Re: How bout this one

Jessica Rosner (
Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:39:33 -0700 (PDT)

I am STILL waiting for my copyright friend ( who I think is on his way to
AMIA ) to give an opinion, my memory of when I asked him about this section
a while back is that it applied to SOUND recordings.
Again I don't see any way such a scenario would hold up in court because
it would give cart blanch to copy anything that goes out of print so long as
your copy is going bad.
Also two points on "reasonable" price & effort
Some very rare out of print tapes have sold for over $500 . Who is to say if
this is " unreasonable " if that is the market price?
As for "effort" At a minimum you would have to conduct a Copyright search
for any title as just saying you can't locate the original company would
hardly be much. A standard copyright search costs around $75 if done
by Library of Congress and will take several months. You can also higher
a private researcher to do it faster but it might cost more. Depending on
the results of the search , you would have to proceed to see if you could
contact the copyright holder of record.

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

> From: Deg Farrelly <> > Reply-To: > Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:00:08 -0700 (PDT) > To: Multiple recipients of list <> > 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 > > > > 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: > > > ********** > > Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:41:35 -0400 > From: Jessica Rosner <> > To: videolib <> > 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. >