Topic: Not sure I understand copyright :)

[skeit]

This is just something I was wondering about for the past few years.  I'm wondering if someone can explain this to me.

Malice In The Palace was one of four shorts that found itself in the public domain c. 1960's, but Rumpus In The Harem is not.  Whereas Rumpus in the Harem is 60%-80% footage of Malice In The Palace, shouldn't those scenes (the ones reused in RIH) be still protected by copyright.

In other words, isn't only about 30% of MIP public domain???

I hope I didn't find a small loophole that will cause the mass recall of the thousands of cheap public domain Stooges box sets available at your local gas station and drug store.

[Moe Hailstone]

That is a good question.

Maybe there is a scene where someone is shown in one short, but isn't shown in the other and they have the rights to it?

I'm just throwing out my guess...and it's probably wrong.

I await the answer for this since I'm interested.   

[locoboymakesgood]

A copyright protects an actual piece of work. If we were to say the remakes of these shorts were public domain, then we'd also have Husbands Beware (Brideless Goom remake) and Rip, Sew, and Stich (Sing a Song of Six Pants). I could be wrong, but I don't believe the copyright extends to the content of the actual object (film, or whatever it may be). Meaning, a copyright for Malice In the Palice isn't the same copyright for Rumpus In the Harem, regardless of stock footage used.

Anyone know how the copyrights lapsed on these 4? I'm sure there's a thread somehwere here about it..

[busybuddy]

A copyright protects an actual piece of work. If we were to say the remakes of these shorts were public domain, then we'd also have Husbands Beware (Brideless Goom remake) and Rip, Sew, and Stich (Sing a Song of Six Pants). I could be wrong, but I don't believe the copyright extends to the content of the actual object (film, or whatever it may be). Meaning, a copyright for Malice In the Palice isn't the same copyright for Rumpus In the Harem, regardless of stock footage used.

Isn't this why so many Stooge tapes/DVD's have trailers for Orbit and Have Rocket, etc.? The movies have copyrights but the trailers don't.

[stooged and confused]

Many times, you'll see "this compilation c 2007" or some similar language. The scenes used in the remake were copyrighted for that particular title release (even though it is also copyrighted in another film). If the copyright expired, that footage is still part of that title, so it is not copyrighted in the public domain release, but it is in the title that had the copyright renewed. Very screwy (and tricky law).

[skeit]

Anyone know how the copyrights lapsed on these 4? I'm sure there's a thread somehwere here about it..

I think I read a few places that it was simply a clerical error by someone at Columbia.  I can imagine that, at the time, they were filing copyrights for several hundred different works and simply missed these four. 

Thanks for your thoughts so far. 

[TXShemp]

I had never heard that it was a clerical error. Thats interesting. I know that when you go into a Wal-Mart or Best Buy, you can see a dozen different colorful DVD boxes, with different photos and titles on the front, and you flip it over and its always the same 4 shorts I know by heart.