NY Times: Old Films Fall Into Public Domain Under Copyright

[silentfilm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/movie ... d=fb-share

Even Good Films May Go to Purgatory
Old Films Fall Into Public Domain Under Copyright Law

By NICOLAS RAPOLDFEB. 14, 2014

Launch media viewer
Madeleine Carroll and Robert Donat in “The 39 Steps,” a 1935 film directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Photofest, via Film

They show up in discount DVD bins, or more often today online, sometimes looking a little worse for the wear. A general pall of darkness might cloud the image; the dialogue might be a bit tinnier than you remembered. Often the quality is not too shabby, though in the case of the web, it can be a surprise that they’re online at all. They’re films that have fallen out of copyright for one reason or another and must weather the wilds of the public domain.

Thanks to the curious history of motion picture copyright, a number of well-known films — and some excellent obscure ones — have ended up in this purgatory.

Among them are “His Girl Friday,” Howard Hawks’s 1940 newspaper masterpiece pitting Cary Grant against Rosalind Russell in a battle of wits.

There’s also D. W. Griffith’s controversial pillar of silent cinema, “The Birth of a Nation,” from 1915, and “Scarlet Street,” Fritz Lang’s bleak 1945 film noir starring Edward G. Robinson, Joan Bennett and Dan Duryea.

Buster Keaton in the 1926 silent film “The General,” directed by Keaton and Clyde Bruckman. Kino Lorber

Stanley Kubrick’s first feature, “Fear and Desire,” belongs to this dubious club (although he disliked the film being shown at all). Frank Capra’s “Meet John Doe” and many of Buster Keaton’s best-known comedies, including “The General,” also fell down the copyright rabbit hole.

Nor was the phenomenon limited to prewar cinema: Stanley Donen’s 1963 “Charade,” starring Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn, and George Romero’s 1968 “Night of the Living Dead” are two more recent examples.

And as late as the 1990s, the early British films of Alfred Hitchcock were considered to be in the public domain. These works, ranging back from “The 39 Steps” in 1935 to lesser-known titles, frequently circulated in the United States in inferior prints and subpar home video editions.

But that early work of Hitchcock — who will be the subject of a sweeping Film Forum retrospective that starts on Friday — ended up following a different trajectory because of their British provenance. Following adjustments to copyright law in 1994, the original rights holders could reassert their claims and be recognized in the United States.

Still, Bruce Goldstein, the Film Forum programmer in charge of repertory, can recall what happened when those protections lapsed.

“I remember seeing those public domain ‘39 Steps’ prints. It’s not just that the film is dupey,” he said, referring to the duplication of inferior prints without reference to an original negative. “The soundtracks were so muddy you could hardly hear them.”

That is not the case with the Film Forum retrospective, which will include the silents known as the “Hitchcock 9” that have been restored by the British Film Institute. Yet other titles are not so lucky, raising the question of why these movies wind up in this predicament in the first place.

The answers vary according to the patchwork of rules governing motion picture copyrights at different times all the way back to the silent era.

From left, James Stewart, Donna Reed and Thomas Mitchell in “It’s a Wonderful Life,” from 1946. RKO, via Associated Press

The earliest films are the easiest to explain: Those from before 1923 are in the public domain.

Until the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998, films could generally enjoy 75 years of copyright protection. Anything that had fallen out by then, however, was understood to stay in the public domain. That alone covers a wealth of film history, including much of the work of foundational filmmakers including Griffiths and Keaton.

After 1923, public-domain challenges arise when the copyright is not renewed. Later Congressional extensions of copyright complicate the matter (and have been the subject of debate), but the initial period is crucial.

“Most commonly, a film’s copyright might not be renewed after its initial 28 years of protection had expired,” Michael Mashon, head of the moving image section at the Library of Congress, wrote in an email.
For Valentine's Day weekend, our nine favorite videos about love.

He cited the examples of the Buster Keaton film “The General” (1926), “His Girl Friday,” “Meet John Doe” and “Nothing Sacred,” a 1937 screwball comedy starring Carole Lombard.

