Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Mad Doctor (1933).webm

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:The Mad Doctor (1933).webm

[edit]

Per COM:CHARACTER, even though this film was not renewed, it is still a derivative of an earlier work (the Mickey Mouse character) and its distribution is still subject to the character's copyright. The Warner Bros v Avela ruling from 2011 confirmed that, and there was a person who was fined $500,000 for attempting to distribute cels of this very film (see http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/22/business/fi-mickey22/2 ) since it was still derivative of the still-copyrighted character. This could be undeleted in 2024 at the earliest, or perhaps 2029 (depends on if it is derivative of the Mickey Mouse character from Steamboat Willie, or if it also uses elements added by intermediate films which would still be under copyright). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The article of the LA Times says two things : (1) "the Disneys failed to renew copyright claims on that film" and (2) Brown was prohibited in 2008 to "market recreated animation cels" from that film. This should be related to the Warner Bros vs Avela litigation where "Warner Bros. contends that Avela has extracted images from the public domain materials and used them in new ways that infringe the copyrights in the associated films" [1]. I agree that it has been ruled "recreation" of cels is subject to the character's copyright, but the film itself is in the public domain. This may call for a warning on the use of the media file, such as 'beware the characters are copyrighted', but not for a deletion. From a broader perspective, this would not be the only case of a PD film incorporating non PD elements. — Racconish 📥 06:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of copyright on the movie did not make the Mickey Mouse character public domain, just the new expression in the movie. If any parts of the movie (or cels, recreated or directly copied) are derivative of the character, then distribution is still controlled by the copyright of the character. Same issue as in Russell v. Price, where a movie was not renewed, but the play it was based on had been renewed, and thus distribution of the movie was still prohibited. The Warner Bros v Avela case reached the same conclusion with the Tom & Jerry reproductions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same is mentioned in this William Patry blog post; several middle episodes of the Andy Griffith Show were not renewed on time, but they were still ruled derivative of the character copyright established by the earlier (still-copyrighted) episodes, and could not be copied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes and no. I agree with you the lack of copyright on the movie does not make the Mickey Mouse character public domain, but this is not what is at stake here. There is no more copyright on this film which has fallen in the public domain and the characters of the film are copyrighted. Hence it is right to say this film is in the public domain. But I agree it would be better to add a warning this does not imply an absence of copyright on the characters. — Racconish 📥 16:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no more copyright on the additional expression added by the film; that is the only expression which the copyright notice covered (and therefore that the lack of renewal released to the public domain). To the extent that the film copies expression from the character (or earlier still-copyrighted works), it is still a derivative work, and is still subject to the copyright of the original (which as you say remains valid), and as such, cannot be distributed. We do not have a license for the underlying copyright. Courts have now ruled repeatedly (and the 1909 Copyright Act basically said the same) that the copyright status of a derivative work does not change in any way the copyright status of the underlying work, so that remains intact, and the film remains a derivative work of a still-existing copyright. Some have argued that it should dedicate to the public domain at least as much expression of the original as is seen, but that is not how courts have ruled. Courts have only ruled that it served to publish any elements of an unpublished underlying work, such that copyright could not be made infinite by using this argument with an unpublished underlying work (which used to never lose copyright), but with a published underlying work the copyright of the original remains and still applies to derivative works. The Warner Bros v Avela ruled that even exact copies of Tom & Jerry posters could not be used for similar reasons, since the posters were published after the character copyright was published, and though the posters did not have a copyright notice, it was only the small amount of additional expression in the posters (over and above the general depiction of the cartoon characters) which lost its copyright. The Russell vs Price decision was exactly the same -- there was a copyrighted play, and a derivative movie which was not renewed, but distribution of the movie was still illegal because it was still a derivative work (of the play). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The one thing from the Warner Bros v. Avela ruling which might be the issue here was on the Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind posters. In those cases, the posters were published before the movies, so they were not derivative of anything, and therefore those can indeed be copied. The character copyright was created by the movies themselves though, so any use of them which deviated from exact copies -- such as the addition of a line from the movie -- ran the risk of evoking the character themselves and becoming a derivative work of the copyrighted character. Exact copies were allowed because those posters were not derivative works; they predated the character copyright. The quote you gave above came from that section of the ruling. In the Tom & Jerry section though, all but one of the posters in question came after the character copyright, and therefore were inherently derivative works. We also held above that the characters of Tom and Jerry are not in the public domain. In addition, because the characters achieved copyright protection through the short films before all but the first movie poster entered the public domain, and the later movie posters necessarily exhibit those characters, even the use of any movie poster but the first requires Warner Bros.’s authorization. That is unfortunately the parallel situation here -- the Mad Doctor came after the copyrighted character was published, and is still a derivative work, and any use still requires Disney's authorization. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to point out the situation here is quite different from the Avela case, which concerned public domain publicity material of a copyrighted film. But if your point is the fact this film is in the public domain does not imply the characters are, I agree. Why don't we try to find a constructive consensus on the wording of a caveat to clarify the fact the characters are not in the public domain ? — Racconish 📥 21:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because it's not just a caveat... copyright law gives the authors of underlying works control over derivative works. And the Mad Doctor film is a derivative work of the Mickey Mouse character. Or do you not think it is? All additional expression added by this film did become public domain, but that is not enough for us to distribute -- some expression is still copied from earlier Mickey Mouse films, and that expression did not become PD by the lack of renewal; it remains copyrighted. It's like a photo of a copyrighted sculpture where we have a license for the photo but not the sculpture. The face that the photo became PD before the sculpture doesn't change the derivative rights of the sculptor.
