Copyright

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

419Eater Admin Joined: 30 Sep 2003 Posts: 7469

I was searching eBay for a Video/DVD copy of 'Purple People Eater' for a relative, when I found the following listing:

PURPLE PEOPLE EATER

This guy is claiming that PPE is now a Public Domain film, but I disagree. Here's his disclaimer:

Quote:

Anything that is NOT protected under copyright law:- This includes ALL works published before 1923 AND under certain conditions, works published up to 1978. A �work� can be anything; a book, a play, music, photographs, movies etc��. Reproducing and repackaging public domain information & other creative works is NOT illegal. The reason is fairly simple. If you find, re-packaged and sell information that has fallen into the public domain you do not have to pay royalties or copyright fees on that work

The seller has also sold a few other "PD" films too.

As far as I am aware, this film is not PD (keeping in mind this film was released in 1988) and even it it were, some of the more famous songs it it are definitely not. Then again, it wouldn't be the 1st time I was dead wrong about something!

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:41 pm

He's telling you that the DVD sale is "risk free".

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:58 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

It can be complicated, but not really. 1988 = copyrighted.

[edit:]

among lots of other things Wikipedia wrote:

Copyright law does not restrict the owner of a copy from reselling legitimately obtained copies of copyrighted works, provided that those copies were originally produced by or with the permission of the copyright holder. It is therefore legal, for example, to resell a copyrighted book or CD. In the United States this is known as the first-sale doctrine, and was established by the courts to clarify the legality of reselling books in second-hand bookstores. Some countries may have parallel importation restrictions that allow the copyright holder to control the aftermarket. This may mean for example that a copy of a book that does not infringe copyright in the country where it was printed does infringe copyright in a country into which it is imported for retailing. The first-sale doctrine is known as exhaustion of rights in other countries and is a principle which also applies, though somewhat differently, to patent and trademark rights. It is important to note that the first-sale doctrine permits the transfer of the particular legitimate copy involved. It does not permit making or distributing additional copies.

In addition, copyright, in most cases, does not prohibit one from acts such as modifying, defacing, or destroying his or her own legitimately obtained copy of a copyrighted work, so long as duplication is not involved. However, in countries that implement moral rights, a copyright holder can in some cases successfully prevent the mutilation or destruction of a work that is publicly visible.

As far as I know, reselling of certain software is still not allowed, because yone technically does not buy the software per se, but only the right to use it.

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:05 pm

KD: Plus depending on the country you are in the copyright law can be different. Here in the US it seems every time Mickey Mouse is about to come into the public domain they change the length of the copyright!

I would suspect someone selling something and saying the copyright has expired is lying about it. If in fact it had expired you would probably be able to DL it off the net somewhere.

Trophy Videos · Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:55 am

Looking at the sellers feedack comments, there were some customers who said they were surprised that it was a copied disk. Most apparantly didn't know or didn't care.

Elite Baiter Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 1702

It most certainly is not public domain:

Copyright originally filed in 1987 expires +95 years time USA/Europe

The original song of 1953 is considered still under copyright, although its said to be public domain however its not on the public domain lists,

Copyrights from 1923 to 1963, if not renewed, and not made exempt from the renewal requirement (see above) have also expired. Any film before 1923 is now public domain.

As your film is 1988 (add 28 years to that before it can even be considered for public domain (even if the owner was killed in an airplane Razz

and even then they can renew for 47 more years by the company who made it)

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:13 am

Quote:

for a relative

yeah right

That's what customers say when they want Donny Osmand

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:48 am

It is still under copyright, whether the country of origin is in the US or the UK.

The minimum duration of copyright in the UK (based on the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act) is 25 years, and lists "Films" as 70 years.

As digital-one stated in an earlier post, the film is not in public domain based on US copyright law.

Copyright cannot be revoked; it is automatically granted to the "owner" of the work (as defined by the nature of the material).

It is perfectly legal to re-sell an original copy of a Work; it is also legal to back up a copy for personal use. In most cases, it is also legal to exhibit a copy for educational purposes; if this seller is making copies of the film and selling the copies, he is almost certainly in violation of all existing copyright law.

The disclaimer from this seller is certainly interesting. Sounds as if he's had problems before.

@ harrya,

I agree mate; who would want to admit to buying a film with Sheb Wooley in it Laughing

419Eater Admin Joined: 30 Sep 2003 Posts: 7469

harrya wrote:

That's what customers say when they want Donny Osmand

Funnily enough Harry, I had to buy tickets to a Donny Osmond gig for my wife a couple of years back. I don't think I was believed when I told the guy I wasn't getting them for myself! To be fair, Donny was a lot better than I thought he would be; I even tapped my foot along to 'Don't Love Me For Fun' Smile

419Eater Admin Joined: 30 Sep 2003 Posts: 7469

See how much of a Donny fan I am? I can't even get the title of one of his biggest hits right!

Baiting Guru Joined: 04 Jan 2006 Posts: 3193

The Man wrote:

every time Mickey Mouse is about to come into the public domain they change the length of the copyright!

Absolutely true, but I don't see why. The only stuff that would become PD is Steamboat Willie, and other similar aged films. The famous silhouette and the character itself is a trademark. You wouldn't get everyone jumping up and down on Disney using the mouse in "unfavourable" ways any more than it happens now. Mickey has changed over the years, so exploitation of the old images and films wouldn't do much harm. Yet Disney corrupt the copyright system to maintain control as if their livelihood depended on it. It doesn't.

My name is thud419, and I too bought Donny Osmond merchandise recently. It was for a "friend". No really, it wasn't for me. Honest.

To keep on-topic. There is no way that the film is PD; the disclaimer is a smoke-screen.

Elite Baiter Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 1702

speaking of mickey mouse the law we are all refering to is known as "the mickey mouse" law filed in cali by bono as in bono and cher 1998 or 6 but anyhow before he became a tree hugger he and the guys at disney did make a new law which affects copyright.

For a safe rule of thumb, anything that is before 1923 is free of copyright due to the changes in international copyright law and the bono law, between 1923 - 1963 its only copyright if the copyright was renewed - and many films appear on the official list of public domain works, AKA expired copyright database lol. look under film & tv & studio & sometimes director.

A film after 1963 has between 25(uk) and 28(usa) years by default, some works are exempt from ever needing to be renewed but others do need renewing, the earliest it could possibly become pd is 2013.

I looked at the advert the guys got a 100% positive feedback - so i dont think theres a problem with the listing itself, he might genuinely belive it is pd, or he is selling a COPY of the DVD = Piracy.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 35

Still though, just because he believes that it is PD does not cover his ass in any kind of courtroom setting. Something about ignorance of the law and all.

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:32 am

digital-one wrote:

I looked at the advert the guys got a 100% positive feedback - so i dont think theres a problem with the listing itself, he might genuinely belive it is pd

I disagree.

A seller who specialises in public domain property, and places heavy disclaimers in his listing would almost certainly know this item was not in public domain.

Having said that, mea culpa; I've bought one or two hard-to-find items on ebay, and was happy to get them Embarassed