3 ms·

"It's a wonderful life" was released under 1909 rules. It came out in 1946, so was copyrighted until 1974. The owners (RKO) didn't renew the copyright, as it wa

"It's a wonderful life" was released under 1909 rules. It came out in 1946, so was copyrighted until 1974. The owners (RKO) didn't renew the copyright, as it was a failed film, it was well before home video, so why bother I guess. Thus in 1974 is became public domain, and all the networks could play it as many times as they wanted with no cost, and did so - making it a very popular film in the American cultural zeitgeist. In 1993 this was all undone though, and now only the owner (which is NBC) is allowed to show the classic film, because it was based on a story that is copyrighted (and NBC acquired the copyright) Copyright length are ridiculous. Any implication (we need copyright otherwise people won't create) that Philip Van Doren Stern wrote his story in 1943 because he felt he could capitalize on the rights of a derivative film in the cable tv and streaming era is laughable.

tptacek 6y ago
Philip Van Doren Stern sold the rights to his short story for the equivalent of about $150,000. Whatever he thought about the prospects for that story, the acquirer surely had had their own plans, and those plans funded the Stern's subsequent work and lifestyle. Knowing what we know now, Stern surely would have bargained harder and perhaps gotten more money from RKO --- as is the case in any business transaction where we're given perfect information about outcomes. But that doesn't change the underlying moral rights involved. I think this appeal to Stern is a pretty weak argument. Further: the argument about copyright lapsing on Its A Wonderful Life is misleading. RKO let the copyright lapse, but if they hadn't, it would properly have been copyrighted --- under the 1909 rules! --- until 2000.
- iso1631 6y ago
  If it hadn't lapsed it would have remained unloved at the bottom of a vault somewhere and not become a cultural icon.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    If RKO hadn't bought the rights to it for $150,000 (2020) practically none of us would have even heard about it, the same way we haven't heard of thousands of other short stories from the first half of the 20th Century.

tptacek 6y ago

Philip Van Doren Stern sold the rights to his short story for the equivalent of about $150,000. Whatever he thought about the prospects for that story, the acquirer surely had had their own plans, and those plans funded the Stern's subsequent work and lifestyle. Knowing what we know now, Stern surely would have bargained harder and perhaps gotten more money from RKO --- as is the case in any business transaction where we're given perfect information about outcomes. But that doesn't change the underlying moral rights involved. I think this appeal to Stern is a pretty weak argument. Further: the argument about copyright lapsing on Its A Wonderful Life is misleading. RKO let the copyright lapse, but if they hadn't, it would properly have been copyrighted --- under the 1909 rules! --- until 2000.

iso1631 6y ago
If it hadn't lapsed it would have remained unloved at the bottom of a vault somewhere and not become a cultural icon.
- tptacek 6y ago
  If RKO hadn't bought the rights to it for $150,000 (2020) practically none of us would have even heard about it, the same way we haven't heard of thousands of other short stories from the first half of the 20th Century.