|
|
Post by Tim Burrows on Nov 15, 2023 12:40:31 GMT
Aside from actors Roddy McDowall and Bob Monkhouse - who were trading copies of films primarily - I've never heard of anyone else of note being charged, arrested, hassled, etc for possession of reels of film cans. Why do they have to be "of note"? Regardless of the legal reality, there is a perception that merely owning 16mm or 35mm film is somehow illicit. I've had cause to interview or speak to quite a few film collectors recently and I've asked all of them if they, at some point, feared "the knock on the door" and most of them did or still do. Indeed, on my last podcast, one of the collectors stated (mistakenly) that it's "illegal" to own 16mm film. See Richard's reply. This is true, but the perception outlined above combined with tales of things being handed back and subsequently lost, or things being offered back and then the offer rejected makes for a barrier which is hard to overcome. As long as it's accurate, I agree. It seems the majority of collectors don't know that what they may have is rare. Indeed, the same collector I mentioned above hadn't given any thought to the future of one of his films which is unique. There's a couple of great interviews with Terry Burnett on the new Underwater Menace release and it seems he didn't have a clue about the rarity of his DW's and when he did, he handed them over. |
|
|
|
Post by anthonybartley on Nov 15, 2023 13:35:47 GMT
We also know that all this missing stuff was junked - Once the BBC junked it, it all became public domain. What absolute rubbish!  Hardly much of a counter-argument, however... Think logically: If I create something, it gets copyrighted, has its day in the sun - and then I 'intentionally' destroy it - How can copyright possibly continue to exist for something that doesn't exist anymore? In the eyes of the law - copyright surely died the moment it went into the landfill for all of the junked episodes (and not just Dr. Who, I mean everything that was junked) What's even more damning for the BBC is that they actually have the paper trail to prove they clearly wanted all this material to be definitively destroyed and reduced to nothing. Unless you can prove to me that copyright can 'rise beyond the grave' somehow? You can't produce something out of nothing. I'd love to read the counter-argument? |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Nov 15, 2023 13:41:12 GMT
What absolute rubbish! Hardly much of a counter-argument, however... Think logically: If I create something, it gets copyrighted, has its day in the sun - and then I 'intentionally' destroy it - How can copyright possibly continue to exist for something that doesn't exist anymore? In the eyes of the law - copyright surely died the moment it went into the landfill for all of the junked episodes (and not just Dr. Who, I mean everything) As I said, it's absolute rubbish. Even if the physical material is destroyed, the content still remains the copyright of the BBC. Choosing to dispose of the physical medium doesn't make one iota of difference. If you think that's how copyright works, you seriously need to educate yourself on the subject. |
|
|
|
Post by anthonybartley on Nov 15, 2023 13:57:22 GMT
If something was lost in a fire (and there have been many famous warehouse fires over the last hundred years) then sure, I agree. The copyright owners didn't intend for their work to be destroyed. In fact, just having a warehouse would be proof enough that they intended to keep on to what they own. But this is completely different. I don't see how you think content can somehow live on if, in the eyes of the law, there's all the paperwork to prove the owner didn't want it anymore. I'm guessing this just hasn't been tested in court. You maintain that copyright for content (not the actual thing) lives on even after a final definitive death of the work in question - I'm just saying it probably doesn't (but I also have no idea if I'm right, that I'll gladly admit) Clearly we must agree to disagree  (to clarify, I'm not talking about the general copyright applied to "Dr. Who" the character. etc. I'm just talking about each specific episode that was junked - and only them. I'm merely saying that (I believe, that possibly) the BBC cannot own the copyright to something they intentionally destroyed - and of which there is clear proof of their intention to not want it in any way shape or form anymore) |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Nov 15, 2023 14:10:50 GMT
I don't see how you think content can somehow live on if, in the eyes of the law, there's all the paperwork to prove the owner didn't want it anymore. No. The law states that the copyright continues. The simple truth is you're not right. You totally and utterly 100% wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by anthonybartley on Nov 15, 2023 14:17:36 GMT
I'm leaning towards nobody ever bothering to test this in court.
