for me to obey copy'right' law and hence I should simply ignore it and copy whatever I please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no public domain
Think about it, the writer of a TV show is influenced by a book they read, who's author was influenced by a play they saw, who's author was influenced by a movie they watched, who's writer was influenced by the Andy Griffith show which is still copy written, so that new TV show decades later is in violation of Copy Write laws because the lawyers claim that bits of the original Andy Griffith show made it into the following works.
Just watch, someone will try it. Our legal system is screwed up enough to allow it to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]