|
Post by Diet Kolos on Dec 7, 2020 14:26:22 GMT -5
Considering that the copyright will expire on some of those films within the next 20-25ish years, and Wade and Susan have maybe a max 15 left in the tank, whoever the Heirs are will have a fairly narrow window to try and cash in, making me think that they probably will while they can.
|
|
|
Post by zombiewhacker on Dec 8, 2020 18:01:07 GMT -5
That was going to be next question -- namely, copyright expiration dates for the relevant films. Also, how many times can a copyright holder renew said claim?
For example, I read recently that the Doyle estate lost claim to all but the very last batch of Sherlock Holmes stories. Only these specific stories and new characters introduced in same (example: Dr. Watson's new wife) are owned by the Doyle estate, but Holmes, Watson, Moriarty et al are now PD.
|
|
|
Post by Diet Kolos on Dec 8, 2020 18:05:43 GMT -5
For American films, it's 95 years. Period. So RXM has until 2045. Still awhile, but it'll be here sooner than you think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2020 18:46:58 GMT -5
The Hart movies will enter public domain in 2051 (It Conquered the World) and 2052 (The Amazing Colossal Man, Terror from the Year 5000, and I Was a Teenage Werewolf). Attack of the (x2) Eye Creatures should enter public domain in 2062 at the latest, although I think it might be a more complicated case: isn't Hart's control of this film only through her rights to its predecessor, Invasion of the Saucer Men (1957)? There's no original 1967 copyright notice on any of the copies I've seen of Eye Creatures, which would suggest it'd be public domain if not for Hart's undisputed ownership of the 1957 film, so I guess that could be 2052 too. The Godzilla films are another complicated matter. And as long as Toho (or successor) continues to renew its trademark to the Godzilla name and likeness, it's unlikely the Godzilla episodes of MST3K will ever legally be released, even should the films enter U.S. public domain.
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Dec 8, 2020 21:10:40 GMT -5
Godzilla vs. Megalon technically already is in public domain in the US, or at least it was presumed that way. I'm assuming that's how it wound up on the show in the first place. From my understanding, Toho's ownership of Godzilla's trademark is what earned them back the rights to license that film out.
I agree that Hart's hold on Eye Creatures is likely tied to Saucer Men, otherwise it probably would have been long forgotten and long in public domain. I'm pretty sure Eye Creatures will be free once that film hits public domain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2020 13:47:06 GMT -5
Godzilla vs. Megalon technically already is in public domain in the US, or at least it was presumed that way. I'm assuming that's how it wound up on the show in the first place. From my understanding, Toho's ownership of Godzilla's trademark is what earned them back the rights to license that film out. I agree that Hart's hold on Eye Creatures is likely tied to Saucer Men, otherwise it probably would have been long forgotten and long in public domain. I'm pretty sure Eye Creatures will be free once that film hits public domain. Godzilla vs. Megalon and three other Godzilla movies (Ghidrah, Sea Monster, and Son of Godzilla) were all originally released in the U.S. without any copyright notice, and you're right, that's probably how some cheapjack video/TV distributor got it to Best Brains. According to the link in my previous comment, however, those films have always enjoyed copyright protection in the U.S. through a convoluted technicality: I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I'd bet that a company or individual that really wanted to release Godzilla vs Megalon could challenge Toho's U.S. rights to at least the English language version (or, more accurately, the edited version Cinema Shares released in 1976), but they'd have to contend with Toho's legal team. And then there's the trademark business on top of that, so it's really not worth it. Incidentally, Eye Creatures seems to be the only Larry Buchanan "movie" that didn't get the appropriate copyright notice. (Maybe because they just didn't care.) All the others I've checked (including Zontar -- which Hart should also have some rights to) have "(C) 1967, blah blah blah". And interestingly, the version of Eye Creatures that MST3K used was apparently from Wade Williams: you can barely make out his name in the new copyright notice, mostly obscured by the theater seats. I wonder if his good friend Susan (Hart) Hofheinz-Nicholson knows he once profited off one of "her" movies.
|
|
|
Post by CrowTrobotfan92 on Dec 10, 2020 10:25:45 GMT -5
The only reason we got those two Godzilla films on the show in the first place is because of Megalon’s incredibly complicated US rights stats (assumed to be public domain) and Sea Monster had the FVI treatment, which is most likely where they made a negotiation to show the film. Speculation, but at this point it just feels like it goes without saying now.
