Petter Reinholdtsen

Entries tagged "verkidetfri".

Is the short movie «Empty Socks» from 1927 in the public domain or not?
5th December 2017

Three years ago, a presumed lost animation film, Empty Socks from 1927, was discovered in the Norwegian National Library. At the time it was discovered, it was generally assumed to be copyrighted by The Walt Disney Company, and I blogged about my reasoning to conclude that it would would enter the Norwegian equivalent of the public domain in 2053, based on my understanding of Norwegian Copyright Law. But a few days ago, I came across a blog post claiming the movie was already in the public domain, at least in USA. The reasoning is as follows: The film was released in November or Desember 1927 (sources disagree), and presumably registered its copyright that year. At that time, right holders of movies registered by the copyright office received government protection for there work for 28 years. After 28 years, the copyright had to be renewed if the wanted the government to protect it further. The blog post I found claim such renewal did not happen for this movie, and thus it entered the public domain in 1956. Yet someone claim the copyright was renewed and the movie is still copyright protected. Can anyone help me to figure out which claim is correct? I have not been able to find Empty Socks in Catalog of copyright entries. Ser.3 pt.12-13 v.9-12 1955-1958 Motion Pictures available from the University of Pennsylvania, neither in page 45 for the first half of 1955, nor in page 119 for the second half of 1955. It is of course possible that the renewal entry was left out of the printed catalog by mistake. Is there some way to rule out this possibility? Please help, and update the wikipedia page with your findings.

As usual, if you use Bitcoin and want to show your support of my activities, please send Bitcoin donations to my address 15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b.

Tags: english, freeculture, opphavsrett, verkidetfri, video.
Metadata proposal for movies on the Internet Archive
28th November 2017

It would be easier to locate the movie you want to watch in the Internet Archive, if the metadata about each movie was more complete and accurate. In the archiving community, a well known saying state that good metadata is a love letter to the future. The metadata in the Internet Archive could use a face lift for the future to love us back. Here is a proposal for a small improvement that would make the metadata more useful today. I've been unable to find any document describing the various standard fields available when uploading videos to the archive, so this proposal is based on my best quess and searching through several of the existing movies.

I have a few use cases in mind. First of all, I would like to be able to count the number of distinct movies in the Internet Archive, without duplicates. I would further like to identify the IMDB title ID of the movies in the Internet Archive, to be able to look up a IMDB title ID and know if I can fetch the video from there and share it with my friends.

Second, I would like the Butter data provider for The Internet archive (available from github), to list as many of the good movies as possible. The plugin currently do a search in the archive with the following parameters:

collection:moviesandfilms
AND NOT collection:movie_trailers
AND -mediatype:collection
AND format:"Archive BitTorrent"
AND year

Most of the cool movies that fail to show up in Butter do so because the 'year' field is missing. The 'year' field is populated by the year part from the 'date' field, and should be when the movie was released (date or year). Two such examples are Ben Hur from 1905 and Caminandes 2: Gran Dillama from 2013, where the year metadata field is missing.

So, my proposal is simply, for every movie in The Internet Archive where an IMDB title ID exist, please fill in these metadata fields (note, they can be updated also long after the video was uploaded, but as far as I can tell, only by the uploader):
mediatype
Should be 'movie' for movies.
collection
Should contain 'moviesandfilms'.
title
The title of the movie, without the publication year.
date
The data or year the movie was released. This make the movie show up in Butter, as well as make it possible to know the age of the movie and is useful to figure out copyright status.
director
The director of the movie. This make it easier to know if the correct movie is found in movie databases.
publisher
The production company making the movie. Also useful for identifying the correct movie.
links
Add a link to the IMDB title page, for example like this: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028496/">Movie in IMDB</a>. This make it easier to find duplicates and allow for counting of number of unique movies in the Archive. Other external references, like to TMDB, could be added like this too.

I did consider proposing a Custom field for the IMDB title ID (for example 'imdb_title_url', 'imdb_code' or simply 'imdb', but suspect it will be easier to simply place it in the links free text field.

