NitrateVille.com

Anyone have a list of public domain silent features on DVD out there?

LouieD wrote:Anyone have a list of public domain silent features on DVD out there?

barring scores, etc., everything produced prior to 1922 would, by definition, be PD in the USA.

I thought it was Prior to 1923?

Gagman 66 wrote: I thought it was Prior to 1923?

Yes, films up through (that is, including) 1922 are now in the public domain. There are some films made in 1923 and later that are in the public domain due to paperwork snafus through history, though I don't know of a complete list. If anyone WERE to publish such a list, they'd be opening themselves up to a bit of a nightmare of being challenged, or who knows, being called to testify -- I certainly would be leery of making claims about all but the best-known public domain films. Also, this knowledge can be expensive to obtain -- you can hire someone to do copyright searches on films and music at the L.O.C. for $100/hour -- so once I've gained the knowledge I might not feel it's my job to pass it along for free.

And, of course, films that are public domain in their "native state" (i.e. if you owned a first-release nitrate print) can have undergone copyrighted "restorations" since then. For instance, the Buster Keaton film COLLEGE is public domain, but IIRC the Kino release was constructed scene by scene from three separate and differently-damaged source prints by David Shepard, and he quite rightly can claim a copyright on the work required to create that reconstruction. You're welcome to find copies of those three sources and do your own reconstruction, or you can rent his. Similar copyrights cover new musical scores, and replaced intertitles (either spurious, like the Rohauer Keaton 16mm prints, or legitimate, like titles translated from foreign languages).

If you're curious about the status of a particular film, I'd do a Google Groups search at alt.movies.silent and here to see if it has been discussed. And you could always ask here, and hope that someone knows. I'll start by mentioning that I know that Keaton's THE GENERAL and STEAMBOAT BILL JR. are both public domain, as is THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA.

Rodney,

That's what I said. I did not include the year 1923 itself. That being said. There are plenty of Silents made after 1922 that are in the Public Domain. It's my understanding if the copyright was not renewed 28 years after the original release date the films were automatically declared Public Domain. In-fact, I would wager that if you asked Paramount about a particular Silent with very few exceptions that they couldn't tell you right away or for certain if they still owned the copyright or not to very many of them. It would probably take weeks or even months to get a response. If at all.

But they will send you a cease-and-desist notice immediately.

Bob

Yeah, apparently, even if they are not all that certain if they still own the rights or not? That's ridiculous if you ask me.

The complex copyright term rules can be found here:
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resour ... domain.cfm

Regarding motion pictures, rules are:

-American films published in the US before January 1, 1923. The exception to this are films where the copyright has been restored thanks to the GATT terms wherein a film was PD here originally, but still copyright in another country.

-Films that lack a proper copyright notice.

-Films that were not renewed in their first term before 1963.

That being said, if you are going to go into any commercial venue with films, always hire a lawyer and get advice from him. Legal advice over the Internet is worth the amount you paid for it.

Scores, new intertitles and significant alterations are copyrightable. "Restorations" are generally not because they're simply restoring the film to what it originally looked like and are not significant alterations.

Most studios know what they own. The lawyers for each studio have databases of this sort of thing. But then of course, you can't always take their word for it, because they're trained to act like they own everything.

Jack,

So what about HULA? Big To-Do over it's official status on another forum. Isn't there allot of Gray area with certain films? And does it matter if a movie was once released in 16 millimeter and someone uses that source?

For instance, several of the old Time-Life Harold Lloyd's were released by a company in Europe. Almost unquestionably without the consent of Time-Life or The Harold Lloyd Trust. In other words, people were considering those versions of the Lloyd features to be "Public Domain" since the copyrights had long since expired, and I doubt if they were ever renewed. Time-Life didn't have them anymore. Even though the rights to the complete prints in 35 Millimeter were still owned by the Lloyd Trust.

Gagman 66 wrote:Jack,

So what about HULA? Big To-Do over it's official status on another forum. Isn't there allot of Gray area with certain films? And does it matter if a movie was once released in 16 millimeter and someone uses that source?

For instance, several of the old Time-Life Harold Lloyd's were released by a company in Europe. Almost unquestionably without the consent of Time-Life or The Harold Lloyd Trust. In other words, people were considering those versions of the Lloyd features to be "Public Domain" since the copyrights had long since expired, and I doubt if they were ever renewed. Time-Life didn't have them anymore. Even though the rights to the complete prints in 35 Millimeter were still owned by the Lloyd Trust.

I've been involved with these issues for decades and there isn't much of a grey area for US silent films. In general, films produced by companies that were still around 28 years later had their copyrights renewed. So almost all films produced by Fox, WB, Paramount, FBO (RKO), Columbia, MGM were renewed, and Universal films starting with those released in 1924/25. There are a handful of titles which were sold to another company for remake, and the new owner didn't renew, and a few titles were simply missed. Independents and companies that went out of business are another matter.

But Paramount renewed HULA, and Harold Lloyd renewed the copyrights to all of his silent features. Releasing a film in 16mm or having someone pirate a film doesn't affect the existence of a valid copyright.

David Pierce

Are there any 35 Millimeter prints of HULA? I'm sure that you probably know that this was just released by someone, and the print is very good quality. HULA is not one of the Clara Bow Silent's that I have heard any mention of having been restored in recent years. There are several others that have been mentioned as been restored. When ever the film is screened, it is in 16 Millimeter. I don't recall hearing of a 35 Millimeter screening anyplace.

I don't know about its status in any archives, but about three years ago, there was a gent in North Jersey unloading several nitrate features who had HULA among his stash of films. Hopefully it ended up in a good place.

Mr. Pierce is also correct in stating that just because someone pirates a film, or a sub-licensee loses the rights to a film, does not mean that their "edition" (whatever that means in this context) is automatically public domain. The copyright is for a work as a whole. The distribution format doesn't change that.

Jack,

Concerning HULA. Did I mention that I really love this movie? It is allot better than any of the Clara Bow Silents that have been released on official DVD. Including IT, which now seems to be owned by Photoplay, not Paramount? There is zero chemistry between Clara and Antonio Mereno. Droves between Her and Clive Brook.

What do you mean the guy was lugging Nitrate prints around? He was uploading these On-line?

The gentleman in question was not a film collector, but just happened to luck into these prints. Around the same time, there was another gent in the same area who was selling prints on eBay at a substantial price. As usual, the first guy saw dollar signs and put a ridiculous price tag on his collection to which I declined. That was the last I heard of him.

Jack,

Well, all I can say is that the recent releases of both MANTRAP and HULA are very good quality. Roughly comparable to the Killiam print of IT in terms of sharpness and detail. And I think the Killiam print of IT is the only one still around? Photoplay used that too for their own edition.

I believe there is a set of two books of PD titles, long since OOP, that go for hundreds of dollars when they surface. Since copyright law is pretty fluid, the information in them is probably not definitive anymore.

And just because a studio failed to renew a copyright after 28 years, that doesn't necessarily mean that a film is PD. There could be an underlying story that is still under copyright. Or even music that is under copyright, like in It's a Wonderful Life (1947).