It's Not Such A Wonderful Public Domain, As Paramount Plans To Block 'It's A Wonderful Life' Sequel
from the shameful dept
If you spend enough time in copyright circles, you know the story of the copyright on the iconic film It's A Wonderful Life. Due to a filing error in 1974, an attempt to renew the copyright on the film failed, thus putting the film itself into the public domain. This meant that, in the late 1970s and 1980s, the film was shown on various TV networks every holiday time -- cementing its reputation. While the film had won a few awards when it was released, it had been a box office flop. It was only the regular showings on TV, thanks to its public domain status, that really gave the film the reputation it has today. Except... the movie itself is based on a short story, called "The Greatest Gift." That story has remained under copyright. In 1993, the copyright holder of that story at the time suddenly announced that since the film was a derivative work of the story, it remained under copyright as such a derivative work. In 1998, Paramount bought the company that held the copyright, and thus, today it claims that it holds the copyright on the film -- though, really only the copyright on the underlying story that the film is based on.Still, many people recognize (or remember) that the film itself is supposedly in the public domain, and some of them had recently put together a plan to make a sequel, which would even star actress Karolyn Grimes, who played the little girl ("every time a bell rings, an angel gets his wings!") in the original film. Except... Paramount has done what Paramount does, and said that no such sequel can be made without a license. So, basically, this film that became so popular because of its public domain status has had that status robbed.
In theory, you can see how a filmmaker could try to tip toe around this issue, by making sure that none of the copyright-covered elements from the original story are then included in the sequel, but it would probably be almost impossible to pull that off in any reasonable way. While I recognize that this is mixing up iconic holiday stories, shame on Paramount for being such a Scrooge, stomping out the public domain and stifling creative endeavors.
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: derivative works, it's a wonderful life, public domain, sequels
Companies: paramount pictures, viacom
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the one hand, just on general principle I'd like to see the EFF take this on and smack Paramount down. On the other hand... just look at what movie adaptations of old favorites are like these days. I'm not sure I want to see Clarence walking around dressed in black and smiting people who make trouble in the world. So maybe this is actually a good thing? :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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: Re:
They got more independent when Disney bought them??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's an advantage of works being in the public domain. Even if you hate the authorized film of a book, the lack of exclusivity and licensing costs allows more alternative adaptations to appear. (Provided that someone cares to make them) And even if none of those float your boat, you can always make your own.
I don't like the Star Wars prequels, but if Star Wars fell out of copyright, I bet that someone else would make better ones, with better stories and better characters. Just because Lucas would not be involved with the unauthorized prequels wouldn't make them worse. The story matters, not the imprimatur.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Duel of the Fates in Episode 1.
Natalie Portman :)
The rest could probably be junked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I never liked...
Also sequals tend to be worse than the original. So yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I never liked...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I never liked...
The point of the movie was that you may never see exactly what influence one life ultimately has on others'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I never liked...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I never liked...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I never liked...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
" he should have offed himself"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I never liked...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I never liked...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another where I fail to see the downside!
"stifling creative endeavors"? -- Yeah, okay, Mike. At long last, a sort of positive statement of your views: Mike believes new versions of old schmaltz is "creative".
UP WITH COPYRIGHT! IT REDUCES CRAP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet another where I fail to see the downside!
Still, I can't imagine a remake of that shining turd being worthwhile.
Especially in currant market conditions where it's likely to be directed by Micheal Bay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet another where I fail to see the downside!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet another where I fail to see the downside!
Nowhere, you turd. Copyright was never meant to be used as a tool to stop the production of derivative works simply because they would be perceived by some to be crap.
Still, at least you admit just how and why you love copyright. It filters out (censors) the stuff you don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet another where I fail to see the downside!
Who are you to tell the free market what it "needs?" If Paramount could make a $100m sequel to the movie and make a profit off of it, you would otherwise argue that it was their right to do so. But your subjective tastes get in the way of your previously-stated ideals and suddenly you'll flip and argue against the rights of copyright holders to make money.
