Missing Dr Who Article in the Guardian

[scotttelfer]

Nov 15, 2023 21:27:26 GMT anthonybartley said:

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.

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 idea or a memory in someone's head?

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 is also gone.

What parts? That's what you have been unable to explain. You don't lose your legal rights just because you don't have proof of it, you certainly make it more difficult to defend yourself if it ever came into question over a derivative work. If I physically destroy my driver's licence it makes things a lot harder if the cops pull me over and ask me to present it at the station, but I still passed my test and can request a replacement. Doctor Who is obviously a bad example, but if it was another TV show where there wasn't audio or scripts available to reference you'd have a much more difficult time showing that somebody copied you in court. You've destroyed some of the evidence that you are the copyright holder, that doesn't mean you destroyed your ownership of the rights.

Let's take the example of a song. You write it and perform it once to a crowd. You have copyright as the songwriter, if someone in the crowd copies it, performs a cover but claims they wrote it you'd better hope the rest of the crowd of that performance defends you because of your bad record keeping (generally in music it tends to be the opposite though, accusations of copying because you didn't keep proper records of your own process).

The BBC may have destroyed the original episodes, but they have plenty of paperwork around still to confirm they are the rights holders. They didn't need the episodes as evidence.

[anthonybartley]

What parts?

Everything except the music and the script (and specific characters in the script, like Daleks, Dr. Who, etc)

So the conclusion here is that, 'yes' - the very specific rights to an episode of Dr. Who do continue to breathe life long after the episode itself ceases to exist and is nothing more than a memory.

I guess a Google search would have helped here:

www.avvo.com/legal-answers/does-a-copyright-exist-for-a-destroyed-sculpture--1139016.html

"The basic answer though is that the fact that an original work of "authorship" (i.e. the sculpture) has been destroyed does NOT thereby defeat the copyrighted nature of the work itself. (cf. Aristotle's distinction between material and formal causes, circa 350 B.C.E.)"

It does get philosophical, but yeah - I truly admit defeat, although I am a little disappointed in humanity at the same time. But I'm sure a cup of tea and a biscuit will sort that out.

[scotttelfer]

Nov 15, 2023 21:59:35 GMT anthonybartley said:

What parts?

Everything except the music and the script (and specific characters in the script, like Daleks, Dr. Who, etc)

So the conclusion here is that, 'yes' - the very specific rights to an episode of Dr. Who do continue to breathe life long after the episode itself ceases to exist and is nothing more than a memory.

I guess a Google search would have helped here:

www.avvo.com/legal-answers/does-a-copyright-exist-for-a-destroyed-sculpture--1139016.html

"The basic answer though is that the fact that an original work of "authorship" (i.e. the sculpture) has been destroyed does NOT thereby defeat the copyrighted nature of the work itself. (cf. Aristotle's distinction between material and formal causes, circa 350 B.C.E.)"

It does get philosophical, but yeah - I truly admit defeat.

All one and the same "film copyright", in spite of Marco Polo's destruction Waris Hussein remains one of the authors for copyright purposes (and not just because he ordered a set of telesnaps as proof). Characters don't have separate copyrights. They might have trademarks which last indefinitely (as a rather notable example Steamboat Willie is going into the public domain on the 1st of January, Mickey Mouse will remain a trademark of Disney as long as they keep it up).

[George D]

A trademark to me is like a logo.

I get the concept of an image, even if it includes Mickey, as a trademark, but I'm kinda disappointed the law allows a character's usage in unlimited poses to be protected as a trademark

[markperry]

Reminds me of a Looney Tunes doco I watched when Friz Freleng broke away from Walt Disney his Bosko/Foxy and other characters were variations of Mickey Mouse until he was later able to his own creations.

[anthonybartley]

Puzzling over this situation this afternoon - I thought this makes an interesting example of what we're seeing vs. what we're not being told.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrhHCeRP03Q

Yes, the picture was shredded during an auction - but there's nothing to stop the buyer printing a copy of the undamaged painting (from a photo) and declaring that is the 'original' painting - and then tossing the shredded bits of paper in the bin.

My point is that even if it had been doused in petrol and set alight - it would never have really been destroyed. The only thing that bit the dust was a shredded copy of an image that the owner now possesses - so, in essence, it was only ever just a copy of something.

Curiously, the owner never went down this path and now the shredded bits are worth more than before

[John Green]

"She bought her Bridlington house from Margaret Hockney and was about to put the blind in the bin when the previous owner called by to collect mail and mentioned that the five glued-on drawings were by her brother. "I'm afraid I'd never heard of David Hockney," said Ms Gresham. Hockney went back to his fax machine in an attempt to undermine the sale. He sent a fresh set of copies of the drawings, which show his dachshunds and a California beach, to the auctioneers, saying: "The point of the faxes is that they were given away. They cannot be sold - how would I be paid?" Margaret Hockney, 64, said yesterday she was incredulous anyone would pay 10p, let alone £11,000, for photocopies which she had reduced to make them fit the blind." www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/14/martinwainwright

Though I suspect that we need a separate Copyright thread.

[anthonybartley]

That's exactly what I've been mulling over - many thanks for the link to the article.

A cracking read! Love the part about cutting them even more to "fit the blind" And the "I'm afraid I'd never heard of Mr. Hockney"... priceless.

Although David Hockney's response is somewhat surprising? He didn't come up with some sort of artistic defence, he just seemed to imply that he was upset because he wouldn't get paid.

Artists, eh?

[davetudor]

A much more accurately reported article in The Independent yesterday, thanks largely to including an interview with Paul Vanezis:

www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/doctor-who-missing-episodes-lost-anniversary-b2451834.html

(Hope you were quoted correctly, Paul!)

[Paul Vanezis]

Mostly.

I don't run Film is Fabulous and I obviously haven't been involved in the return of all 40 episodes. I have had an involvement in most of the recoveries, but not all, since 1988 which is what I said, but it would be easy for them to want to 'conflate' that little nugget.

Otherwise it is generally accurate.

Paul

[anthonybartley]

I wanted to bump this thread because I stumbled across this wonderful site yesterday evening.

It really does break down the ins and outs of copyright - and I was quite surprised to see that even some high level academics agree with what I've been harping on about for years now - that copyright, as it stands today, is doing more harm than good and will lead to the loss of many, many, works until there is a major overhaul (which, let's face it, is looking rather unlikely)

Anyway, I figure it might make an interesting read for anyone who was following this discussion a few months back:

web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2024/#term-extension

Oh... and Happy New Year - now let's all go out and make multiple copies of Steamboat Willie and upload them to the web to celebrate

[scotttelfer]

Jan 1, 2024 1:26:53 GMT anthonybartley said:

I wanted to bump this thread because I stumbled across this wonderful site yesterday evening.

It really does break down the ins and outs of copyright - and I was quite surprised to see that even some high level academics agree with what I've been harping on about for years now - that copyright, as it stands today, is doing more harm than good and will lead to the loss of many, many, works until there is a major overhaul (which, let's face it, is looking rather unlikely)

Anyway, I figure it might make an interesting read for anyone who was following this discussion a few months back:

web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2024/#term-extension

Oh... and Happy New Year - now let's all go out and make multiple copies of Steamboat Willie and upload them to the web to celebrate

I certainly have some concerns about points raised in the article:

First of all, the situation described of someone leaving a film to rot because its not in the public domain? Let's just call it exactly what it is, it's about wanting to make money off it, don't try to argue on the grounds of cultural preservation. If that was their priority, they'd have done the restoration and left it waiting for a few years. If you listen to experts talk about public domain, they are talking about works that are still decades out at this point, somebody sabotaging work today is in it for the wrong reasons.

Secondly, the complaints about other countries synchronising their copyright laws. Take a guess which country Duke University is in and what their attitude has been towards international copyright concerns historically. A simpler international system is ultimately in everyone's best interests. If you want to create public domain works, making sure that it is as widely accessible with minimal complications because your Winnie the Pooh horror movie being fine in the US but illegal in the UK is not exactly helpful (although again in that case: blatant cash grab that did a disservice to the low budget horror genre, but that's another matter entirely).

Ultimately though the biggest problem for me is that whenever someone complains about copyright terms being too long, it's virtually impossible to get any proper proposal of a genuinely good term that respects the original artists because the ultimate ambition is to just not have copyright at all in most cases I've come across. In the absence of any good faith I'll ultimately side with the artists over the people looking to make knock off versions.

[anthonybartley]

"Ultimately though the biggest problem for me is that whenever someone complains about copyright terms being too long, it's virtually impossible to get any proper proposal of a genuinely good term that respects the original artists because the ultimate ambition is to just not have copyright at all in most cases I've come across."

I would argue that 95 years after the author's death is a tad too long. This is where a hell of a lot of things will just rot away and never be seen again.

There's also the argument that who on earth will care about something 95 years from now? If 50 of us (for example) here are into something now - then we can rest assured that in 100 years from now that number might barely make single digits. So it's effectively killing off something that could be relevant now - and probably won't be in the future (or not as much)

25 years after the author's death sounds about right to me - with the option to extend if if the rights holders have shown a clear interest in maintaining said copyright. This is actually how it used to be and would ultimately solve everything. The only reason we have these insanely long (95 years) copyright extensions is to placate the likes of Disney who don't wish to let go of their intellectual property (at all, really)

I don't for one second believe the heirs of whoever created something should be entitled to the spoils. Copyright should be strictly tied to the entities that produced it - not someone born 50 years later and had no part in creating the original work. This argument that the "author's estate" should somehow benefit for no real reason is utter nonsense (to me at least)

So, yeah - 25 years after the author's death - with the right to extend it if it's an active IP (Star Wars, Disney, etc) = problem solved and so much work saved for the people who are actually interested in it and alive at the right time. This is a win/win situation for everyone. 

Worth pointing out that (as it does in the link I posted) - that those 'classic' Disney films we grew up watching are pretty much all based on works in the public domain.

I think we can all see the irony of the situation here.

I'm all for copyright - but not the way it is now, which is ultimately causing more harm than good.

I do wonder if people who are for the 95 years would hold the same opinion if we weren't in this current "wild west" situation where, yes, we know it's wrong, but it's okay, just chuck it on YouTube and you'll probably get away with it. If there was no YouTube (or equivalents) where people could illegally upload all these copyrighted works (owned by someone else) - would you still see it in the same light?


I suspect not. 

We'd have lots (and lots) of "Why can't I see this?" or "I've got it but I can't let you see it" or "it's rotting away in a film lab/someone's attic" etc, filling up pages across forums like this.

[John Wall]

I don’t wanna be a party pooper but Walt Disney died in the late 1960s.

[scotttelfer]

Jan 1, 2024 16:47:27 GMT John Wall said:

I don’t wanna be a party pooper but Walt Disney died in the late 1960s.

Which is part of my problem with it, the US is just a blanket 95 years no matter what before a certain date. The rest of the world is life of author + certain number of years. The US demands the rest of the world follows their terms (so Steamboat Willie goes public domain for everyone), but then ignores what everyone else does.