You're getting me a little out of my element here, and I'm going to call on
Terry Carroll to correct my mistakes. I also want to stress that all I know
about the WONDERFUL LIFE case is what I've read; I don't have any inside
knowledge, nor even a very sharp recollection of the details. All those
disclaimers having been noted, the significance of my point (b) is that,
under the 1909 act, the music and the film were likely to have been
copyrighted ("copyright" was a verb back then) at different times, and come
up for renewal at different times. At some point, whether by accident or
design, the studio failed to renew its copyright in the film, and the film
became public domain. Most people agree that that event was what led to the
film's revival, its resultant popularity as a "classic," and its status as a
holiday tradition. It was only after it had been public domain for a few
seasons that someone asserted copyright ownership in (all or a portion of)
the film's music score--which either had not yet come up for renewal or had
been properly renewed, and thus had remained in copyright despite the film's
entry into the public domain.
In the interest of full disclosure, I recently heard a very different story. (All of this is legend, it seems!) This story maintained that it was not a claim in the copyright in the film's music at all that caused the film to be "pulled back" from its public domain status. Rather--so the story goes--it was the fact that the original short story, on which the film was based, was still protected by copyright. Because the story was protected, the film--as a licensed derivative work--could not become public domain after all.
Take your pick.
In any event, to address your other question, if the "real issue" was work for hire, I'm not aware of that fact (although I can imagine a scenario in which, perhaps, the composer who wrote the music for the film was not an employee of the studio and thus retained the copyright in the music, which would explain why the music was kept in copyright even when the film went into public domain).
As to whether work for hire was an issue under the 1909 Copyright Act, I again defer to Terry, but my recollection is that work for hire was a common law doctrine that wasn't codified until (I think) the 1978 Act. Terry ....?
Robert C. Cumbow
Graham & Dunn PC
1420 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
Seattle, WA 98101-2390
206.340.9619
206.340.9599 fax
rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com
http://www.grahamdunn.com
Big law firm experience
> without the big law firm experienceŽ
-----Original Message-----
From: Earl H. Merry [mailto:earlgwo[_at_]bellsouth.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 6:37 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: It's A Wonderful Life: Copyright status
> rules as movie copyrights. It just so happens that in the case of "It's a
> Wonderful Life" the two got out of synch because
> (a) they had separate ownership, and (b) both of those copyrights were
under
> the 1909 copyright act, which required both registration and renewal in
> order to keep works protected by copyright.
Haven't been following this too closely. Robert, what is the significance of (b)? Did the copyright holder of the film (not the movie) fail to renew its copyright?
Or is the real issue work for hire / work not for hire?
Was work for hire an issue in the 1090 Copyright Act?
cheers,
ehm
> Robert C. Cumbow
> Graham & Dunn PC
> 1420 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
> Seattle, WA 98101-2390
> 206.340.9619
> 206.340.9599 fax
> rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com
> http://www.grahamdunn.com
>
> Big law firm experience
> > without the big law firm experienceŽ
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This email message may be protected by the attorney/client privilege, work
product doctrine or other confidentiality protection. If you believe that it
has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender
that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you.
Received on Sat Oct 28 2000 - 00:50:05 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:41 GMT