Hollywood Applauds The Destruction Of The Public Domain... Even As Hollywood Exists Thanks To The Public Domain
from the strong-copyright-isn't-what-got-you-here dept
With the Supreme Court hearing the rather important Golan case this week, concerning the ability of the federal government to take works out of the public domain and put them under copyright, there is actually some mainstream press discussion about the public domain. The NY Times is running a great op-ed piece by Peter Decherney, a film studies professor, talking first about how devastating it's been for filmmakers like him to have works they previous relied on in the public domain suddenly shift to being covered by copyright.In my own field � film � the effects of the 1994 law have been palpable. Distributors of classic foreign films have seen their catalogs diminished. Students can no longer get copies of many films. Archivists have postponed the preservation of important films. And of course filmmakers have lost access to works of literature that they might have adapted and music that might have enhanced soundtracks.But, as Decherney points out, all of that is hogwash especially since the very same movie industry that's complaining about this has always relied on the public domain as a source for new works:
But the key point is made towards the end of the opinion piece, in which he notes the blatant hypocrisy on the part of the MPAA, who filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that we need to pull works out of the public domain to show the world that the US is "a proponent of strong copyright protection throughout the world."
But history tells a different story. Filmmakers have consistently used public domain works to anchor artistic and technological innovation. In the 1930s, when Walt Disney decided to make one of the first feature-length animated films, he turned to the Brothers Grimm�s version of the tale of Snow White. When asked why he chose that story, Disney explained that �it was well known.� He understood that �Snow White� was a trusted property, and because he knew that at least the story and characters would be familiar to audiences, he could take an artistic risk with the form.And yet, now, works that formerly were in the public domain -- and which some people made a business of selling -- have been removed from the public domain and placed back under copyright law that they don't need. This should be seen as a huge problem with the system and the industry.
Disney is only the most famous example of a filmmaker who relied on the public domain to expand the art of film. Starting with Thomas Edison in 1910, filmmakers have adapted Lewis Carroll�s �Alice�s Adventures in Wonderland� in movies that have accompanied the transition to feature films, the establishment of the studios, the switch to sound, the introduction of color, the advent of television and the adoption of widescreen aspect ratios.
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, culture, golan, public domain, supreme court
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Transcript of the Supreme Court's Golan v. Holder argument.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-545.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transcript of the Supreme Court's Golan v. Holder argument.
googles Amicus Brief to SCOTUS
..."Google�s mission overlaps with, and depends upon,
the core values expressed in and secured by the
constitutional provisions at issue in this case:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S.
Constitution, which empowers Congress to grant
limited exclusive rights in order to promote the �the
Progress of Science and useful Arts,� thereby
�enriching the general public through access to
creative works,� Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S.
517, 526-27 (1994); and the First Amendment, which
guarantees �the freedom of speech,� and �of the
press,� and �carries with it * * * freedom to listen,�
Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 576
(1980), and to �receive information and ideas,�
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762 (1972), and
�prohibit[s] government from limiting the stock of
information from which members of the public may
draw,� First Nat�l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S.
765, 783 (1978)." ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transcript of the Supreme Court's Golan v. Holder argument.
The government had one case that looks really bad for the good guys. They said that there was a patent owned by Oliver Evans that expired, and then granted a renewal by congressional law. The supreme court in 1815 said that was OK for Oliver to crack down on those that used products that were created during the time that he no longer owned the patent. Without the courage to denounce bad rulings from the past, I don't know how the court can work around that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Transcript of the Supreme Court's Golan v. Holder argument.
The difference they can hang their hat on in this instance is that copyright has a direct Free Speech component that patented inventions don't. Therefore, it makes sense to treat patent and copyright differently in this context. As blatantly unfair as it is, putting an expired patent back into protection doesn't stifle speech, whereas putting public domain works back into copyright protection suppresses massive amounts of speech.
That would be the argument I would make to distinguish the 1815 patent case here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Transcript of the Supreme Court's Golan v. Holder argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excpert from Golan v. Holder argument
"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: General, there is something at least at an intuitive level appealing about Mr. Falzone's First Amendment argument. One day I can perform Shostakovich; Congress does something, the next day I can't. Doesn't that present a serious First Amendment problem?
GENERAL VERRILLI: I don't think so, Mr. Chief Justice..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another amazing excert from the Golan v. Holder argument...
"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What about Jimmy Hendrix, right? He has a distinctive rendition of the national anthem, and all of a -- assuming the national anthem is suddenly entitled to copyright protection that it wasn't before, he can't do that, right?...So he is just out of luck? And that's just one example of many, where you take existing works and you have a derivative work or something that is distinctive to you. So those people are just out of luck?
GENERAL VERRILLI: ...the Copyright Clause already contains very significant accommodations of First Amendment interests. The idea/expression dichotomy, fair use; and -- and that is going to provide -- maybe -- maybe Jimmy Hendrix could claim fair use in that situation...."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another amazing excert from the Golan v. Holder argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another amazing excert from the Golan v. Holder argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YES!`
(GRRRRRRR)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: YES!`
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: YES!`
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THOR 2011 - Nordic THOR legends.
