Wizard Of Oz Court Ruling Suggests Moviemakers Can Reclaim Parts Of The Public Domain And Put It Under Copyright
from the we're-not-in-kansas-any-more,-toto dept
Another day, another story of the law letting the public domain be locked up. Back in February, we wrote about an important case about the public domain involving The Wizard of Oz and some other films. Prior to 1976, of course, you had to register works to have them covered by copyright. A company named AVELA recognized that some publicity posters for The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind and some Tom and Jerry cartoons were not registered (or in some cases, were registered, but not renewed), and thus were officially in the public domain. It then made t-shirts out of some of the images in the poster.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit court seems to have more or less supported the original ruling, though with different reasoning. The court does say that the publicity materials are in the public domain. But then says that the new works (the designs on the t-shirt) results in a derivative work that "comes into conflict with a valid copyright." Conceptually that makes sense. You can't take a public domain work and then assume that gives you free reign to bring in other copyrighted work. But it's troubling to see how the court then concludes that such derivative works occur in this case. It basically says that because the actors in the movie imbued the characters with specific traits beyond what was in the original works, even the use of still images that are public domain can infringe on the copyrights of the depictions of those characters.
We agree with the district court’s conclusion that Dorothy, Tin Man, Cowardly Lion, and Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz, Scarlett O’Hara and Rhett Butler from Gone with the Wind, and Tom and Jerry each exhibit “consistent, widely identifiable traits” in the films that are sufficiently distinctive to merit character protection under the respective film copyrights....As THREsq notes, it's this section above that may be sending Hollywood lawyers into a bit of a tizzy as it appears to potentially extend the encroachment on the public domain, by suggesting that any general "character" traits that are added by a film adaptation, even of a public domain work, can be copyrighted. Considering there are a bunch of adaptations being made of The Wizard of Oz based on the public domain books, some lawyers are worried that this ruling gives Warner Bros. leverage over those other movies:
AVELA correctly points out that the scope of copyright protection for the characters in the films The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind is limited to the increments of character expression in the films that go beyond the character expression in the books on which they were based. See Silverman, 870 F.2d at 49 (“[C]opyrights in derivative works secure protection only for the incremental additions of originality contributed by the authors of the derivative works.”). While true, this has little practical effect in the instant case, as a book’s description of a character generally anticipates very little of the expression of the character in film....
The film actors’ portrayals of the characters at issue here appear to rely upon elements of expression far beyond the dialogue and descriptions in the books. AVELA has identified no instance in which the distinctive mannerisms, facial expressions, voice, or speech patterns of a film character are anticipated in the corresponding book by a literary description that evokes, to any significant extent, what the actor portrayed. Put more simply, there is no evidence that one would be able to visualize the distinctive details of, for example, Clark Gable’s performance before watching the movie Gone with the Wind, even if one had read the book beforehand. At the very least, the scope of the film copyrights covers all visual depictions of the film characters at issue, except for any aspects of the characters that were injected into the public domain by the publicity materials.
In case you didn't get that, if you were to create a movie Wizard of Oz entirely based on the book, if one of the actors does pretty much anything that suggests a similarity to the movie version, rather than the book version, it could be infringing. At the very least, this completely rules out any attempt to make a nod or homage towards the original film. But, more importantly, if just in the nature of being an actor, one of the actors imbues one of these characters with similar traits to the 1939 movie... that can be infringing.As we noted in our past article on this topic, there are nine Wizard of Oz projects currently in development, by one count, including a big-budget 3D film by Disney directed by Sam Raimi and starring James Franco that's meant to be a prequel to the classic film.
Might these films have to be very, very careful going forward?
One lawyer believes so.
"The court's statement that the film copyrights cover 'all visual depictions' of the characters recognizes that there is often a quintessential version of a literary character that exists in the public's mind as a result of a popular film adaption," says Aaron Moss, the chair of litigation at Greenberg Glusker. " Any filmmaker that wants to create a new version of a literary work -- even one in the public domain -- needs to be careful not to use copyrightable elements of characters that first appear in protected motion picture versions of the works. Of course, when it comes to characters depicted by live actors, this may be easier said than done."
And that's insane. That goes way beyond the intent of copyright law, and again seems to destroy the laughable notion that there's a real split between protection of ideas and expression.
