Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1972) - copyright notes UP

[James_Armstrong]

The copyright status notes has the following text:

This film has been copyrighted everywhere in the world except in the US, where it fell into the public domain from 1985-2000. Afterward, the rights were renewed in 2001 by Screen Media Ventures.
WARNING: There are a large number of pirated, supposedly public domain 'budget' releases of this film, released in the US after 2001, such as by Brentwood, Digicom TV, Direct Source, Dollar DVD, Osiris, Reel Vault, and others, with poor and/or cropped transfers.

This should be changed to:

Contrary to the view that it is public domain, this film is, and always has been, copyrighted.
WARNING: There are a large number of unauthorized, pirate DVD releases of this film. These include DVDs by ACME-TV (US), Artiflix (US), Beyond Classics (Australia), Brentwood Home Entertainment (US), Digicom TV (US), Digiview (US), Direct Source (US), Dollar DVD (US), Eastwest DVD (US), Echo Bridge Home Entertainment (US), Force Video (Australia), Oracle Home Entertainment (UK), Osiris Home Entertainment (US), Platinum Disc Corporation (US), RadioZET (Poland), Reel Vault (US), Treasure Box Collection (US), Westlake Entertainment Group (US), and others. Avoid them all, as they are barebones, and have poor and/or cropped transfers.

...as the film has never been public domain anywhere.

[Brent_Reid]

All the above mentioned releases are pirates and it would be wrong to describe them otherwise.

"This film has been copyrighted everywhere in the world except in the US, where it fell into the public domain from 1985-2000. Afterward, the rights were renewed in 2001 by Screen Media Ventures."

This listing footnote is completely false: the film has never been in the public domain anywhere. To enter the US public domain in 1985, it would have to have been released in 1957 and not had its copyright re-registered after the statutory 28-year term had expired.

The film's US copyright doesn't actually expire until 2067, 95 years after its theatrical release; in the rest of the world it expires 70 years after the death of "principal creator" lyricist Don Black, who is still alive.

I don't own either but the UK Oracle DVDs look every inch pirates too, so shouldn't be listed. Incidentally, they're identical so why the separate listings and not just a note saying "also reissued with a copy of the novel"? The same DVD was also given away with the Daily Express.

There's also a DVD from legit Hungarian label Cinetel Kft but I don't own it either, so don't have full specs.

[James_Armstrong]

This listing footnote is completely false: the film has never been in the public domain anywhere. To enter the US public domain in 1985, it would have to have been released in 1957 and not had its copyright re-registered after the statutory 28-year term had expired.

The film's US copyright doesn't actually expire until 2067, 95 years after its theatrical release; in the rest of the world it expires 70 years after the death of "principal creator" lyricist Don Black, who is still alive.

See, this is why the whole world's copyright systems are extremely broken. They don't allow copyrighted works to expire for limited times (a la the US Founding Fathers' limited times as referenced to in Section 1, Paragraph 8 of the US Constitution), and instead have them expire for an indefinite amount of time, if they would want to. They also don't allow competition between studios and people over works (i.e. The Wizard of Oz (1939)) based on source materials that are public domain (i.e. L. Frank Baum's book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz), which are works that should be public domain by now if the copyright systems weren't so broken.

Also, current creators make money for their work while dead creators make billions of dollars for theirs in the US, which is one of the reasons why creative monopolies need to end.

If I had the choice, I'd propose that the copyright term worldwide should be around 15 to 20 years after the death of the creator, or around 45 years after release/publication date (like how the US copyright term was originally 14 years after the death of the author or 36 years after publication date), whichever expires first.

[Brent_Reid]

Well you've gone off at a tangent, James, but as you mention it, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz entered the public domain in 1956, only 37 years after author L. Frank Baum's death. Since then, anyone has been free to exploit its title and contents in any way they wish, as countless people have.

As to the overall fairness of worldwide copyright laws, I don't necessarily agree with them either but the fact remains they're now fairer and more consistent than at any point in history. But all that's moot; the DVD listing in its current form is promoting piracy and misinformation, and needs correcting.

