Hacker News Reader

A work being in the public domain just means that if somebody claims that they have the copyright and sue you for distributing that work, you will prevail in court.

Restoration itself does not grant a new copyright. Other elements included in a restoration may be copyrighted e.g. new music or the graphic design of intertitles. A new translation is also copyrightable; essentially it's only the "original elements" that enter the public domain. Working around the anti-piracy measures of a blu-ray might be a crime, idk, but that's irrelevant to the copyright discussion; once you have a copy even if it came from an 'illicit' source, you're free to copy & distribute as you wish.

But yes, you need to acquire a copy first; if you can't find a work at all, how would you copy it, practically?

> If Planet Money Movies wanted to release their own version of Metropolis, how would they do it? Can you just go to Amazon, buy the Blu Ray, and somehow release your own?

Yes.

For example, wikipedia has a copy of Metrpolis and that's basically what happened

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metropolis_(1927).webm

Amazon Prime Video in fact has multiple low-quality versions of some films that have accidentally found their way into the public domain due to negligence of rightsholders, like John Wayne's McLintock!

Since it is the holiday season, reminds me of "It’s a Wonderful Life", which everyone thought was in the public domain, and it became a christmas tradition because it was all over the place. Well, eventually they dug up a copyright on some of the soundtrack.

That's an interesting angle. Wonder if that part of the movie could be rescored with something in the public domain so the rescored version could be distributed freely. It also reminds of the Commodore 64 game for 'Blade Runner' which was oddly stated to have been inspired by the soundtrack rather than by the movie itself. I've seen claims that they couldn't get a license to do a video game based on the movie, so being inspired by the soundtrack was a workaround. That never seemed legally grounded to me but copyright, especially the components of musical performances, gets really strange sometimes.

I mean yeah that would certainly be possible.

Thinking about it, there's just no business model in rescoring "It's a Wonderful Life". You want to get into a pricewar with a studio?

Anyway, hollywood hated this situation and was glad to see it under control. The issue is now viewing is pretty limited. NBC made it a prime time event.

(Mentioning some commodoretard's 'theory' on copyright detracts from your post, imo. They just didn't bother going after him)

It's a Wonderful Life the movie is in the public domain: https://blogs.loc.gov/copyright/2017/12/its-a-wonderful-life... the book which it was based on isn't nor its soundtrack as you mention.

IANAL but could someone produce a public domain version of this movie with a public domain soundtrack?

The copyright status of the original book makes that problematic. You'd have to somehow alter the recorded movie so that it doesn't reflect the creative content of the book anymore, which doesn't make much sense.

> If you have to make a new copy from the original reels, what if someone is hoarding them? Does that mean you could buy all the copies and prevent someone from releasing a public domain version?"

This part at least, yes. A work being in the public domain doesn't mean someone is obligated to help you redistribute it.

> If you have to make a new copy from the original reels, what if someone is hoarding them?

This is a legitimate problem in public domain releasing. If you're trying to release a really good public domain version then you might need access to very high quality source materials. With a movie it would obviously be nice to scan the camera negatives. If the studio has those negatives in a vault, then you're cooked.

Didn't Bill Gates or some others buy up thousands of old artworks and put them on ice so they could paywall the scans?

>What about the anti-piracy measures on the Blu Ray?

In the US, bypassing DRM is a crime even if the intended use is legal. There are exceptions for things like criticism and accessibility, but I don't believe they'd be relevant.

Maybe it'd be as simple as selling your new copies as "for review purposes" and it'd be legal, I'm not sure.

The ban on bypassing DRM only applies to copyright protection measures, and if a work is in the public domain there is no copyright protection on it. It does unambiguously affect fair use of copyrighted works, but just dumping fully-PD works that happen to reside on DRM-protected media ought to be OK.

It had been a while since I read the DMCA, and I was mistaken. It says "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under (copyright)" so it doesn't need an exemption.