The Eagle 2011 - Ancient Roman military history.
Gnomeo & Juliet 2011 - Shakespeare
Beastly 2011 - Beauty and the Beast
The King's Speech 2011 - U.K. history.
Soul Surfer 2011 - Real Life.
American: The Bill Hicks Story 2011 - Real Life.
Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil 2011 - Little Red Riding Hood, Hansel and Gretel.
There are more, Hollywood just launched in the past years more than a hundred works based on past out of copyright works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do they know something that we don't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. Pirate Mike
2. freetards/freetardia
3. "wild west interwebz is over!"
4. sycophants
5. weasel wording
6. FUD
7. "the party is OVER"
8. lol this is a tech blog, suuure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/amidoinrite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is starting to be a pain in the ass reading all these bs comments.
I know, I know, no one forcing me to read it. That is my point. I soon won't be!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fail absolute.
go in peace my cowardly brethren
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. Get the copyright on a work that will be in the public domain soon
2. Wait 4-5 years after the work is in the public domain
3. Get the work out of the public domain
4. Sue everyone who used the work when it was in the public domain
GREAT ! :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, your title missed a good and valid stab at Hollywood.
"Despite their official position in this case, Hollywood producers have long realized the value of the public domain, and they have taken steps to manage the use of the shared resource. The M.P.A.A. continues to maintain a registry in which its members can claim a limited, industry-designated right to public domain works. The registry allows filmmakers to draw from the cultural storehouse of stories and characters without fear of an immediate challenge from their closest competitors."
And that's why I focus on the corruption of money and cartels, not so much copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually, your title missed a good and valid stab at Hollywood.
And that's what Larry Lessig is now focused on after being focused on copyright for so long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually, your title missed a good and valid stab at Hollywood.
And that's what Larry Lessig is now focused on after being focused on copyright for so long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually, your title missed a good and valid stab at Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually, your title missed a good and valid stab at Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If these works were still under copyright, people wouldn't have these luxuries. That doesn't mean copyright is bad, per se, but that it should be kept in check for going on too long (like forever), and it would be especially dire if works that were already free to reuse and remix were suddenly put back into copyright and we couldn't freely use them anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hence why I said "so-called intellectual property".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They lose the right to perform the work. They lose the right to prepare and sell derivative works.
If someone infringes copyright (as in the first case), it's not stealing, because the copyright holder loses nothing.
If congress takes something out of the public domain and gives it to one party, everybody else loses something, and that's why it's stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright is not property
I recognize what follows is a bit simplistic, but why is it that one can not infringe a work secured by copyright, yet one can infringe a work not secured
by copyright?
The reason is that copyright is not property preexisting independent of positive law, but merely an artificial construct created by the state's positive law.
The problem for the copyright maximalists arise when they have to justify copyright as analogous to property in light of the public domain.
If copyright is property, fair use and the public domain necessarily violate the property right of the copyright holder.
But since copyright law without these inconsistencies and limitations would be overwhelmingly rejected by the majority, it's a good reason for not buying the argument that copyright equals property, with all its moral implications.
Another deception is claiming that copyright is a human right.
But again, if copyright is a human right, both the public domain and any
uncompensated copying without permission necessarily infringes on the "human right" of the copyright owner.
I suspect that most copyright maximalists really don't like the public domain, and most of them claim that the public domain is really no right.
Strong proponents of harsher copyright are therefore copyright maximalists. They don't really argue from any point of consistency but merely defend expanding copyright as a oneway street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing to hide
There are so many arguments why everyone has something to hide. One of them is caused and enforced by ridiculous rulings like these, that what you legally own today can be illegal tomorrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing to hide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing to hide
Except me and my monkey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can we just get it over with?
THEN when someone tries to remake something by shakespeare or play beethoven they get sued....
Very quickly copyright in its entirety would collapse, rather than the slow strangulated death we have now....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
possible solution
have ALL copyrights return to the government after 5 years.
Means its still "copyright protected"
Put a limit on public domain use...if you make more than $5 million from a single item then you gotta pay a tax to the government........
Can you hear the sound of hollywood execs crying? (and MPAA shills tying nooses?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that means
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...not to mention, our cultural heritage. But I guess there are priorities ($$$).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is being debated here has everything to do with money and not much to do with culturally enriching society as a whole.
It all comes down to who can afford to spend the most money to press the argument.
To bad that this is a death spiral for the industry. Spend more money to lobby, sue, lockup the work, only to have to seek even more protectionism in order to cover the money spend originally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both sides of the apple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And there you have hit, a perfect example by definition. Absolutely no sharing nor downloading involved. Stealing is what it is.
Media drug dealers. Let the prohibition continue!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
End of the public domain
Greed knows no limits. It is insatiable. It cannot be satisfied. The more a greedy person gets, the more he wants. J. Getty I think it was, then the richest man in the world, was once asked, if he could have anything in the world he wanted, what would it be? His reply:"More money."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]