RE: How bout this one

Gary Handman (ghandman@library.berkeley.edu)
Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:15:33 -0700 (PDT)

You da man, Deg! I concur...

gary

At 01:00 PM 10/22/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Jessica has constructed a scenario regarding copying and asks if under these
>circumstances it is OK to copy a deteriorating print. I *think* her opinion
>is that it is NOT OK, since the distributors have chosen not to release (or
>re-release) a title in a particular format, and would never grant permission
>to make the copy.
>
>But the US Copyright Law says NOTHING about seeking *permission* to make the
>copy. The LAW grants the permission when specific criteria are met. Among
>those criteria are:
>
>lost, damaged or deteriorating copy
>copy in the collection
>unable to locate a *new* copy
>at a *reasonable* price
>after *reasonable* effort
>
>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/108.html
>
>In my opinion exercising the rights that the US Copyright law extends to
>lending libraries is not a violation of the rights of the copyright holder.
>
>
>The law makes no differentiation between feature or educational materials,
>fiction or non-fiction, etc. The fact that the title is a feature film is
>moot.
>
>And by the way... I personally happen to like the Moroder version of
>Metropolis (as long as the sound is turned off)
>
>: )
>
>
>
>deg farrelly, Associate Librarian
>Media/Communications Studies/Women's Studies
>Arizona State University West
>P.O. Box 37100
>Phoenix, Arizona 85069-7100
>Phone: 602.543.8522
>Email: deg@asu.edu
>
>
>**********
>
>Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:41:35 -0400
>From: Jessica Rosner <jrosner@kino.com>
>To: videolib <videolib@library.berkeley.edu>
>Subject: How bout this one
>
>Ok just for one an example.
>As most of you know Kino has acquired the rights to Metropolis in a
>beautifully restored version and it is UNDER copyright. Obviously any old
>copies film or video in collections are legit as they pre-date the 1996
>copyright under GATT. We have been TRYING to get current illegal videos and
>DVD's off the market but here is my question
>As many of you know there was a funky "Moroder" version released in the
>early 80's with a rock soundtrack. It has been out of print since about
>88 on video and later on film. Suppose you owned a 16mm print of this?
>You Can't EVER get permission from the rights holder because this version
>is no longer available. Moroder holds the music rights. Some people actually
>like this version. If a professor wanted a copy of this from a 16mm ( or
>detonating video) is it OK to make it , even though you are violating both
>the rights of the current copyright holder ( Kino) and the music rights?
>This is NOT on isolated question. Thousands and thousands of feature films
>which have been available on video and or 16mm are out of print. The studios
>or companies that own them have CHOSEN not to either keep them in print or
>put them out on DVD.
>I think if you started copying a bunch of out of print videos because they
>are unavailable because rights holder SPECICALLY DECIDES NOT TO RELEASE then
>you are knee deep in you know what.
>
>I believe there are two very different issues , films where you can't find
>the rights holder and films where the rights holder does not want a title
>out.If you really think courts would uphold your copying a studio owned film
>that they choose not to put out on DVD or VHS, good luck in court
>
>All of this said I think most of what you are talking about is
>educational material where YOU CAN'T FIND the rights holder after
>a serious effort. I just don't want this confused with feature
>material where right's holders for many different reasons
>can't or don't keep every title in print in the most convenient
>format.

Gary Handman
Director
Media Resources Center
Moffitt Library
UC Berkeley
ghandman@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC