So I assume everyone who wants to copy a title that can't replace is doing
all of the above.
Kind of reminds of a great T shirt from the Northwestern Women's Law
School Student Association which read : Have You Ever Met a "reasonable
-- Jessica Rosner Kino International 333 W 39th St. 503 NY NY 10018 firstname.lastname@example.org
> From: Deg Farrelly <DEG.FARRELLY@asu.edu> > Reply-To: email@example.com > Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:00:08 -0700 (PDT) > To: Multiple recipients of list <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Subject: RE: How bout this one > > 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: email@example.com > > > ********** > > Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:41:35 -0400 > From: Jessica Rosner <firstname.lastname@example.org> > To: videolib <email@example.com> > 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. >