I created a list of IMDB title IDs for several thousand movies in the Internet Archive, but I also got a list of several thousand movies without such IMDB title ID (and quite a few duplicates). It would be great if this data set could be integrated into the Internet Archive metadata to be available for everyone in the future, but with the current policy of leaving metadata editing to the uploaders, it will take a while before this happen. If you have uploaded movies into the Internet Archive, you can help. Please consider following my proposal above for your movies, to ensure that movie is properly counted. :)

The list is mostly generated using wikidata, which based on Wikipedia articles make it possible to link between IMDB and movies in the Internet Archive. But there are lots of movies without a Wikipedia article, and some movies where only a collection page exist (like for the Caminandes example above, where there are three movies but only one Wikidata entry).

As usual, if you use Bitcoin and want to show your support of my activities, please send Bitcoin donations to my address 15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b.

Tags: english, opphavsrett, verkidetfri.
Legal to share more than 3000 movies listed on IMDB?
18th November 2017

A month ago, I blogged about my work to automatically check the copyright status of IMDB entries, and try to count the number of movies listed in IMDB that is legal to distribute on the Internet. I have continued to look for good data sources, and identified a few more. The code used to extract information from various data sources is available in a git repository, currently available from github.

So far I have identified 3186 unique IMDB title IDs. To gain better understanding of the structure of the data set, I created a histogram of the year associated with each movie (typically release year). It is interesting to notice where the peaks and dips in the graph are located. I wonder why they are placed there. I suspect World War II caused the dip around 1940, but what caused the peak around 2010?

I've so far identified ten sources for IMDB title IDs for movies in the public domain or with a free license. This is the statistics reported when running 'make stats' in the git repository:

  249 entries (    6 unique) with and   288 without IMDB title ID in free-movies-archive-org-butter.json
 2301 entries (  540 unique) with and     0 without IMDB title ID in free-movies-archive-org-wikidata.json
  830 entries (   29 unique) with and     0 without IMDB title ID in free-movies-icheckmovies-archive-mochard.json
 2109 entries (  377 unique) with and     0 without IMDB title ID in free-movies-imdb-pd.json
  291 entries (  122 unique) with and     0 without IMDB title ID in free-movies-letterboxd-pd.json
  144 entries (  135 unique) with and     0 without IMDB title ID in free-movies-manual.json
  350 entries (    1 unique) with and   801 without IMDB title ID in free-movies-publicdomainmovies.json
    4 entries (    0 unique) with and   124 without IMDB title ID in free-movies-publicdomainreview.json
  698 entries (  119 unique) with and   118 without IMDB title ID in free-movies-publicdomaintorrents.json
    8 entries (    8 unique) with and   196 without IMDB title ID in free-movies-vodo.json
 3186 unique IMDB title IDs in total

The entries without IMDB title ID are candidates to increase the data set, but might equally well be duplicates of entries already listed with IMDB title ID in one of the other sources, or represent movies that lack a IMDB title ID. I've seen examples of all these situations when peeking at the entries without IMDB title ID. Based on these data sources, the lower bound for movies listed in IMDB that are legal to distribute on the Internet is between 3186 and 4713.

It would be great for improving the accuracy of this measurement, if the various sources added IMDB title ID to their metadata. I have tried to reach the people behind the various sources to ask if they are interested in doing this, without any replies so far. Perhaps you can help me get in touch with the people behind VODO, Public Domain Torrents, Public Domain Movies and Public Domain Review to try to convince them to add more metadata to their movie entries?

Another way you could help is by adding pages to Wikipedia about movies that are legal to distribute on the Internet. If such page exist and include a link to both IMDB and The Internet Archive, the script used to generate free-movies-archive-org-wikidata.json should pick up the mapping as soon as wikidata is updates.

As usual, if you use Bitcoin and want to show your support of my activities, please send Bitcoin donations to my address 15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b.

Tags: english, opphavsrett, verkidetfri.
Locating IMDB IDs of movies in the Internet Archive using Wikidata
25th October 2017

Recently, I needed to automatically check the copyright status of a set of The Internet Movie database (IMDB) entries, to figure out which one of the movies they refer to can be freely distributed on the Internet. This proved to be harder than it sounds. IMDB for sure list movies without any copyright protection, where the copyright protection has expired or where the movie is lisenced using a permissive license like one from Creative Commons. These are mixed with copyright protected movies, and there seem to be no way to separate these classes of movies using the information in IMDB.