|
|
|
Post by Ford Prefect on Dec 11, 2020 23:36:09 GMT -5
Godzilla vs. Megalon technically already is in public domain in the US, or at least it was presumed that way. I'm assuming that's how it wound up on the show in the first place. From my understanding, Toho's ownership of Godzilla's trademark is what earned them back the rights to license that film out. I agree that Hart's hold on Eye Creatures is likely tied to Saucer Men, otherwise it probably would have been long forgotten and long in public domain. I'm pretty sure Eye Creatures will be free once that film hits public domain. Godzilla vs. Megalon and three other Godzilla movies (Ghidrah, Sea Monster, and Son of Godzilla) were all originally released in the U.S. without any copyright notice, and you're right, that's probably how some cheapjack video/TV distributor got it to Best Brains. According to the link in my previous comment, however, those films have always enjoyed copyright protection in the U.S. through a convoluted technicality: I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I'd bet that a company or individual that really wanted to release Godzilla vs Megalon could challenge Toho's U.S. rights to at least the English language version (or, more accurately, the edited version Cinema Shares released in 1976), but they'd have to contend with Toho's legal team. And then there's the trademark business on top of that, so it's really not worth it. Incidentally, Eye Creatures seems to be the only Larry Buchanan "movie" that didn't get the appropriate copyright notice. (Maybe because they just didn't care.) All the others I've checked (including Zontar -- which Hart should also have some rights to) have "(C) 1967, blah blah blah". And interestingly, the version of Eye Creatures that MST3K used was apparently from Wade Williams: you can barely make out his name in the new copyright notice, mostly obscured by the theater seats. I wonder if his good friend Susan (Hart) Hofheinz-Nicholson knows he once profited off one of "her" movies. At the beginning of the episode it says Wade Williams Productions. It's too bad he doesn't still control this since I doubt he holds the film in high regard like he does Rocketship XM. He'd be much more likely to license it to Shout.
|
|
|
Post by zombiewhacker on Dec 12, 2020 15:15:57 GMT -5
Wonder if that "derivative work" argument reflects a recent change in copyright laws.
I've probably mentioned this before, but George Romero's original Night of the Living Dead fell into PD due to the omission of a copyright notice on the theatrical prints. However, the copyright notice did appear on original prints of the film, titled Night of Anubis.
If the derivative work argument held sway for a dubbed, possibly re-edited release of a Japanese import, it should have also held for a domestic feature that was identical to the original in every way except for the title. Yet apparently it didn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2020 20:04:38 GMT -5
Wonder if that "derivative work" argument reflects a recent change in copyright laws. I've probably mentioned this before, but George Romero's original Night of the Living Dead fell into PD due to the omission of a copyright notice on the theatrical prints. However, the copyright notice did appear on original prints of the film, titled Night of Anubis. If the derivative work argument held sway for a dubbed, possibly re-edited release of a Japanese import, it should have also held for a domestic feature that was identical to the original in every way except for the title. Yet apparently it didn't. Perhaps the difference here is that "Night of Anubis" was never screened (not sure if this is the case?) and therefore doesn't count as a published work. In other words, the first version of the work that was published (Night of the Living Dead) lacked the proper copyright notice, thereby dooming it to public domain.
|
|
|
Post by timmy on Dec 13, 2020 17:31:02 GMT -5
Wonder if that "derivative work" argument reflects a recent change in copyright laws. I've probably mentioned this before, but George Romero's original Night of the Living Dead fell into PD due to the omission of a copyright notice on the theatrical prints. However, the copyright notice did appear on original prints of the film, titled Night of Anubis. If the derivative work argument held sway for a dubbed, possibly re-edited release of a Japanese import, it should have also held for a domestic feature that was identical to the original in every way except for the title. Yet apparently it didn't. Perhaps the difference here is that "Night of Anubis" was never screened (not sure if this is the case?) and therefore doesn't count as a published work. In other words, the first version of the work that was published (Night of the Living Dead) lacked the proper copyright notice, thereby dooming it to public domain. The Criterion Collection released that version as an extra: www.criterion.com/films/29331-night-of-the-living-dead
|
|
|
Post by zombiewhacker on Dec 14, 2020 12:25:33 GMT -5
Wonder if that "derivative work" argument reflects a recent change in copyright laws. I've probably mentioned this before, but George Romero's original Night of the Living Dead fell into PD due to the omission of a copyright notice on the theatrical prints. However, the copyright notice did appear on original prints of the film, titled Night of Anubis. If the derivative work argument held sway for a dubbed, possibly re-edited release of a Japanese import, it should have also held for a domestic feature that was identical to the original in every way except for the title. Yet apparently it didn't. Perhaps the difference here is that "Night of Anubis" was never screened (not sure if this is the case?) and therefore doesn't count as a published work. In other words, the first version of the work that was published (Night of the Living Dead) lacked the proper copyright notice, thereby dooming it to public domain. That's the first explanation I ever heard that makes any sense. I wouldn't be surprised if you're onto something there.
|
|
|
Post by zombiewhacker on Dec 14, 2020 12:26:51 GMT -5
Perhaps the difference here is that "Night of Anubis" was never screened (not sure if this is the case?) and therefore doesn't count as a published work. In other words, the first version of the work that was published (Night of the Living Dead) lacked the proper copyright notice, thereby dooming it to public domain. The Criterion Collection released that version as an extra: www.criterion.com/films/29331-night-of-the-living-deadThanks for the link. I wasn't aware there was a Criterion release. Wishlisted!
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Dec 14, 2020 12:37:48 GMT -5
You know, I own that Criterion disc, but I haven't cracked it open because i've seen the movie a million times.
I'm going to have to watch that.
|
|
|
Post by timmy on Dec 14, 2020 18:47:03 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. I wasn't aware there was a Criterion release. Wishlisted! thanks
|
|