Re: Canadian copyright p.d. question

Jessica Rosner (jrosner@kino.com)
Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:49:10 -0800 (PST)

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3065506704_19329445_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I responded to Randy directly yesterday since I had the day off but there
are some points
which should be made to the whole list. Sabotage is almost surely
copyrighted as are
VIRTUALLY ALL EUROPEAN FILMS. The Gatt treaty allowed films to be
retroactively copyrighted.
In short the "superlist" and any other resource on PD films is no longer
worth the paper it is written on as regards EUROPEAN films made after 1923.
All that stuff you THOUGHT was
PD like "M", Rules of the Game, Algiers etc. is NOT PD. Realistically no
one is checking on it but legally this stuff HAD BEEN RETROACTIVELY
COPYRIGHTED ( or can still be) so you proceed at your own risk

Now as to our northern neighbors and their nasty copyright laws. BE CAREFUL
!!!. As Oksana
pointed out there are a lot of people up there claiming rights THEY DON'T
have. Standard
Studio titles are pretty straightforward but foreign , independent and
silent films are very complicated. I sincerely doubt that more than 1/3 rd
of foreign language films are legally licensed by Canadian companies. Some
would go through US companies which often own
Canadian rights and I suspect the majority have NO distribution rights at
all in except
DIRECTLY from the European owner. Remember PPR rights are basically public
exhibition rights
NOT video rights and the majority of video companies ( other than studios)
do NOT get
public exhibition rights in their contracts ( actually Kino, New Yorker ,
Milestone and some of small guys often do but others do not). As for silent
films, I suspect fewer than thirty titles ( the sum total put out by the
studios) have companies that can legally license them in Canada. To the best
of my knowledge no one in Canada could for instance license Chaplin,
Keaton, Griffith
or Pickford films as some are PD and others are owned by companies in the
states. So
be don't let yourselves be ripped off and make sure whoever is selling these
licenses has
a legal contract

Regards

Jessica Rosner
Kino

From: "Randy Pitman" <vidlib@videolibrarian.com>
Reply-To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:28:29 -0800 (PST)
To: Multiple recipients of list <videolib@library.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Canadian copyright p.d. question

Dear Jessica, et al,

A university librarian from Canada sent me a 2-part re: public domain (first
part was whether a print source listing titles existed, and I refered her to
the o.p. "Film Superlist". If someone knows of a more current source, please
let me know). The second question concerned Hitchcock's "Sabotage," which
the librarian understood to be in the public domain, but that a local
company wants to charge the library for a 3-yr. public performance lease. I
know that p.d. status can change (especially on elements-added silent
films), but I'm unfamiliar with any special circumstances re: "Sabotage."
So, what does the think tank think :) ?

Randy Pitman
Publisher/Editor
Video Librarian
8705 Honeycomb Ct. NW
Seabeck, WA 98380
Tel: (800) 692-2270; Fax: (360) 830-9346
Email: vidlib@videolibrarian.com
Web: www.videolibrarian.com <http://www.videolibrarian.com>

--MS_Mac_OE_3065506704_19329445_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Re: Canadian copyright p.d. question I responded to Randy directly yesterday since I had the day off but there a= re some points
which should be made to the whole list. Sabotage is almost surely copyright= ed as are
VIRTUALLY ALL EUROPEAN FILMS. The Gatt treaty allowed films to be retroacti= vely copyrighted.
In short the "superlist" and any other resource on PD films is no= longer worth the paper it is written on as regards EUROPEAN films made afte= r 1923. All that stuff you THOUGHT was
PD like "M",  Rules of the Game, Algiers etc. is  NOT P= D. Realistically no one is checking on it but legally this stuff HAD BEEN RE= TROACTIVELY COPYRIGHTED ( or can still be) so you proceed at your own risk
Now as to our northern neighbors and their nasty copyright laws. BE CAREFUL= !!!. As Oksana
pointed out there are a lot of people up there claiming rights THEY DON'T h= ave. Standard
Studio titles are pretty straightforward but foreign , independent and sile= nt films are very complicated. I sincerely doubt that more than 1/3 rd  = ;of foreign language films are legally licensed by Canadian companies. Some = would go through US companies which often own
Canadian rights and I suspect the majority have NO distribution rights at a= ll in except
DIRECTLY from the European owner. Remember PPR rights are basically public = exhibition rights
NOT video rights and the majority of  video companies ( other than stu= dios) do NOT get
public exhibition rights in their contracts ( actually Kino, New Yorker , M= ilestone and some of small guys often do but others do not). As for silent f= ilms, I suspect fewer than thirty titles ( the sum total put out by the stud= ios) have companies that can legally license them in Canada. To the best of = my knowledge no one in Canada could for instance license  Chaplin, Keat= on, Griffith
or Pickford films  as some are PD and others are owned by companies in= the states. So
be don't let yourselves be ripped off and make sure whoever is selling thes= e licenses has
a legal contract

Regards

Jessica Rosner
Kino


From: "Randy Pitman" <vidlib@videolibrarian.com>
Reply-To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:28:29 -0800 (PST)
To: Multiple recipients of list <videolib@library.berkeley.edu>= ;
Subject: Canadian copyright p.d. question


Dear Jessica, et al,

A university librarian from Canada sent me a 2-part re: public domain (firs= t part was whether a print source listing titles existed, and I refered her = to the o.p. "Film Superlist". If someone knows of a more current s= ource, please let me know). The second question concerned Hitchcock's "= Sabotage," which the librarian understood to be in the public domain, b= ut that a local company wants to charge the library for a 3-yr. public perfo= rmance lease. I know that p.d. status can change (especially on elements-add= ed silent films), but I'm unfamiliar with any special circumstances re: &quo= t;Sabotage." So, what does the think tank think :) ?

Randy Pitman
Publisher/Editor
Video Librarian
8705 Honeycomb Ct. NW
Seabeck, WA 98380
Tel: (800) 692-2270; Fax: (360) 830-9346
Email: vidlib@videolibrarian.com
Web: www.videolibrarian.com <http://www.videolibrarian.com>



--MS_Mac_OE_3065506704_19329445_MIME_Part--