3 ms·

> this version has the tugging on tails, but not the picking up and accordioning of the mother, so it's a falsified version I wondered if that puts the Corrido

by 22c 3y ago

> this version has the tugging on tails, but not the picking up and accordioning of the mother, so it's a falsified version I wondered if that puts the Corridor version in jeopardy in any way, given that the version they have posted was produced many years later. In my few minutes of research, it seems like the answer could be quite complicated and it would depend on whether or not the censorship process exceeds the threshold of originality. For example, I imagine if Disney had engaged in a significant colorization process of the original footage in the 50s that the resultant colorized footage would still be under copyright today. I do think that the process of removing footage could be considered a sufficiently creative endeavour. For example, if Kubrick released a re-cut version of Odyssey 5 years after the original, I would not expect the re-cut to enter public domain until 5 years after the original (even if the only difference was removal of certain scenes). If anyone could argue that censoring a film constitutes as an editorial creative process and thereby should be granted copyright protections, it's Disney.

tweetle_beetle 3y ago
Is this related to how mainstream music publishers have been churning out pointless remasters of albums made decades ago "to improve how they sound on modern devices", while dropping the licensing of the originals on digital music platforms (to buy and stream)?
- kragen 3y ago
  that would require music execs in 02020 to spend money today to guarantee their companies' profits in 02040, instead of spending it on buying cocaine for the next boy band, so it seems improbable
kragen 3y ago
wow, i didn't even think of that problem! by falsifying our cultural heritage you may gain the legal right to further suppress its publication and study. a harsher indictment of copyright is hard to imagine
- ttyprintk 3y ago
  According to the US copyright office, this is unsupported. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
  - 22c 3y ago
    Even reading that document, I think the answer is "it depends". For example, this[1] work is entirely derivative, created only using cuts from another piece of media and yet the resulting work is a complete departure and loses practically all meaning from the original. If Disney had done something like this years later using Steamboat Willie, I don't think there'd be any question that it should be considered a copyrightable piece of work and exceeds the threshold of originality. According to the Copyright Alliance[2]: > There is no requirement that the work be novel (as in patent law), unique, imaginative or inventive. A work need only demonstrate a very small amount of creativity in order to meet the originality requirement. If J.K. Rowling replaces the word "wand" with "wang"[3] in the Harry Potter series and publishes a new revision, has she created a new work? According to your link, yes, she has. If you upload Harry Potter "wang" edition to the internet after the original edition enters the public domain, have you violated the copyright on the "wang" edition? Well, I think it could be argued that you have! [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=694_jtbvJuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=694_jtbvJuY [2]: https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explained/copyright- https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explai... basics/requirements-for-copyright-protection/ [3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20080618113626/http://www.bash.org/?quote=111338 https://web.archive.org/web/20080618113626/http://www.bash.o...
    - ttyprintk 3y ago
      All good points. I posted the PDF but should have quoted, “it is not possible to extend the length of protection for a copyrighted work by creating a derivative.” But, I get your point: is it possible to practically extend a copyrighted work by defending a carefully-chosen derivative? I was surprised how broad this can go: the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Section 101: A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work." So, it appears I’m not clarifying anything. But, maybe we look at the things which are not derivative works. Let’s say a movie shows a copyrighted picture on the wall. There seems to be a six-second convention beyond which a production assistant would typically obtain permission. The Titanic story comes to mind: James Cameron paid for a particular painting shown in Titanic. It was re-released in 3D and he was asked to pay again. So, within the industry, his derivative work enjoys protection, but insider copyright agreements do not survive the derivation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3890204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3890204 https://archive.ph/VF2AR https://archive.ph/VF2AR
MichaelZuo 3y ago
This clearly can't be the case since then copyright could be extended for thousands of years just by purely cutting out scenes here and there.
- 22c 3y ago
  I think it entirely depends on if those cuts constitute the creation of something that could be considered a new piece of original work. Sometimes the removal of certain scenes from a movie could completely change the way you think about that movie, or completely change the overall tone.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    So this still seems like it would allow copyright to be extended for thousands of years? A 2 hour movie can easily be edited, significantly, a few dozen times.
    - kragen 3y ago
      only if nobody saves a copy of the unedited film a more serious risk is not having any way to save it or distribute it reliably; works that are too similar to copyright-restricted works tend to disappear into the memory hole on youtube and similar platforms, with no due process and no appeal. for now you can still get hard disks that don't automatically scan their contents against a youtube-style blacklist, and which can retain their contents for more than a few months when turned off because they aren't SSDs, but neither of those is likely to remain practical forever
ttyprintk 3y ago
Colorization might be interesting in court. If original colorization was actual manually painting animation cells, and 2023 colorization is applying the right parameters to Stable Diffusion, then maybe the manual effort is protected whereas mechanical is not.

