4 ms·
in that regard, i think that the copyright actually makes things worse. at this point, the films are likely a liability (being so flammable); releasing them to
by jerrysievert 11y ago
in that regard, i think that the copyright actually makes things worse. at this point, the films are likely a liability (being so flammable); releasing them to the public domain is unlikely, due to costs and potential costs.
spending the time and money to get a good transfer likely won't mean much money before the copyright expires, thus making it economically a worse proposition.
i feel this is a case where law/finance and technology don't intersect.
- CookieMon 11y agothe transfer would be a "work" in its own right, and have its own copyright.
- nitrogen 11y agoAFAIK US copyright law does not provide a "sweat of the brow" copyright[0]. For example, a faithful restoration/reproduction of a public domain image was still public domain in [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#US_copyright_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#US_copyright... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel....
- unclenoriega 11y agoMaybe there's a case for creating a tax credit to release things like this or donate them somewhere like the Library of Congress.