[James_Armstrong]

but the fact remains they're now fairer and more consistent than at any point in history

That's false. Copyright with no competition between studios and the public and no noncommercial, nonprofit distribution of fanmade material (like custom-made Blu-ray Discs and DVDs - and ISO files of and case insert/label art for them - of works or original/alternate cuts of them that haven't had a proper - or any - BD or DVD release, and fan edits, which so far are illegal to distribute for both profit and nonprofit in the US) of copyrighted material (as long as the people they're distributing it to have an official physical or digital release of the material or are subscribed to a streaming service that has said copyrighted material) is, AFAIK, unfair copyright.

the DVD listing in its current form is promoting piracy and misinformation, and needs correcting.

I already have the copyright notes corrected.

[James-Masaki_Ryan]

Source for the change?

[Brent_Reid]

The listing is still full of repetition and apparent pirates, as noted above. Are they going to be removed?

[James-Masaki_Ryan]

James Armstrong never replied about his sources so no update was made. I'm too overwhelmed with looking into it myself but if anyone else can, please feel free to do so.

[Brent_Reid]

When you say "anyone else" do you mean members or moderators?

Either way, the listing can be easily cleaned up:

The film was shot in Todd-AO 35 (an anamorphic format) and its OAR is 2.35:1; all 1.33:1 releases are panned and scanned.

Its original (and only) sound mix is mono. All other "stereo" soundtracks are unofficial, poor quality remixes.

At least the Platinum, Oracle and RadioZET DVDs should be marked as "official status undetermined/possible boots" or similar.

The second Oracle DVD, bootleg or not, is a reissue so shouldn't have a separate listing.

As already explained, the copyright notes are demonstrably false and should removed, as should "released in the US after 2001" from the other footnote.

That's it!

[James-Masaki_Ryan]

When you say "anyone else" do you mean members or moderators?

Both

[Brent_Reid]

Well, I've just done it! See my previous comment: "Either way..."

[James-Masaki_Ryan]

Again, I'm not taking this one but for whoever is, for Brent and James A, sources please.

[Brent_Reid]

I've stated everything above as simply as possible and it's all easy to check anywhere; you could start with Wikipedia:

- Copyright law of the United Kingdom

- Copyright law of the United States

The most straightforward yet comprehensive copyright guide I know of is the one I commissioned for my site:

- Alfred Hitchcock: Dial © for Copyright.

It expands on what I've already said and has dozens of references and links to official sources, such as US and UK government sites, the Library of Congress, etc.

[James-Masaki_Ryan]

I've stated everything above as simply as possible and it's all easy to check anywhere; you could start with Wikipedia:

- Copyright law of the United Kingdom

- Copyright law of the United States

The most straightforward yet comprehensive copyright guide I know of is the one I commissioned for my site:

- Alfred Hitchcock: Dial © for Copyright.

It expands on what I've already said and has dozens of references and links to official sources, such as US and UK government sites, the Library of Congress, etc.

None of those have specifics on Alice in Wonderland 1972. I've just simplified it by removing the notes entirely.

[Brent_Reid]

What do you mean by specifics? They detail the copyright laws which apply to all artistic works and especially films, including this one.

The bottom line is, it's always been copyrighted worldwide and everything else stated here and in the listing to the contrary is unfounded speculation.

BTW, the two "Oracle" releases are actually from Eureka; here's a copy on eBay.

And once again, the second entry is a straight reissue so doesn't merit mention, according to the usual rules of this site.

[James-Masaki_Ryan]

I meant proof that there is a copyright to the film. If the rights stood, why did the rightsholders not do anything about the flood of unauthorized DVDs?
Was looking to find if there was something that slipped through the cracks or an error in renewal or forgetting to attach a copyright notice but couldn't find anything.
Anyway, updated to Eureka.

[Brent_Reid]

We're going around in circles here, as I'm just repeating what I've said from the start, and is also very clearly stated in the links above. One last time, from Wikipedia:

"Works that were published without a copyright notice before 1977 are also in the public domain, as are those published before March 1989 if the copyright was not registered within five years of the date of publication, and those published before 1964 if the copyright was not renewed 28 years later."

Said attached copyright notice was only ever a necessity in the US but it was an unfair practice that has long been ended there. This brought the US into line with the rest of the world, where all creative works have always been copyrighted automatically upon publication.

That includes everything from the UK, so for a third time, it's impossible for Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, a British film, to have ever been in the public domain anywhere.

I dearly wish I'd never posted in this thread but hate to see blatant misinformation blithely accepted as fact! Over and out.