Other films didn’t follow basic rules for maintaining copyright. For instance, “The Night of the Living Dead” and “Carnival of Souls,” a Herk Harvey horror film that has since received a Criterion Collection release, both failed to display a copyright notice clearly enough in the credits.

That notification eventually ceased to be a requirement, but not before affecting Sam Peckinpah’s debut feature, “The Deadly Companions,” and “Charade.”

As a result of these lapses, many of the films proliferated in quick-and-dirty editions on home video.
Launch media viewer
A scene from “Night of the Living Dead,” a horror film directed by George Romero from 1968. Pictorial Parade/Getty Images

These releases vary widely in quality; some budget releases from Alpha Video, for example, use rough-and-ready prints for their source material. But others have received deluxe treatment as part of elaborate restorations.

For the Library of Congress, such films hold special appeal precisely because of their neglect.

“We typically prioritize the preservation of public domain titles here because we figure if we don’t, then no one is likely to,” Mr. Mashon wrote.

These efforts can lead to partnerships resulting in superior home-video versions. “Fear and Desire” and “The Hitch-Hiker” (by Ida Lupino) now exist on remastered editions from Kino Lorber in collaboration with the Library of Congress. Even bargain-bin releases, Mr. Goldstein says, provide an audience for lesser-known titles.

To further complicate matters, certain movies involve components with their own copyrights.

“It’s a Wonderful Life” became a fixture on television after apparently falling into the public domain, but it was often broadcast using substandard prints. Eventually, the film was brought back into the copyright fold partly via the 1939 short story on which it was based.

Oddly, even though Hitchcock’s early films have rights holders, that does not appear to have stopped versions from going on the Internet. “The 39 Steps,” “The Lodger” and others are online as supposed examples of public-domain works.

“This is an issue about rights holders policing their material on the Internet,” Bryony Dixon, curator of silent film at the BFI National Archive, wrote in an email. “A lot of the time this is not worth the labor involved.”

The issue may be increasingly moot as viewers become more accustomed to high-definition quality, which restorations like those by the British Film Institute and the Library of Congress make possible. The public domain prints of the films in the “Hitchcock 9” series, for instance, are a distant memory.

“These are now the definitive versions of the films,” Mr. Dixon wrote.

[didi-5]

Off topic slightly, but per the previous post, Bryony Dixon from the BFI is a woman ...

[dr.giraud]

The story has a peculiar "public domain = bad" odor to it.

[entredeuxguerres]

The story has a peculiar "public domain = bad" odor to it.

Less peculiar than stupid...or mercenary, maybe, if the writer is connected to the film industry. If PD equals "purgatory," might Central Park be considered the same, being open to the public without charge for admission?

[precode]

The story has a peculiar "public domain = bad" odor to it.

Less peculiar than stupid...or mercenary, maybe, if the writer is connected to the film industry. If PD equals "purgatory," might Central Park be considered the same, being open to the public without charge for admission?

Not to mention that up until a few years ago, almost all silent films on DVD were PD titles, as the copyright holders (i.e., the studios) didn't want to spend money releasing titles they felt wouldn't sell well. Fortunately, the situation has gotten a bit better...but not that much.

Mike S.

[silentmovies742]

As with all things of this type, nothing is ever black and white. While the public domain status of The General means that sub-standard copies are floating around, the public domain status of other silent movies mean that we get to see them released on DVD - something that would never happen if they were still under copyright. Going by the amount of silent films still in copyright being bootlegged on ioffer and ebay these days, I wonder if the studios even care that this is happening anymore when they are films they have no intention of releasing and earning money from anyway, and whether the copyright status for most of these films is totally pointless because of that.

[sepiatone]

It's always the same films the LoC includes on lists. A lot of those films have been available from bargain bins since the Betamax-VHS days. I love the LoC but they seem to always give gusto to the umpteenth restoration of films like "Gone With The Wind" or something.
This 1916 film was listed as being held by the LoC in 1978. Even if it was in nitrate it should have got an immediate safety preservation because of its age. Now according to the new database it's lost. Just what other neglected treats are lost by archives?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Constance-Colli ... 2ec89fa716" target="_blank" target="_blank