|
Post by paulrogers on Mar 23, 2011 19:52:29 GMT
iam a newcomer to this forum, so the other day i had a good look at past threads, one it stated that copyright only lasts 50 years, is this true?, because if it is, once these missing episodes get to 50, they could start appearing for sale on ebay, could this be a possibility (assumming episodes are being hoarded)
|
|
|
Post by Steven Sigel on Mar 23, 2011 20:21:15 GMT
No. That is not true.
|
|
|
Post by Greg H on Mar 23, 2011 20:58:42 GMT
iam a newcomer to this forum, so the other day i had a good look at past threads, one it stated that copyright only lasts 50 years, is this true?, because if it is, once these missing episodes get to 50, they could start appearing for sale on ebay, could this be a possibility (assumming episodes are being hoarded) Doesn't Guarantee it because you read it on the net. There are some Disturbed Gimps putting all kinds of nonsense about!
|
|
|
Post by Tim Burrows on Mar 23, 2011 21:18:30 GMT
I'm just having to explain to my better half why I'm guffawing at a Dr Who Forum... hahaha.
|
|
|
Post by johnsaunders on Mar 23, 2011 23:36:41 GMT
Actually, this is somewhat right and I don't see and reason to laugh at the OP.
There are a bundle of rights included in the English (and EU) law concept of copyright. One of these is performers right which does, indeed, lapse after 50 years (see section 191 of the copyright designs and patents act 1988).
So, yes, some copyrights lapse after 50 years. Most copyrights don't.
However, copyright would not likely have much affect on the legality of the resale of a film print. The legal issues here are rather complex and I think beyond the scope of a Dr Who forum (unless anyone is really interested).
John
|
|
|
Post by Tim Burrows on Mar 24, 2011 0:18:10 GMT
I was amused by Greg H's post, not the original post, WHOEVER has posted it, and whoever has spoken in defence of it.
I can't believe that anyone is holding on to episodes because of fear of prosecution under copyright law if they try and sell them, seeing as no-one has been prosecuted by the BBC before for selling a duplicate of an existing episode on E-bay.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Belford on Mar 24, 2011 4:44:52 GMT
As we know from DVDs there are all kinds of copyright issues. The copyright in a broadcast may have expired after 50 years but that broadcast may include a script (a play or narration) that is covered by copyright until 70 years after the author's death (assuming the author is known). The same applies to music: the performance of a song may be out of copyright but the songwriter has copyright until 70 years after death.
There are probably some things you can do legally with old broadcasts: for instance use a clip of a play without any audio and also if it is used genuinely for the purposes of review you might be partly covered by that angle.
What you have to bear in mind is that if a copyright holder did decide to pursue you, it could cost you a lot of money to defend yourself. That's my interpretation of the situation anyway.
|
|
|
Post by paulrogers on Mar 24, 2011 8:26:44 GMT
hi, i read about the copyright issue on this forum. Tim i did not mean people are holding on to the episodes because of fear of prosecution (i realise this because when "The Archers" had an appeal for episodes i offered some from collection and they did not bat an eyelid) but, selling them when the copyright ran out to make money. And please Greg H, don't compare me to Darren/Jenny Ken etc. Seriously my time is far too valueable to waste starting pointless threads.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Belford on Mar 24, 2011 15:12:15 GMT
Establishing whether every element of a programme is out of copyright could be time consuming and difficult. Most programmes have mulitple copyright issues to check out.
For example, suppose a radio show from 1935 used as its theme tune a piece of music that had just been written by a composer who was then age 40, and he lived to be 75, dying in 1970. That music alone won't be out of copyright until 70 years after his death: 2040. If an author is unknown then the copyright period might be 70 years from the end of the year when the work was first performed. Currently that takes you back to work that is pre-1941.
There are probably very few UK radio and TV programmes that are entirely out of copyright.
Also if a programme has been restored in some way, in some cases there would be copyright in the restoration work done. So even if a show was out of copyright you couldn't just make a copy of a restored version that the BFI had put out on DVD or something like that. You could only sell copies made from an old print or recording.