First I tried to look up entries manually in IMDB, Wikipedia and The Internet Archive, to get a feel how to do this. It is hard to know for sure using these sources, but it should be possible to be reasonable confident a movie is "out of copyright" with a few hours work per movie. As I needed to check almost 20,000 entries, this approach was not sustainable. I simply can not work around the clock for about 6 years to check this data set.

I asked the people behind The Internet Archive if they could introduce a new metadata field in their metadata XML for IMDB ID, but was told that they leave it completely to the uploaders to update the metadata. Some of the metadata entries had IMDB links in the description, but I found no way to download all metadata files in bulk to locate those ones and put that approach aside.

In the process I noticed several Wikipedia articles about movies had links to both IMDB and The Internet Archive, and it occured to me that I could use the Wikipedia RDF data set to locate entries with both, to at least get a lower bound on the number of movies on The Internet Archive with a IMDB ID. This is useful based on the assumption that movies distributed by The Internet Archive can be legally distributed on the Internet. With some help from the RDF community (thank you DanC), I was able to come up with this query to pass to the SPARQL interface on Wikidata:

SELECT ?work ?imdb ?ia ?when ?label
WHERE
{
  ?work wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q11424.
  ?work wdt:P345 ?imdb.
  ?work wdt:P724 ?ia.
  OPTIONAL {
        ?work wdt:P577 ?when.
        ?work rdfs:label ?label.
        FILTER(LANG(?label) = "en").
  }
}

If I understand the query right, for every film entry anywhere in Wikpedia, it will return the IMDB ID and The Internet Archive ID, and when the movie was released and its English title, if either or both of the latter two are available. At the moment the result set contain 2338 entries. Of course, it depend on volunteers including both correct IMDB and The Internet Archive IDs in the wikipedia articles for the movie. It should be noted that the result will include duplicates if the movie have entries in several languages. There are some bogus entries, either because The Internet Archive ID contain a typo or because the movie is not available from The Internet Archive. I did not verify the IMDB IDs, as I am unsure how to do that automatically.

I wrote a small python script to extract the data set from Wikidata and check if the XML metadata for the movie is available from The Internet Archive, and after around 1.5 hour it produced a list of 2097 free movies and their IMDB ID. In total, 171 entries in Wikidata lack the refered Internet Archive entry. I assume the 70 "disappearing" entries (ie 2338-2097-171) are duplicate entries.

This is not too bad, given that The Internet Archive report to contain 5331 feature films at the moment, but it also mean more than 3000 movies are missing on Wikipedia or are missing the pair of references on Wikipedia.

I was curious about the distribution by release year, and made a little graph to show how the amount of free movies is spread over the years:

I expect the relative distribution of the remaining 3000 movies to be similar.

If you want to help, and want to ensure Wikipedia can be used to cross reference The Internet Archive and The Internet Movie Database, please make sure entries like this are listed under the "External links" heading on the Wikipedia article for the movie:

* {{Internet Archive film|id=FightingLady}}
* {{IMDb title|id=0036823|title=The Fighting Lady}}

Please verify the links on the final page, to make sure you did not introduce a typo.

