|
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
August 01, 2011 04:44:06pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: is this PD? |
It's likely covered by GATT/URAA. An invalid or missing copyright notice in a film will make a US film PD, but not foreign films.
|
Poster:
|
derkman96 |
Date:
|
August 01, 2011 06:21:46pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: is this PD? |
Ok. Well, it was worth a try. Thanks.
|
Poster:
|
OTRTim |
Date:
|
August 01, 2011 11:26:00pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: is this PD? |
If The Pyx is copyrighted because it's a foreign film, wouldn't Eternal Evil also be copyrighted? It's another Canadian film,but from 1985 and is missing a copyright notice. Eternal Evil is already here. How is Eternal Evil PD when The Pyx isn't?
|
Poster:
|
HektorT |
Date:
|
August 02, 2011 07:00:32am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: is this PD? |
Canadian films are most likely not protected by GATT a lot of the time. This is because of the fact that if a film is published in the USA within 30 days of its first publication abroad, then it is not protected by GATT.
For The Pyx, IMDB shows this:
Canada 13. September 1973
USA Oktober 1973
So if it was first published in the US on Oct 13, 1973 or earlier, it could be PD. But the invalid notice on a GATT film might mean that it is not due to one circuit court ruling.
This post was modified by HektorT on 2011-08-02 14:00:32
|
Poster:
|
derkman96 |
Date:
|
August 02, 2011 07:33:35am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: is this PD? |
According to RottenTomatoes The Pyx was released October First. However, it might just default to the first if the date in October wasn't known...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pyx/
|
Poster:
|
Moongleam |
Date:
|
August 02, 2011 12:14:58pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: is this PD? |
Is the movie under copyright in Canada? Perhaps the requirements for a valid copyright notice were different in Canada.
|
Poster:
|
HektorT |
Date:
|
August 02, 2011 04:26:58pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: is this PD? |
For non-US films GATT only affects their US copyright status. In most EU countries for example, having or not having a copyright notice has no bearing on the copyright of the film. The objective of GATT was to restore US copyrights for foreign films that had lost US copyright due to "overly complicated" copyright requirements in the US. Most of them are not PD in their own country. If they had been at the time of GATT they would not have been eligible for copyright restoration.
Films that were initially published overseas, but are not US publications, that aren't covered under GATT, are PD in the US but that doesn't mean they are PD in their country of creation.
Based on the date in Rotten Tomatoes I wouldn't have any problems using this as PD in the USA, but you should be aware of a 9th circuit court of Appels (covers 9 western states) ruling that says films initially published outside the US that have no copyright notice are considered never having been published in the US - i suppose that applies to an invalid notice as well. If you want to respect that ruling, it means the copyright on the film would be the same as some manuscript that somebody keeps in their drawer - 120 years (i think). That ruling is not valid for all of the USA and has never been challenged.
EDIT: better check that ruling, it might only apply to films that were never released in the US. if The Pyx was released in theaters or TV this may not apply
This post was modified by HektorT on 2011-08-02 23:26:58
|
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
August 02, 2011 04:16:55pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: is this PD? |
According to
Wikipedia, Canada's copyright length is the author's lifetime + 50 years. So it looks like it's still under copyright in Canada. I imagine the US respects Canada's law on this, but I don't know.
|
Poster:
|
HektorT |
Date:
|
August 02, 2011 04:19:06pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: is this PD? |
GATT came about because foreign copyright laws don't apply in the USA -- just like any other laws
|
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
August 02, 2011 08:28:51pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: is this PD? |
Yeah, I wasn't thinking when I wrote that last sentence. I certainly agree that the movie doesn't look like it's eligible for GATT.
|
Poster:
|
derkman96 |
Date:
|
August 06, 2011 09:37:13am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: is this PD? |
So if it isn't eligible for GATT what does that mean? Sorry, I wasn't quite following your conversation.
|
Poster:
|
OTRTim |
Date:
|
August 06, 2011 10:02:25am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: is this PD? |
It would be in the public domain if it isn't eligible for GATT. The Pyx contains an invalid copyright notice in the opening credits.
|
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
August 06, 2011 04:38:41pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: is this PD? |
Ya, I think it's safe to post.
|
Poster:
|
derkman96 |
Date:
|
August 06, 2011 05:28:52pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: is this PD? |
Awesome. I'll get on that.
TVNews
OpenLibrary