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, public domain, wizard of oz
Companies: warner bros.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why are you so against originality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless you missed a /sarc tag somewhere in an attempt to pre-empt and mock the AC trolls, in which case well done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now THAT would be an achievement worthy of some sort of award.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Enlighten us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also you allow yourselves to be dragged way off topic with ridiculous ease.
What is interesting here is with parts like say Moses, Cleopatra, Caesar, Buddha.
Will every future person acting these parts have to ensure that no part of their performance which is not covered in the public domain origins of the part, in any way bears any resemblance to "unique expressions" brought out by previous actors unless the actor, director, studio etc. or risk being sued.
I doubt it would really work out as having any obvious effect, but, could such a fear possibly prevent people from risking it and not making their version of a public domain story, or of incorporating a public domain character into a new story? That would seem possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure if that's a loss for society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In the meantime, we should all be amused at how snookered commenters were by your initial (missing /sarc tag) comment. "My inability to comprehend leads me to conclude..." Probably an excellent way for every shill to preface their comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But the Wizard of Oz isn't terribly creative. It's based off a book in the public domain.
Sure, there are elements that are original and creative, and its portrayed a bit differently than the book, but it's a derivative work of something.
In short, the Wizard of Oz movie is short on originality and long on derivation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non-Original Sin
If you use something from the public domain, all your creation is subject to the same public domain status. Your work was derivative of something which belongs to all of us, and you want to protect it? C'mon, come up with something original, and we'll protect that.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Non-Original Sin
I don't see a problem with this from a macro level, but if we start talking, "the new scarecrow squinted like movie scarecrow, and wiggled his hips the same way" I think it's gone too far. Plot elements, scenes depicted only in the movie, yes. Body language, no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know, I didn't see one statement in the above article that comes close to implying what you are saying. Go take a course in reading comprehension.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you tell me, cause i've yet to see anything remotely original come out of you copytards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
BAM!! original content. Time to Copyright and start rolling in the profits. It works like that right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With Feist v. Rural?
It's called thin copyright. It's the reason copying the data in a phone book is allowed, but photocopying the phonebook and calling it your own is not.
What the heck was the 8th Circuit smoking? I hope they appeal, this is a terrible, terrible ruling that ignores Supreme Court precedent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: With Feist v. Rural?
Tough cases make bad law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: With Feist v. Rural?
I haven't read the opinion, so I don't know if it states where the t-shirt folks got their images, or if an analysis of the images occurred, but it's a valid point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Original Film
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Original Film
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stock answer: AVOID DERIVATIVE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stock answer: AVOID DERIVATIVE.
So, are you also calling for Hollywood to stop produced remakes, sequels and adaptations of pre-existing materials? Same for the professional artists, game developers, authors and musicians out there? Or, does that only apply to us peons?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stock answer: AVOID DERIVATIVE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stock answer: AVOID DERIVATIVE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stock answer: AVOID DERIVATIVE.
It's plainly obvious that the Wizard of Oz movie should NEVER have been CREATED. Also, every SINGLE adaptation of one medium to another, SUCH as videogames made from movies, BOOKS made from games, books MADE from movies, movies made FROM games, etc. ETC., should all BE summarily burned and done away with.
I don't know why THESE other sheep can't see that all this derivative "culture" is actually JUST a mechanism by which dirty whorish capitalist PIG dogs can take away our freedoms here in 'Merica. It seems PRETTY clear that this court case was obviously influenced by THE RICH and if we could just find some way to tax anyone with money anywhere OUT of existence then we'd all have free lollipops and blowjobs each saturday morning to go along with our communal circle jerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stock answer: AVOID DERIVATIVE.
Surely that's spelt wrong? I can't think of ANY reason why the word "BLOWJOBS" would not be capitalised in that sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stock answer: AVOID DERIVATIVE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stock answer: AVOID DERIVATIVE.
> > all have free lollipops and blowjobs each saturday morning
> > to go along with our communal circle jerk.
> Surely that's spelt wrong? I can't think of ANY reason why the
> word "BLOWJOBS" would not be capitalised in that sentence.
Or why anyone would bother with jerking (circular or otherwise) when there's free blowjobs to be had...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stock answer: AVOID DERIVATIVE.
It's not the use of derivative works that should be the problem. Copyright is the problem and needs reform urgently to prevent abuses. And regardless what you think about the law, it should be fair and it is intended to promote creativity. This does not promote creativity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is this free market capitalism that they speak of? It doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Das Kapital
Its a free market as long as your company is making "Chicken Feed" and not a real player in the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Das Kapital
From taxi cab monopolies, to cableco monopolies, to IP, to mailbox delivery monopolies, to broadcasting monopolies, the whole works, every last government established monopoly needs to be abolished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Das Kapital
Not only does the U.S. government provide for its citizens with absolutely nothing, the U.S. government goes through great lengths to deny its citizens the right to provide for themselves (through the government establishment of monopolies).
You can't have it both ways. Either the government provides for its citizens or it stops doing so much to deny us the ability to provide for ourselves.
Government established monopolies reduce aggregate output and they increase unemployment. If competitors can enter these otherwise monopolized markets, those competitors create jobs for more people, increase output, which enables more people to provide for themselves. People can get more jobs without having to go through a monopolist gatekeeper, gatekeepers who will necessarily hire fewer workers than the free market (monopolies reduce aggregate output and less aggregate output requires less labor), and produce less product for consumers to consume (and less product can provide for fewer people).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Das Kapital
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It DOES make sense...sorta...
The movie posters...as complete art...ARE PD and CAN be used with impunity.
Their copyrights either never existed or weren't renewed.
However, taking ELEMENTS which show specific characters out of context to the WHOLE poster (and utilizing the makeup designs specific to the movie as well as "catch phrases" specific to the movie) is NOT.
In a similar vein, the makeup/imagery for the Universal Monsters (Frankenstein, WolfMan, etc.) is trademarked and, while you CAN do a Frankenstein movie, comic, e-book, etc., heaven help you if your Monster looks like the Universal version!
In this case, the Oz movie make-up designs are probably trademarked as well.
You'll note other Oz projects use different makeup/character designs, some based on the original illustrations, which ARE Public Domain!
In addition, there ARE elements specifically-created for the movie (Ruby slippers as compared to the book's silver slippers) which are not PD and cannot be used without a license!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It DOES make sense...sorta...
This t-shirt producer took a public domain work, the movie poster, and chopped it into pieces. Then she took those pieces and made t-shirts out of them.
I really don't see that as being any different than taking individual chapters of the original public domain book and printing them in different printings of a periodical.
Each piece is still a part of the public domain.
Of course all this trouble would have been avoided had we not extended copyright terms to obscene lengths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It DOES make sense...sorta...
You cannot compare to a book in the public domain, because that book is not part of a larger copyright work.
They could have republished the poster as is until the end of time without issue. But derivative products from this poster are also, by definition, derivative of the copyrighted work. As soon as they started down that road, they are violating the copyright.
Oh and Mike, you can apologize now, regarding comments made in the original thread on this many moons ago. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It DOES make sense...sorta...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It DOES make sense...sorta...
Every piece of art work should now include a bibliography/citation list. That way we can track the entire derivative history of a work to ensure that no piece of it is copyrighted/unlicensed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It DOES make sense...sorta...
What was your point again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's shocking is that we are talking about a 70+ year old movie. The movie itself is public domain already. Or should be. Most actors are probably dead by now or made enough money (I believe money goes in fair amounts to the artists as much as I believe in Santa Claus but let us pretend it goes) and even the useless executive producers of the time must have made enough money by now (if they are still alive that is).
Not happy with the above stupidity they wanna copyright something from the public domain based on subjective personality trait? If I want I can build solid evidence to say that Snow White has a locked psychopath personality within her because no freakin woman would act that way naturally so Jig Saw could be Snow White in disguise and thus the movie Saw is infringing Disney's copyright. Crazy? You bet, as crazy as what I've just read in this article.
And let's not forget kids performing a play based on the said book. Suppose lil' Dorothy has a natural gift for acting and does some nice performance that reminds old folks in the audience about 1939 Dorothy. She's infringing copyright for performing a damn PUBLIC DOMAIN character.
No, I'm gonna stop here cause some artery snapped in my brain and there's blood in my eyes. Don't put a Warner representative in front of me. I'm dangerous now.
Good riddance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It DOES make sense...sorta...really...
This t-shirt producer took a public domain work, the movie poster, and chopped it into pieces. Then she took those pieces and made t-shirts out of them.
