koberulz_24 t1_j2cv2la wrote
Reply to comment by cv5cv6 in Tomorrow is Public Domain Day in the US. What newly in the public domain movie will you be watching in 2023? by cv5cv6
That said, as someone argued on Blu-ray.com the fact that they're still covered by copyright means there's an incentive for studios and labels to put the effort into restorations that allow them to look as good as possible. If they were public domain we'd be putting up with blurry, scratched, nth-generation prints.
AlanMorlock t1_j2cwfx6 wrote
It's really only a tiny tiny fraction of films thst actually get thst kind of attention and being under copy right actually prevents the proliferation and increases the likelihood of films being lost entirely.
koberulz_24 t1_j2cyn8z wrote
Does it though? Look at everything put out by Warner Archive, Criterion, Eureka, etc. Imagine none of that exists...
AlanMorlock t1_j2d29y9 wrote
There are movies that Arrow and Criterion, shout etc would love to put out, that they've actively pursued for years but aren't allowed to do so because either the rights holders won't let them, or it's not even clear who the rights holders even are.
You can get bargain bin 100 movie DVD packs that contain Night of the Living Dead and Chaplin films or you can get really nice restorations from Criterion and Kino Lorber.
koberulz_24 t1_j2d2e3j wrote
Yes, but would they bother doing anything if a public domain label could just put the same film out for much cheaper?
AlanMorlock t1_j2d2q5s wrote
You can buy a real nice Criterion disc of Night of the Living Dead or The Kid or a Kino Lorber disc of Nosferstu with the original score.
koberulz_24 t1_j2d2wq0 wrote
Or Detour. Sure. But it's easier to manage as an occasional thing than it being their entire output. Even more so for labels where prestige and extras aren't a selling point.
Plus it'd be a return to the silent days where storing archival material is a waste of money because there's no future profit potential, so negatives would be junked and films would be lost at a far higher rate.
AlanMorlock t1_j2d33bx wrote
Im.not arguing against any copyright at all, but there's also not much argume t for thr current 95 year limit thst wouldn't hold just as much at 70 and thr current laws were pushed several times due to the interest of one specific studio and one specific property. It's pretty absurd.
koberulz_24 t1_j2d38fg wrote
For everything other than film, yes. But the expense of restoring film to look its best means it does actually benefit in a meaningful way. With a book, the words are the same regardless of how they're printed, and any complete copy of the book will give you enough to produce a perfect version no matter how crumpled or stained it might be.
OneGoodRib t1_j2czgof wrote
How does copyright increase the likelihood of films being lost entirely? Most films that I know of that are entirely lost would be public domain by now anyway because they're from the 20s, and they're not lost because they're copyrighted, rather because nobody bothered to preserve film back then, or else the only known copy got destroyed in a fire.
People can't even argue about the Disney vault anymore because they pretty much stopped "once it's in the vault it's gone forever" like 15 years ago, and especially don't bother with it now that Disney+ is a thing.
AlanMorlock t1_j2d0gnp wrote
The less a piece of media is able to circulate the higher chance it has of becoming lost.
Many of the films that are lost are lost because there was 1 copy held by the owner that were destroyed in various ways. There have been thousands of films destroyed in fires at the major studios, or destroyed by the studios on purpose. There are films and TV episodes thst only still exist because copies weren't returned according to policy or because they were pirated. Nosferatu was found in violation of Bram Stokers copyright and all copies were ordered destroyed. The film was nearly entirely lost on purpose.
Today, Warner Brothers properties not already pirated or on disc could very easily go up in smoke like the Batgirl movie if WB decides its in their interest.
The vast majority of Disney's holdings are not available on streaming.
Disney might not be interested in playing or releasing a given Fox film from 1951, but no one else is allowed to either.
Films becoming lost isn't just a 1920s problem. It's actually becoming a big issue for a lot of 90s independent film, the rights caught up in complex webs of defunct financiers. In some case the elements might be available but efforts to restore or distribute them are hindered by the legal situation even though no one is exploiting the copyright. Under the original copyright laws, unless intentionally renewed, the rights from movies from 1994 would already be lapsing and those materials would be freed up.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments