Talk:List of films in the public domain in the United States/2016

My Man Godfrey

PD status discussed at Talk:My Man Godfrey#PD_status. -- GreenC 16:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We seem to have a precedent of including works that are multilayed with underlying copyright by including a note to that effect. I added a note for this film, as done for It's a Wonderful Life and some others. -- GreenC 16:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Metropolis and M?

Aren't Fritz Lang's movies Metropolis (1927 film) and M (1931 film) in the public domain??? --RThompson82 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Like most films of non-American origin, they had their US copyright restored by the URAA, to the end of 2022 and 2026 respectively. The process is explicitly explained on the Metropolis page. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Klansman

It's unclear what the copyright status is. Many unreliable sources claim PD but that is not uncommon, even when a film is not PD. A search of Google Books didn't find anything reliable. This message forum discussion says copyright is owned by Paramount. It states there is a PD version which is cut, while only Paramount has released an uncut restored version. Given uncertainty Wikipedia probably shouldn't factually state the film is PD - and without a reliable source, we probably shouldn't say anything at all one way or another. Comments? @Hitcher vs. Candyman: -- GreenC 02:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I find it extremely unlikely that a major film starring Lee Marvin and Richard Burton released by Paramount in 1974 would not be still under copyright. Copyright renewal was not required for works published since 1964 so it would not have lapsed if it ever existed. The only way it could not have existed is if it was published without a compliant copyright notice. Given the implausibility that Paramount would have stuffed up copyright on a 1970s release I think we need to know the grounds for its PD status before adding it to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Just discovered this thread -- it says there was a made for TV cut version and they released it without a valid copyright notice (presumably they cut the copyright notice, also - oops). Thus the full length movie is copyright, but the made for TV cut version is PD. What do you think? -- GreenC 05:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't really say on that particular point, but I'm not sure it's all that relevant: the film was based on a 1967 book which is presumably still under copyright, so in that sense the derivative copyright would prevent it from falling into the public domain per It's a Wonderful Life. Betty Logan (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. According to this: "Films are often based on books, plays, or other works that may maintain copyright. If the pre-existing work is protected, than rightly or wrongly, it has generally been determined that the derived film is also protected." -- GreenC 16:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That just reads like the standard Archive.org wishful-thinking/straw-grasping. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Betty Logan:: I have no comment on what the copyright status is for The Klansman, However, I find it interesting on what you said about finding it "extremely unlikely that a major film starring Lee Marvin and Richard Burton released by Paramount in 1974 would not be still under copyright." I say that because there is another major film released in 1971 by United Artists which, in my opinion, I believe to be in the PD. The film is called Born to Win and it features an early appearance of Robert De Niro. I have added it to the list, but if the source I used for it is unreliable, then by all means remove it from the list just like The Klansman.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I spent a while looking for sources and can't find anything. Born to Win is complicated as there have been multiple releases under different names and cuts (Addict and Born to Lose). Perhaps one of those was broadcast on TV without proper copyright? It's hard to say why it has a reputation as a PD film. The studio was embarrassed by its subject (junkies), thus it didn't have wide release, played only a few weeks and little advertising. Maybe they intentionally "forgot" the copyright notice? All signs point to probable PD status but can't find anything to confirm. -- GreenC 05:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Does playing something on TV withough a copyright notice automatically invalidate it though? Wouldn't derivative copyright protect it as is the case with books e.g. a film which is not copyrighted may be protected by the derivative copyright of the book, so wouldn't a TV cut be protected by the derivative copyright of the theatrical version? I have no experience in copyright law so this is completely a layman interpretation. I am not inclined to go against what the sources say, but it would be interesting to know the nature of its PD status. The most famous example of a "modern" film bungling its copyright is Night of the Living Dead which failed to attach a copyright notice but I have a hard time believing a major Hollywood studio would make such an elementary error. And of course, films since 1964 haven't needed to renew their copyrights too, so I am extremely dubious when there is a claim that some 1970s American film distributed by a Hollywood studio "has fallen out of copyright". Good job they didn't bungle the coyright on Star Wars, eh? Betty Logan (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes Star Wars would have been truly epic. Always wondered what kind of reaction there is in the studio when they realize someone forgot or messed up the copyright notice. It's like when they lost a $125m Mars orbiter because someone used English units instead of metric when making a course correction. Anyway, the problem with Born to Win there are probably thousands of films claiming PD status and it's no problem finding Internet sites that casually say so, but it's harder to find convincing evidence. A number of times one source says PD but more investigation shows uncertainty. So the list says "only those with reliable sources". The question is if this is a reliable source for determining the copyright status of the film. I don't think so. -- GreenC 15:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Public domain films has been nominated for discussion

Category:Public domain films, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. GreenC 20:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)