Here is the complete list, if you want to correct the 171 identified Wikipedia entries with broken links to The Internet Archive: Q1140317, Q458656, Q458656, Q470560, Q743340, Q822580, Q480696, Q128761, Q1307059, Q1335091, Q1537166, Q1438334, Q1479751, Q1497200, Q1498122, Q865973, Q834269, Q841781, Q841781, Q1548193, Q499031, Q1564769, Q1585239, Q1585569, Q1624236, Q4796595, Q4853469, Q4873046, Q915016, Q4660396, Q4677708, Q4738449, Q4756096, Q4766785, Q880357, Q882066, Q882066, Q204191, Q204191, Q1194170, Q940014, Q946863, Q172837, Q573077, Q1219005, Q1219599, Q1643798, Q1656352, Q1659549, Q1660007, Q1698154, Q1737980, Q1877284, Q1199354, Q1199354, Q1199451, Q1211871, Q1212179, Q1238382, Q4906454, Q320219, Q1148649, Q645094, Q5050350, Q5166548, Q2677926, Q2698139, Q2707305, Q2740725, Q2024780, Q2117418, Q2138984, Q1127992, Q1058087, Q1070484, Q1080080, Q1090813, Q1251918, Q1254110, Q1257070, Q1257079, Q1197410, Q1198423, Q706951, Q723239, Q2079261, Q1171364, Q617858, Q5166611, Q5166611, Q324513, Q374172, Q7533269, Q970386, Q976849, Q7458614, Q5347416, Q5460005, Q5463392, Q3038555, Q5288458, Q2346516, Q5183645, Q5185497, Q5216127, Q5223127, Q5261159, Q1300759, Q5521241, Q7733434, Q7736264, Q7737032, Q7882671, Q7719427, Q7719444, Q7722575, Q2629763, Q2640346, Q2649671, Q7703851, Q7747041, Q6544949, Q6672759, Q2445896, Q12124891, Q3127044, Q2511262, Q2517672, Q2543165, Q426628, Q426628, Q12126890, Q13359969, Q13359969, Q2294295, Q2294295, Q2559509, Q2559912, Q7760469, Q6703974, Q4744, Q7766962, Q7768516, Q7769205, Q7769988, Q2946945, Q3212086, Q3212086, Q18218448, Q18218448, Q18218448, Q6909175, Q7405709, Q7416149, Q7239952, Q7317332, Q7783674, Q7783704, Q7857590, Q3372526, Q3372642, Q3372816, Q3372909, Q7959649, Q7977485, Q7992684, Q3817966, Q3821852, Q3420907, Q3429733, Q774474

As usual, if you use Bitcoin and want to show your support of my activities, please send Bitcoin donations to my address 15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b.

Tags: english, opphavsrett, verkidetfri.
Mer allemannseie til inspirasjon og glede
6th February 2015

Kultur bygger på kultur. Det betyr blant annet at enhver kunstner og ethvert kulturuttrykk er påvirket av de kulturuttrykk som eksisterer i sin omverdenen. Men for at kunstnere skal kunne uttrykke seg fritt, må de slippe å be om tillatelse når de vil uttrykke seg. Det er vanskelig med dagens opphavsrett, der det meste av populærkulturen (og det meste av mindre populær kultur) er vernet av åndsverksloven og opphavspersonen har enerett (monopol) på enhver bruk av kulturuttrykket. En risikerer å måtte spørre mange om lov hvis en lar seg inspirere. Men det finnes en sikkerhetsventil som sikrer at slike statsstøttede monopoler ikke varer evig, nemlig opphavsrettens utløpstid. I Norge er den på det meste ved utløpet av året, 70 år etter lengstlevendes opphavspersons død. Det betyr f.eks. at et opphavsrettsbeskyttet verk av en 10-åring som lever til vedkommende er 100 vil bli allemannseie 160 år etter at det er skapt. Men det betyr også at det er mulig å finne ut hvilke verk som faller i det fri hvert år, og denne bloggposten handler om det siste.

Like over nyttår hadde pressen noen artikler om at nå var verkene (merk, ikke eksemplarene, de som eier bildene har fortsatt råderett over dem, men enhver kan kopiere dem uten å be om tillatelse fra opphavsrettsinnehaver) til Edvard Munch falt i det fri, dvs allemannseie. Året før var det skriverier om hvordan verkene til Gustav Vigeland nå var allemannseie. Oslo kommune forsøkte til og med å få forlenget sitt monopol over skulpturene ennå noen år, men ble heldigvis stoppet av Patentstyret. Det er nemlig veldig gledelig at vi borgere i Norge får flere verk vi kan la oss glede og inspirere av uten å måtte be om tillatelse fra noen. Men det slo meg at i tillegg til disse veldig kjente kunstnernes verker måtte de være mange andre verk som også var blitt allemannseie, og disse verkene burde gjøres så enkelt tilgjengelig som mulig slik at alle kan få glede av dem. Tekster og bilder burde digitaliseres og legges på nett og gjøres tilgjengelig for landets biblioteker. Musikkstykker burde spilles inn og kringkastes over det ganske land.