But if that's what you believe, so be it.
|
|
|
|
Post by George D on Nov 15, 2023 14:49:15 GMT
Aside from actors Roddy McDowall and Bob Monkhouse - who were trading copies of films primarily - I've never heard of anyone else of note being charged, arrested, hassled, etc for possession of reels of film cans. Most of us were not film collectors in the early 70s. Roddy McDowall made the mistake of talking about his collection on TV. I know one usa collector who told me the fbi showed up at his door asking for a list of films he had. He said he gave them a list of pd films and they went away. Also I heard a usa film dealer did go to jail. I'm not saying it happened to all. But it did happen to others. I perfer the amnesty per event. If you have a film , bring it back to be copied , and you get a amnesty certificate for the film. But others way may make more sense |
|
|
|
Post by scotttelfer on Nov 15, 2023 18:24:28 GMT
If something was lost in a fire (and there have been many famous warehouse fires over the last hundred years) then sure, I agree. The copyright owners didn't intend for their work to be destroyed. In fact, just having a warehouse would be proof enough that they intended to keep on to what they own. But this is completely different. I don't see how you think content can somehow live on if, in the eyes of the law, there's all the paperwork to prove the owner didn't want it anymore. I'm guessing this just hasn't been tested in court. You maintain that copyright for content (not the actual thing) lives on even after a final definitive death of the work in question - I'm just saying it probably doesn't (but I also have no idea if I'm right, that I'll gladly admit) Clearly we must agree to disagree (to clarify, I'm not talking about the general copyright applied to "Dr. Who" the character. etc. I'm just talking about each specific episode that was junked - and only them. I'm merely saying that (I believe, that possibly) the BBC cannot own the copyright to something they intentionally destroyed - and of which there is clear proof of their intention to not want it in any way shape or form anymore)
Well go ahead and try that in court, Auntie Beeb will wipe the floor with you. The film copies were destroyed because there was no way to financially exploit them any more, however it is rather laughable to suggest the BBC were completely done with those episodes when many of us are sitting with a collection of Target novelisations to prove otherwise.
You can't say "agree to disagree" when the legislation in question is publicly available for anyone to read. Copyright lasts until 70 years after the death of the last "author" which we are nowhere close to.
Just to make it very clear: as the original copyright holder, it is entirely within the BBC's power to decide that no copies should be made and the material itself be destroyed. Copyright extends beyond just the work itself, it also allows protections over derivative works which would have been a lot more important to a pre-recording era of the BBC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon Preddle on Nov 15, 2023 18:47:59 GMT
There is more than one "copyright" at play here. There is the copyright over each script - e.g. the story, the dialogue - which is held by the script writer or their estate, plus the copyright over the format, which is "Doctor Who" itself, which is held by the BBC. While the former could eventually expire after the 70 year limitation, the latter won't because it's an IP.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonybartley on Nov 15, 2023 19:42:29 GMT
"Just to make it very clear: as the original copyright holder, it is entirely within the BBC's power to decide that no copies should be made and the material itself be destroyed."
And that's where i'm saying they may have relinquished copyright, rendering the work in the public domain. I don't think has ever been tested?
The Target novels only prove they intended to keep the novels in print - it has no bearing on the video tapes or film prints as they're a completely different medium.
I also don't dispute the ownership of the script or the characters, or even the music? These would remain property of the BBC - but not the episode. So we're talking some sort of private/public ownership of sorts - if they did relinquish any rights to the episodes once they went out of their way to destroy them.
It's this very unusual situation where they set out to destroy them - and it's even documented - that makes me question all of this.
It almost seems to imply that the state (the law) is above the work itself. That even if I create something and then destroy it - I am somehow shackled to it even when it doesn't physically exist anymore. Even if I don't want it - it's still mine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2023 19:48:11 GMT
"Just to make it very clear: as the original copyright holder, it is entirely within the BBC's power to decide that no copies should be made and the material itself be destroyed." And that's where i'm saying they may have relinquished copyright, rendering the work in the public domain. I don't think has ever been tested? The Target novels only prove they intended to keep the novels in print - it has no bearing on the video tapes or film prints as they're a completely different medium. I also don't dispute the ownership of the script or the characters, or even the music? These would remain property of the BBC - but not the episode. So we're talking some sort of private/public ownership of sorts - if they did relinquish any rights to the episodes once they went out of their way to destroy them. It's this very unusual situation where they set out to destroy them - and it's even documented - that makes me question all of this. It almost seems to imply that the state (the law) is above the work itself. That even if I create something and then destroy it - I am somehow shackled to it even when it doesn't physically exist anymore. Even if I don't want it - it's still mine. Even IF they relinquished copyright OF the telerecordings and the footage within, everything else like the behind the scenes photos, telesnaps, music, soundtrack, telesnaps, costumes, and home media release would still be copyrighted by the BBC at least until 2038. |
|
|
|
Post by anthonybartley on Nov 15, 2023 20:31:59 GMT
Behind the scenes photos, telesnaps, and music - yes. All copyright their respective parties (photographer and musician)
Costumes? Nope, I don't think you can copyright clothes. The fashion industry is one of the strange anomalies where piracy is rife and the only thing you claim as your own is brand marking (Nike, Adidas, etc) You can't copyright a dress or a pair of trousers.