I really don't see that as being any different than taking individual chapters of the original public domain book and printing them in different printings of a periodical.
Each piece is still a part of the public domain.
Nope.
As I mentioned earlier, the Oz makeup designs are, in fact, trademarked by MGM/Turner/whoever owns them now.
Taken out of context (the original poster) and adding catch-phrases created for the movie does create a potential violation.
Again, look at the Universal Monsters.
A number of companies sell repros of the movie posters, which ARE Public Domain!
But, the make-ups ARE trademarked and if you do a t-shirt with JUST a head shot of Karloff's Monster, Universal will be after you.
Do a t-shirt of the COMPLETE poster, and you're golden.
Do a t-shirt of a visually-different rendering of the Frankenstein Monster (for example, both Marvel and DC Comics have their own quite-different versions) and you're good to go.
Got it? ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It DOES make sense...sorta...really...
New culture comes from old culture.
and
Name a single work that does not draw in any way from any other work. You can't and here is why: Everything is a remix. Everything.
Nina's Four Freedoms of Culture need to be adopted ASAP and copyright rejected as the bad idea it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It DOES make sense...sorta...really...
There is no such thing as completely original content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It DOES make sense...sorta...really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um, how does a T-shirt with a still picture of an actor infringe on any of that? Crazy ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Tragedy Devolving Into Farce
Mike is correct that this not only destroys the idea/expression dichotomy that is (theoretically) supposed to exist, but also ignores the traditional "fixation" requirement that copyright is supposed to require under law.
The concept of copyrighting "characters" outside of the concrete images or book passages they are depicted in destroys the concept of the fixation requirement. If I copy the concrete images of Sean Connery from 'Goldfinger', I have violated copyright (fair use considerations aside). But if I make my own creative film using a different actor in a white tux, drinking a martini and announcing himself as "Bond...James Bond..." I have not "copied" anything since none of the creative elements I have used were "fixed" in a previous work. It was made with a different camera, using a different actor, with different lighting, and different soundtrack which combines to recall a previously made character. But to the extent that a "character" can exist outside of fixed, concrete bounds means that in order to "copyright" the character, you must extend copyright into the realm of ideas - not fixed expression which copyright law is supposed to require as a Constitutional limit.
This is just one of the many contradictions that modern copyright jurisprudence offers us. And why it is coming to an increasing head with how the free speech is used in the digital/information age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Tragedy Devolving Into Farce
A "spy in a tux" isn't enough. Having his name be James Bond might. When you get too close to the character, you are pushing into the areas that are part of the original expression. I have a hard time imaging why you can't see it as clearly standing on other people's work.
In nicer terms, why not just come up with your own spy guy, who drives a different car, wears sports coats, and calls himself "Danny, Danny Levine" and goes from there? Why would you want to bother going over a piece of lawn that has already been mowed to the point where no more grass grows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least will always have Parody,
MadTV - The Wizard of Oz: Deleted Scene
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warner Bros v AVELA opinion (pdf)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Warner Bros v AVELA opinion (pdf)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(emphasis added)
But any aspects of the characters that are present on the T-shirts, which were copied directly from publicity posters that are now public domain, were "injected into the public domain by the publicity materials" and so the shirts cannot infringe!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PD or not PD?
In other words does a re-master and restoration effort renew the copyright at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PD or not PD?
I'm no expert, but my understanding that it does, but only for the remastered print. That is, the remastered version is copyrighted from the day of release, but that doesn't affect the copyright status of the non-remastered print. Anyone else is free to correct me if I'm wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Define "Original Movie"
There are two silent movies that come to mind, the first being a 1910 production (available at archive.org) and the other a 1925 affair that starred Oliver Hardy as the Tin Woodman. The 1910 film, THE WONDERFUL WIZARD OF OZ, is about as good as one would expect from such early cinema, whereas the 1925 WIZARD OF OZ film is simply awful in writing, performance and production (Ollie is its only saving grace IMO).
By the way, for you trivia buffs... MGM made the 1939 Oz musical as an attempt to steal thunder from Disney, who was enjoying success with SNOW WHITE. MGM bought the film rights to L. Frank Baum's first book only, "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" and Disney grabbed the rights to the remaining twelve (yes, L. Frank Baum wrote thirteen Oz books and stories continue to be written to this day). The 1939 production did not see profits until it began running on television.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wizard of oz copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]