Public Domain Question for DL's Legal Eagles

I don't know OP! What an interesting question though!

No. The posters, publicity material, production shots, are separate works with separate copyrights, and possibly separate copyright holders. It's possible that everything connected with a film has come out of copyright because so much time has passed, but simply because a film is in the public domain does not mean that peripheral works related to it are. For example, a film or book might be in the public domain because the copyright holder failed to renew the copyright, but the copyright holder of the production stills might have been more diligent and made sure that the photographs remained under copyright.

If it’s before a certain year, I think now it’s 1923, no matter the material, it’s in the public domain. There is a book for dummies for this.

There is also a couple at Duke University law school who are the ultimate authorities on this subject. Sonny Bono, when he was in the House, was instrumental in making the period a piece stays under copyright longer.

Yes, I read that about Sonny, R3, when I was googling for the answer (which I couldn't find, which is why I'm asking here). I guess his motivation was obvious.

There seems to be conflicting answers in R2 and R3. I would normally go looking for that "Dummies" book at the library, but... Coronavirus.

You can probably get the dummies book from Library Genesis-- a pirated ebook site. Use it only if you have an adblocker installed. I rip off books from it all the time, and I just checked and they have a lot of those dummies books.

I am not linking directly to the url so I don't get flagged as a spammer/hacker/Boris/etc.

The public domain issue is tricky. The text of Peter Rabbit went into public domain in the 1980s (?); however, Beatrix Potter's illustrations did not. I believe they are still protected because F. Warne & Co had them trademarked. The reverse is true of the Kewpie Doll. The Rose O'Neill illustrations are in public domain, but the doll is not.

I will add that trademarks and other protections are on the rise. You can have something that is 400 years old, but it is not in the public domain; e.g. The Mona Lisa. Museums are being ruthless about protections that take their collections out of the public domain.

Believe it or not, it's almost solely because of Disney Inc. that our copyright laws keep getting changed and material protected.

Public domain also keeps work out of the hands of people, because there is no way to know and you can put out a diritivite work only to find you're screwed. Different countries also have different lengths of copyright.

Up until 1998, the longest term that a work could receive was 75 years. That mean that works published in 1922 entered the public domain on 1 January 1998.

Later that year the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act added twenty years to the term of works that were still protected by copyright, but it did not restore copyright in works that had already entered the public domain.

But alas some things are never that simple. The song "Happy Birthday" was published in 1912 and was used used for twenty years but was only copyrighted in 1935. Just because a work was published in the US prior to 1923 does not mean it is in the public domain. The first authorized publication needs to have occurred before that date.

And there is no real list of what is or is not copyrighted. You have to use it and get sued to find out sometimes.

R9, thanks to Disney, the reverse of what you said is true. Bambi, a Life in the Woods was published in1923; however, thanks to Disney, the US copyright date is 1942 when the film was released even though the first American edition of the book is 1928.

And what exactly is the problem with copyrights in perpetuity?

I find most of the arguments for abolishing copyrights, reducing the term, or loosening the restrictions for "fair use" to be bogus - people essentially wanting free stuff or to make money on the backs of other people.

Now, should obtaining a copyright be a bit more difficult - perhaps.

But, the idea that society would "benefit" from allowing free access and use of copyrighted material is mostly people DEMANDING free stuff to make money. It's rare that the violator of copyrighted materials is magnanimously doing a public service without any expectation of financially benefiting themselves.

R11, funny you should write that. Years ago, I was involved with The Young Playwrights Festival. One of the scripts that was submitted (The playwrights were all high school students) had the premise of Disney obtaining the copyrights to Shakespeare (Or trademarking all of the important lines and speeches). The result, as you might expect was Shakespeare performed by Disney Princesses.

If nothing went into public domain, everything would be bought up by large corporate interests who would dictate exactly how thing would be, who would have access (If anyone). There would be no West Side Story, no Clueless. Heck, even half of Shakespeare was adapted form other plays.

The other issue is access. When the Berlin Wall fell. Corporations in the West bought East Germany companies specifically to suppress their patents. If copyrights were in perpetuity, anyone with money could buy up anything that he did not want the public to have access to. It would be a huge blow to free speech.

Under Fair Use - if a poster or still is used to promote a showing of the film it represents, it is okay.

If it is used as an illustration for something else, payment is due.

If you're using a James Dean Rebel Without A Cause poster to advertise an authorized showing of the film, you're fine.

If you're using a picture of James Dean in an ad for your jeans - you have to pay his family who owns the rights to his image.

R11 argues for everything being personal property. The countervaling argument is that these items become part of our culture. You decide which is more important. Our culture or one dead guy's estate.

The life of the creator plus 18 years, so that any minor children of the creator could be supported, is plenty.