Every time OOTB reveals his hypocrisy in an absurdly obvious manner, a responding commenter gets a funny or insightful vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet another where I fail to see the downside!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet another where I fail to see the downside!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet another where I fail to see the downside!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet another where I fail to see the downside!
Yes, absolutely. Copyright is all about increasing the quantity of works; not the quality, as that's a subjective matter that the government isn't competent to judge.
"stifling creative endeavors"? -- Yeah, okay, Mike. At long last, a sort of positive statement of your views: Mike believes new versions of old schmaltz is "creative".
And he's right. For example, Shakespeare wrote a new version of Romeo and Juliet, but the story was "old schmaltz" by his day. And it's one of the greatest works of literature in the English language. The story isn't his creation, but the execution of it is, and it's very good, very creative.
So I guess Mike would be right.
You, OTOH, are a moron who doesn't put together one thought before posting some blather that is always directly contrary to whatever the article was about. Mike could write an article saying that the Earth is round, and you'd proudly prattle on about how flat it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every time you download an mp3 . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But due to an unfavorable Supreme Court decision, Metropolis was recently placed under the yolk of copyright again -- which this time could very well last forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paramount is still staffed with Copyright Idiots
Within a few months I recieved a nastygram in my mail from Paramount basically saying that if I didn't take my site down they would sick their lawyers on me.
Seeing as how I had no money (I was starving student at the time and made the site to play with the new web thingy technology.) I put notice on the website word for word of the nastygram and shut the site down about one week later.
It sure didn't make any friends for Paramount.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is an interesting theory, and implies that the copyright of all derivative works remain with the original works author(s). Could make an interesting case against Paramount, as they claim copyright derivative that films they make, and that it belongs to a original works author.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They could still license it.
Now whether a sequel *should* be made, that's a different question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They could still license it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They could still license it.
Paying a protection racket to not have your business burned to the ground is a standard part of being in business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress, the way you have NOT done your job so many times over so many things, i find it hard to understand what the hell is the point of having you? then i remembered that you have to do as much as you can, for fees of course, to ensure certain industries continue to screw the people as much as possible. sorry for that oversight!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Songwriters have no legal way to prevent someone they don't like from singing their songs. This allows record labels to fire and replace band members (sometimes all of them) and then have the replacement crew go on tour playing the same songs as before -- hoping fans won't notice the new faces, or notice that the original members might be out touring under a new name that no one has heard before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
illustrates my overarching point precisely:
things like this movie (which i didn't know was not popular when it came out) got a second life BECAUSE of its widespread exposure, BECAUSE of US, not THEM ! ! !
same with viral hits and such like 'gangnam style': NOBODY on earth would have heard it or responded to it or given it a snowballs chance in hell of making 'serious' money, IF IT WASN'T FOR US, not THEM ! ! !
the nike swooshtika isn't popular because nike did such a mind-shattering job of designing the ultimate logo; no, it is popular because WE MADE IT POPULAR...
there is ZERO inherent value in the swooshtika, it is ONLY our interest and popularization that make it 'valuable'...
kmart's vietnamese-made sneakers may have a logo that -objectively speaking- is ten times the masterpiece that the swooshtika is, but we don't see people buying shirts and crap with that 'prettier' logo splashed all over everything, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT MADE THEM POPULAR...
(even though there may be 10 pairs of kmart sneakers sold for every over-priced piece of nike crap...)
WE make or break the popularity of EVERYTHING, THEN we are punished for our efforts by the TECHNICAL 'owners' of it, but NOT the 'REAL OWNERS' of that tiny piece of culture, US, ALL of us collectively...
without US making buying/use decisions, disney, nike, starbucks, cox cable, etc, etc, etc, aren't worth shit...
we literally own them, but without owning them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can see the title now
© 2013 McFortner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
milking sequels
If they let someone else make a sequel that group makes a healthy profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Scrooge necessarily...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good lord
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wonder of science
You really mention here some great points,Good job sir,very helpful post.
Wonderful Technology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://wonderfulscience.com/
Wonderful Technology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]