Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: Perpetual Copyright via revision (was: EldredAmicus)

[Ernest Miller <ernest.miller(at)aya.yale.edu>]

You raise some very interesting questions.  However, it is likely that 
many will have to be raised in the courts.  For a restoration, I would 
imagine courts would tend to opposed copyright extension, but that is 
not clear.  Star Wars, on the other hand, had creative work done to it, 
with plenty of new material.

Matt Perkins wrote:
> Hello -- me new guy.  IANAL.  You've stumbled onto
> something very interesting with the "Star Wars"
> question, whether the versions released in 1995, 1997
> or 2006 (?) qualify as new "works" wrt/term length.  
> 
> It's been industry-standard practice for distributors
> to include two copyright notices on most catalog DVDs:
> the year of first publication, and the year of DVD
> release.  This is typically in movies called "special
> editions," or "remasters"/"restorations."  It's almost
> never clear from the packaging exactly what the
> greater copyright date applies to.  The possibilities
> I can think of are:
> 
> 1.) the (remastered) film as a whole,
> 2.) newly-inserted/modified elements of the film,
> 3.) special features & supplements as a whole,
> 4.) presentation of special features & supplements (if
> compiled from works *fixed* well before first
> publication, like never-before-seen, on-the-set
> footage),
> 5.) DVD authorship content (and/or disc navigation
> programming).
> 
> Obviously (1) is of the most danger.  If Congress was
> content (and federal judges complicit) with enacting
> CTEA for film preservation, it's not a far step to
> suggest that a "new edition" copyright granted ONLY to
> keep an extant work in the marketplace might be
> understood as a legitimate exercise of the copyright
> power.  That defies the whole point of adding 20 years
> to the term (giving content owners an opportunity to
> recoup restoration costs), but it wouldn't be the
> first time Congressional intent has been ignored to
> advance an encroaching copyright power (COUGH!!
> elcomsoft).
> 
> We won't really know how all of this plays out until
> an old movie, say the 1996 restored "Vertigo," falls
> into the public domain.  That could be any of 
> 
> 2091 (CTEA, restoration defeats P.D.)
> 2071 (nixed CTEA, restoration defeats P.D.)
> 2053 (CTEA)
> 2052 (nixed CTEA, nixed '76, restoration defeats P.D.)
> 2033 (nixed CTEA)
> 2014 (nixed CTEA, nixed '76)
> 
> Given that the '76 Act is in no danger and most
> Senators will be dead before anyone begins to wonder,
> I'm sure Congress is in no particular rush to clarify
> this little question and risk PO'ing their benevolent
> patrons.  
> 
> --mattperkins/minneapolis
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
>