For noen uker siden spurte jeg folkene bak Store Norske Leksikon om de kunne gi meg en liste over kunstnere som døde i 1944 (og gjerne de omkringliggende årene), slik at det var mulig å finne ut hvilke verk som var falt i det fri og blitt allemannseie. Det var ikke mulig å hente ut via websidene, men takket være ekstraordinært god innsats fra Georg Kjøll fikk jeg en fil med listen over kunstnere som døde i perioden 1943 til 1947. Dette gjør det mulig å lage en liste kunstnere hvis verk faller i det fri i 2014 - 2018. (Jeg forsøkte å høre med Wikipedia Norge (via IRC) om det var mulig å få en tilsvarende liste derifra, men fikk ingen respons så jeg lot det ligge da jeg jo hadde en god liste allerede.) Her er resultatet, sortert på dødsårtall og fornavn, og med informasjon om fra hvilken database hos Store Norske navnet ble funnet.

Neste steg kan være å slå opp navnene i Nasjonalbibliotekets katalog eller NRKs musikkatalog og få opp hvilke verk disse kunstnerne har laget, og så forsøke å få dem digitalisert og gjort tilgjengelig for alle uten bruksbegrensninger. Det bør antagelig lages en felles database med referanser til hvilke verk som er falt i det fri, slik at en har et felles sted å slå opp slikt. Kanskje jeg får tid til å lage det en dag. Noen av navnene er korrigert for å unngå duplikatoppføringer. Det kan ha introdusert feil i lista hvis to kunstnere med nesten samme navn døde samme år. Uansett, her er listen slik jeg kjenner den pr 2015-02-06.

Kunstnere hvis verk faller i det fri i ved nyttår 2014 (totalt 98).

Kunstnere hvis verk faller i det fri i ved nyttår 2015 (totalt 86).

Kunstnere hvis verk faller i det fri i ved nyttår 2016 (totalt 120).

Kunstnere hvis verk faller i det fri i ved nyttår 2017 (totalt 99).

Kunstnere hvis verk faller i det fri i ved nyttår 2018 (totalt 87).

Til slutt faller et verk i det fri og blir allemannseie — heldigvis. Opphavsrettens statstøttede monopoler varer ikke evig — ennå. Men det er sterke krefter i sving for å utvide verneperioden inn i evigheten, et steg av gangen. Det trengs sterke motkrefter for å verne allemannseiet mot slike angrep.

Oppdatering 2016-02-07: Ble tipset av Kjetil Kjernsmo om at en kan bruke dbpedia.org sitt Virtuoso SPARQL-grensesnitt til å hente ut fra Wikipedia alle kunstnere som døde før 1. januar 1945 og som er klassifisert i en underkategori av Norwegian Artists ved å bruke følgende søkeuttrykk:

PREFIX dbo:  <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/>
PREFIX foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>
PREFIX skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#>
PREFIX dct:  <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>
PREFIX dbpprop: <http://dbpedia.org/property/>

SELECT ?name ?page ?YEAR WHERE {
  ?person a foaf:Person ;
          foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf ?page ;
          dbpprop:name ?name ;
          dbo:deathYear ?YEAR ;
          dct:subject/skos:broader?  <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Norwegian_artists>
  FILTER (?YEAR < xsd:date("1945-01-01"))
}

Det kan jo være en ide for å skripte uthenting i fremtiden, hvis en vil vedlikeholde listen over kunstnere i Wikipedia.

Oppdatering 2015-02-08: Ble tipset om at Wikipedia vedlikeholder en liste over kunstnere som har laget verk som faller i det fri i mange land, en for hvert år. Sjekk de som er i listene for 2014 2015 og 2016. Det er et visst overlapp, men det mangler noen i listen fra SNL i lista til Wikipedia. Men jeg synes det er veldig nyttig å se at det er flere som er interessert i å bidra med å spore opp allemanseide verk. Litt underlig at listen ikke vedlikeholdes automatisk, når en ser hva dbpedia kan gjøre med innholdet i Wikipedia.