Also I would guess that selling an original print of a BBC show on eBay (even if still in copyright) is different to selling a copy of it. An exception would be if it could be said to be 'stolen property' - eg. smuggled out by a member of staff! ;D
|
|
|
Post by ddavis on Apr 1, 2011 9:52:31 GMT
actually this whole discussion is barking up the wrong tree, to be honest! There's a bit of misconception here about what 'copyright' actually is. The clue is in the name The copyright subsists in many things (the video/film recording itself, the script, the music, the performances...), and that controls your right to make COPIES of them, or to broadcast those copies. Since hoarders won't tend to own their own television stations, there's not much chance of them broadcasting the episode when they shouldn't. What we are interested in here is the actual physical film print. There's no "copyright" in a film print - there's just ownership. It is the property of the BBC. Property ownership doesn't "expire" after a set timeframe. An analogous situation: you buy a copy of a Charles Dickens paperback from Waterstones, published by Penguin. The work itself is now public domain, so Penguin didn't have to pay Charles Dicken's descendents any royalties for printing new copies. You bought a copy, for £7.99, and you now own that physical copy. I can't go round to your house and burgle it, saying it's "out of copyright"! It's your property. Likewise, if your mum own's a Cliff Richard record from 1961. The phonographic copyright in the sound recording has expired now, in 2011. (Although the mechanical songwriting copyright in the song hasn't, not until 70 years after the songwriter dies). But your mum still owns that actual piece of vinyl that she bought in a record shop in 1961. Burglars aren't now free to steal it! All these physical film prints (or video tapes) of missing episodes are the property of the television station that made them. It doesn't matter who the copyright holders of the material recorded on them is, and whether than has expired or not.
|
|
|
Post by Steven Sigel on Apr 1, 2011 14:20:51 GMT
actually this whole discussion is barking up the wrong tree, to be honest! There's a bit of misconception here about what 'copyright' actually is. The clue is in the name The copyright subsists in many things (the video/film recording itself, the script, the music, the performances...), and that controls your right to make COPIES of them, or to broadcast those copies. Since hoarders won't tend to own their own television stations, there's not much chance of them broadcasting the episode when they shouldn't. What we are interested in here is the actual physical film print. There's no "copyright" in a film print - there's just ownership. It is the property of the BBC. Property ownership doesn't "expire" after a set timeframe. An analogous situation: you buy a copy of a Charles Dickens paperback from Waterstones, published by Penguin. The work itself is now public domain, so Penguin didn't have to pay Charles Dicken's descendents any royalties for printing new copies. You bought a copy, for £7.99, and you now own that physical copy. I can't go round to your house and burgle it, saying it's "out of copyright"! It's your property. Likewise, if your mum own's a Cliff Richard record from 1961. The phonographic copyright in the sound recording has expired now, in 2011. (Although the mechanical songwriting copyright in the song hasn't, not until 70 years after the songwriter dies). But your mum still owns that actual piece of vinyl that she bought in a record shop in 1961. Burglars aren't now free to steal it! All these physical film prints (or video tapes) of missing episodes are the property of the television station that made them. It doesn't matter who the copyright holders of the material recorded on them is, and whether than has expired or not. You are correct about the difference between copyright and physical ownership. However, the physical prints do NOT all belong to the people who made them. They could have been sold, given away etc... Dr. Who is a perfect example - Ian Levine purchased many 16mm prints of Dr. Who from the BBC. Once he did that, they became his property. He did not have the rights to screen them in public, but he did have the right to sell them to someone else like any other piece of property.
|
|
|
Post by ddavis on Apr 1, 2011 17:32:21 GMT
Fair point, yes - I was just assuming that all those episodes that might be with collectors are ones that were junked, but someone rescued them on the way to the landfill site.
As you point out, there might also be a few that the Beeb sold to individuals. Reading Molesworth's book, however, I didn't get the impression that this was common practice - indeed Ian Levine seemed to be their first ever private customer.
|
|
|
Post by Steven Sigel on Apr 1, 2011 18:21:22 GMT
In the US, thousands and thousands of 16mm prints were sold to collectors in the 80s and 90s when Bonded films closed down. Similarly in Australia.
|
|
|
Post by Neil Lambess on Apr 22, 2011 14:11:58 GMT
in new zealand in the 1980s several film collectors were prosecuted for having copyright material..... this had a detrimental effect on some collectors revealing what they have, which is lessening a bit now...
also when Bruce Grenville announced plans to sell his print of the lion at auction he did recieve a letter about the BBCs concerns that lead to some "bad publicity" about the BBCs attitude over copyright in NZ papers....thankfully that got sorted out happily and Bruce was allowed to sell the physical print but not the content.....
anyway Bruce is a member here so he can explain his reactions to the intial BBC contact better.....
|
|