by 22c 3y ago

tweetle_beetle 3y ago

Is this related to how mainstream music publishers have been churning out pointless remasters of albums made decades ago "to improve how they sound on modern devices", while dropping the licensing of the originals on digital music platforms (to buy and stream)?

kragen 3y ago
that would require music execs in 02020 to spend money today to guarantee their companies' profits in 02040, instead of spending it on buying cocaine for the next boy band, so it seems improbable

kragen 3y ago

wow, i didn't even think of that problem! by falsifying our cultural heritage you may gain the legal right to further suppress its publication and study. a harsher indictment of copyright is hard to imagine

ttyprintk 3y ago
According to the US copyright office, this is unsupported. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
- 22c 3y ago
  Even reading that document, I think the answer is "it depends". For example, this[1] work is entirely derivative, created only using cuts from another piece of media and yet the resulting work is a complete departure and loses practically all meaning from the original. If Disney had done something like this years later using Steamboat Willie, I don't think there'd be any question that it should be considered a copyrightable piece of work and exceeds the threshold of originality. According to the Copyright Alliance[2]: > There is no requirement that the work be novel (as in patent law), unique, imaginative or inventive. A work need only demonstrate a very small amount of creativity in order to meet the originality requirement. If J.K. Rowling replaces the word "wand" with "wang"[3] in the Harry Potter series and publishes a new revision, has she created a new work? According to your link, yes, she has. If you upload Harry Potter "wang" edition to the internet after the original edition enters the public domain, have you violated the copyright on the "wang" edition? Well, I think it could be argued that you have! [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=694_jtbvJuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=694_jtbvJuY [2]: https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explained/copyright- https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explai... basics/requirements-for-copyright-protection/ [3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20080618113626/http://www.bash.org/?quote=111338 https://web.archive.org/web/20080618113626/http://www.bash.o...
  - ttyprintk 3y ago
    All good points. I posted the PDF but should have quoted, “it is not possible to extend the length of protection for a copyrighted work by creating a derivative.” But, I get your point: is it possible to practically extend a copyrighted work by defending a carefully-chosen derivative? I was surprised how broad this can go: the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Section 101: A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work." So, it appears I’m not clarifying anything. But, maybe we look at the things which are not derivative works. Let’s say a movie shows a copyrighted picture on the wall. There seems to be a six-second convention beyond which a production assistant would typically obtain permission. The Titanic story comes to mind: James Cameron paid for a particular painting shown in Titanic. It was re-released in 3D and he was asked to pay again. So, within the industry, his derivative work enjoys protection, but insider copyright agreements do not survive the derivation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3890204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3890204 https://archive.ph/VF2AR https://archive.ph/VF2AR

MichaelZuo 3y ago

This clearly can't be the case since then copyright could be extended for thousands of years just by purely cutting out scenes here and there.

22c 3y ago
I think it entirely depends on if those cuts constitute the creation of something that could be considered a new piece of original work. Sometimes the removal of certain scenes from a movie could completely change the way you think about that movie, or completely change the overall tone.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  So this still seems like it would allow copyright to be extended for thousands of years? A 2 hour movie can easily be edited, significantly, a few dozen times.
  - kragen 3y ago
    only if nobody saves a copy of the unedited film a more serious risk is not having any way to save it or distribute it reliably; works that are too similar to copyright-restricted works tend to disappear into the memory hole on youtube and similar platforms, with no due process and no appeal. for now you can still get hard disks that don't automatically scan their contents against a youtube-style blacklist, and which can retain their contents for more than a few months when turned off because they aren't SSDs, but neither of those is likely to remain practical forever

ttyprintk 3y ago

Colorization might be interesting in court. If original colorization was actual manually painting animation cells, and 2023 colorization is applying the right parameters to Stable Diffusion, then maybe the manual effort is protected whereas mechanical is not.