Home media? Goes back to the beginning: what parts of the work did they give up when they dumped them?
I don't suppose there are any copyright lawyers (or maybe you know one?) who could shed more light on this rather odd can of worms?
|
|
|
|
Post by scotttelfer on Nov 15, 2023 20:53:57 GMT
"Just to make it very clear: as the original copyright holder, it is entirely within the BBC's power to decide that no copies should be made and the material itself be destroyed." And that's where i'm saying they may have relinquished copyright, rendering the work in the public domain. I don't think has ever been tested? The Target novels only prove they intended to keep the novels in print - it has no bearing on the video tapes or film prints as they're a completely different medium. I also don't dispute the ownership of the script or the characters, or even the music? These would remain property of the BBC - but not the episode. So we're talking some sort of private/public ownership of sorts - if they did relinquish any rights to the episodes once they went out of their way to destroy them. It's this very unusual situation where they set out to destroy them - and it's even documented - that makes me question all of this. It almost seems to imply that the state (the law) is above the work itself. That even if I create something and then destroy it - I am somehow shackled to it even when it doesn't physically exist anymore. Even if I don't want it - it's still mine.
You very clearly don't understand how copyright works, so please either do some reading on the subject or read what those of us that have read up on the matter are telling you.
I will point out a simple flaw in your own argument there. You don't dispute that the BBC own the script or the music, so tell me how can it possibly be in the public domain if the BBC still own part of it? By its very nature the episode contains that music that the BBC own the rights to, it contains the script that the BBC own the rights to. It cannot possibly be public domain if the very foundations of what makes it an artistic work are not also.
And no, the public do not get some sort of share of it and even if they did what difference would it make? The broadcast copyrights of all of 60s Doctor Who has expired now, but the film copyright that protects it will still last for many decades more.
|
|
|
|
Post by scotttelfer on Nov 15, 2023 20:58:25 GMT
Home media? Goes back to the beginning: what parts of the work did they give up when they dumped them?
Okay here we go, another example of your nonsense. Home media releases are frequently pulled out of print. Does it magically become legal to make pirated copies to do as you please with because the BBC don't release VHS copies any more?
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonybartley on Nov 15, 2023 21:27:26 GMT
I've actually changed my opinion - I'm saying parts of it aren't in the public domain, but some part of it might be. Or are you quite sure that even if I create something, I then announce to the world that I wish destroy it, I then go ahead and destroy it in front of a crowd of people - but then, somehow, the copyright for that work still lives on even after its death? This is the worrying part - if what you say is true then the law is above the work and actually controls it - meaning it no longer belongs to the artist who created it. You can have the idea, but the state will tell you how long it lives for? It could also be twisted to such an extent that someone could say they created something that never existed in the first place - and claim legal ownership of it. Surely there has to be a tangible 'something' that we can point at? Not just what is now no more than an idea or a memory in someone's head? What you're saying is that when someone throws something away, they're not 'really' throwing it away? All you've done is stripped out some tangible components - but that doesn't mean that original 'something' still exists. It doesn't, it was destroyed. And whatever ownership the BBC had of it before - a part of that has also gone with it, surely? I should stress i'm just enjoying the discussion, it's a bit of fun distracting me from work - I'm not taking this that seriously, but it's really got me thinking about the possibilities of how the law can be interpreted in all these unusual ways. Bringing this back on topic - if it was how I believe it probably should be - then it would mean these scared collectors could claim ownership of the episode and get a cut of the profits and co-release it with the BBC. Now wouldn't that be a fair solution? The only snag is that I'm probably wrong |
|