          • The part you quoted was the Warner Bros claim, but the actual ruling was a bit different (and for us, critically different). They ruled that Warner Bros didn't even need to allow straight copying of derivative works, even if copyright had lapsed on the secondary work. The court did say that their statement as you quoted above amounted for authorization for that one particular use for Avela for those posters -- i.e. that became the license, so Avela was not guilty of infringement for a couple of the uses in question -- but that does not apply for anyone other than Avela. Anyone else would still need authorization from Warner Bros to distribute even exact copies of the Tom & Jerry posters which were first published after the original short film. It was only works which were published before the character copyright was created which can be copied without authorization. That is the distinction in the ruling given in the part I quoted. The Pygmalion film was the same basic ruling -- even though the film itself was sort of "public domain" because its copyright was not renewed (just like Mad Doctor), it still wasn't really public domain since the author of the play still had a copyright on the underlying work, which was not affected by the movie going out of copyright, so distributing the film was still copyright infringement. Only part of the movie became PD, basically, and it's still not legal to distribute the whole thing. That to me is the exact situation here -- I'm sure there are many frames or even clips which don't involve Mickey Mouse, and as long as they only contain the new expression added by that film, those parts are probably OK. But any parts which involve the Mickey Mouse character are still derivative and still can't be copied. As the Patry article states, it's a situation where "public domain" really isn't "public domain". It kinda sucks, but there have been multiple court rulings at this point which say that, and I'm not aware of any court cases which went the other way. A derivative work, by definition, involves some expression copied from an earlier work combined with new expression. It is only the latter part which is covered by the copyright of the derivative work, and it is only that latter part which becomes public domain if that copyright lapses. The part which was copied from the earlier work remains copyrighted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Carl, I do understand your concern, but I still disagree. Yes, according to section 7 of the 1909 act, the publication of Mad Doctor and afterwards its falling into the public domain did not affect prior copyrights on the characters and yes, this provision gave legal basis to forbid the publication of cels taken from that film after it has fallen in the public domain. But no, we cannot deny this film as a whole is above the threshold of originality and was entitled to copyright per the same text. We have to live with the fact it is an original work of art as a whole although it incorporates some preexisting elements such as the graphic identification of some characters in some cels. I therefore repeat my proposition to clarify in the 'permissions' section the fact that although this film has fallen into the public domain, some of its elements deriving from previous copyrighted works may still be protected. I suggest at this point we let other contributors express their point of view. — Racconish 📥 04:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, it might be time for others to chime in. Most of what you say above is perfectly true... obviously Mad Doctor had a great deal of new copyrightable expression and that copyright expired after 28 years. The problem, as I see it, that the "elements deriving from previous copyrighted works" means we also need a license for those elements, just like any other derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete — I agree with Carl, when a film falls into the public domain due to lack of renewal this does not automatically also place any separately registered copyrighted works depicted in the movie into the public domain, only the new creative elements unique to the film become public domain. For example, imagine an artist sculpts a statue in 1928, registers its copyright, and puts the statue on display in his home. In 1933 a filmmaker, with the permission of the artist, creates a short film lovingly depicting the statue with a voice-over describing the features of the statue. If the filmmaker failed to renew the film's copyright, but the artist did renew the statue's copyright, can I start selling copies of the film without the permission of the artist? No, I can not. The film remains a derivative work of the copyrighted statue, even if the unique creative elements of the film have fallen into the public domain due to the lack of renewal. I could, however, sell copies of the audio track to the film, as that does not infringe upon the copyright to the statue. —RP88 (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete in 2027 due to Pluto character created in 1931. —holly {chat} 20:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, mostly per RP88. For example, the photos have double copyright: of photographer and of author of depicted object. They both must be free to be suitable for Commons. Here the other (derivative work) has fallen into public domain, the first (of what is depicted) has not. You can argue, that the film is free: you can show and copy it without free of charge, yes, that's right. But derivative works from the film are not allowed, because Mickey Mouse is not in public domain. Commons does not allow files, where derivative works are prohibited. Taivo (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:The Mad Doctor (1933).webm

[edit]

Once again, the film features Pluto and must wait until either 2027 to be uploaded. See this deletion request. SDudley (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Previously deleted. — Racconish 💬 21:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:The_Mad_Doctor_(1933).webm&oldid=862757363"