Re: A mere photograph

On 5/2/97, Bob Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
>
> Larry Urbanski mentioned in passing "a prime example of copyright changes
> decreasing a rich public domain."
>
> I don't dispute the fact; only the implication that copyright decreasing
> the public domain is necessarily a bad thing. We should not assume that
> works are more readily available because they are in the public domain.
> Sometimes the copyright monopoly will encourage publication and
> distribution of a work by the owner and his licensees, while the same
> work might not be deemed as valuable or as marketable once it goes p.d.,
> and hence may ironically become LESS available to the public than it was
> when it was still under copyright.

In the case of the automatic renewal legislation many, many motion picture works are NOT available because they are NOT in the public domain. Virtually all of the Mcgraw hill educational films made prior to 1963 are in the public domain. These are used in stock footage by all types of film makers for commercials, documentaries, etc. needing "period' footage. Those films made after 1963 by Mcgraw Hill are now copyrighted for 47 more years. Ther is no encouragement by the "copyright monopoly" to release outdated educational films. My reference to a diminished public domain is that new authors could be using this material for new works.

What are some examples of works which, if they fell into public domain, would be abandoned by publishers of copyrighted material, AND also ignored by publishers of public domain material?

Larry Urbanski
American Film Heritage Association
Visit the "Opposing Copyright Extension" web page at <http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala> Received on Mon May 05 1997 - 18:04:21 GMT