Oppdatering 2015-05-11: Ble kjent med Public Domain Information Project som gjør allemanseid musikk tilgjengelig, og prosjektet Out Of Copyright, som lager opplegg for å kunne identifisere verk som er falt i det fri. Kom også over The Public Domain Review som både er en samling over verk i det fri, men også et tidsskrift om verdien av allemannseiet.

Oppdatering 2015-12-26: Jonas Smedegaard send me an updated search expression as the original one no longer work with dbpedia.org. The updated search look like this:

PREFIX foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>
PREFIX skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#>
PREFIX dct:  <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>
PREFIX dbpprop: <http://dbpedia.org/property/>
PREFIX xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>

SELECT ?name ?page ?YEAR WHERE {
  ?person a foaf:Person ;
          foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf ?page ;
          dbpprop:name ?name ;
          dbo:deathYear ?YEAR ;
          dct:subject/skos:broader?  <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Norwegian_artists>
  FILTER (?YEAR < xsd:date("1945-01-01"))
}

He also provided a search on the SPARQL interface of data.deichman.no to look up a single author there:

PREFIX dct: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>
PREFIX foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>
SELECT ?ressource WHERE {
  ?ressource dct:creator ?creator .
  ?creator foaf:name "Lawrence Lessig" .
}

I hope this can provide me with enough starting points to be able to map books to long dead authors.

Tags: norsk, opphavsrett, verkidetfri.
Opphavsretts-status for «Empty Socks» fra 1927?
12th December 2014

For noen dager siden annonserte Nasjonalbiblioteket gladnyheten om at de i sine arkiver hadde funnet et nitratfilm-eksemplar av en 87 år gammel Disney-film ved navn Empty Socks, en film som tidligere var antatt tapt og der det i følge nyhetsmeldinger var kun ca. 25 sekunder bevart for ettertiden. Nasjonalbiblioteket hadde 5 minutter og 30 sekunder av filmen i sitt magasin. Dette er flott for bevaringen av verdens kulturarv. 5,5 minutter mindre tapt enn vi trodde av vår felles historie.

Men hvordan kunne filmen gå tapt, når arkivlovene i USA krevde at publiserte filmer på den tiden ble deponert i bibliotek? Forklaringen har jeg fra Lawrence Lessig og boken Free Culture, som jeg holder på å oversette til norsk:

Dette er delvis på grunn av loven. Opphavsrettseiere var tidlig i amerikansk opphavsrettslov nødt til å deponere kopier av sine verk i biblioteker. Disse kopiene skulle både sikre spredning av kunnskap, og sikre at det fantes en kopi av verket tilgjengelig når vernetiden utløp, slik at andre kunne få tilgang til og kopiere verket.

Disse reglene gjaldt også for filmer. Men i 1915 gjorde kongressbiblioteket et unntak for film. Filmer kunne bli opphavsrettsbeskyttet så lenge det ble gjort slik deponering. Men filmskaperne fikk så lov til å låne tilbake de deponerte filmene - så lenge de ville uten noe kostnad. Bare i 1915 var det mer enn 5475 filmer deponert og “lånt tilbake”. Dermed var det ikke noe eksemplar i noe bibliotek når vernetiden til filmen utløp. Eksemplaret eksisterer - hvis den finnes i det hele tatt - i arkivbiblioteket til filmselskapet.

Nyheten gjorde meg nysgjerrig på om filmen kunne være falt i det fri. En 87 år gammel film kunne jo tenkes å ha blitt en del av allemannseiet, slik at vi alle kan bruke den til å bygge videre på vår felles kultur uten å måtte be om tillatelse - slik Walt Disney gjorde det i starten av sin karriere. Jeg spurte nasjonalbiblioteket, og de sa nei. Hvordan kan det ha seg med en så gammel film? Jeg besteme meg for å undersøke nærmere. En kan finne informasjon om den norske vernetiden på Lovdata og Wikipedia. Her er et relevant utsnitt fra siden om opphavsrett i den norske Wikipedia:

Ifølge åndsverkloven §§ 40-41 utløper vernetiden for et åndsverk 70 år etter utløpet av opphavspersonens dødsår. [...] For filmverk gjelder særlige regler: Her kommer ikke alle mulige opphavspersoner i betraktning, men kun hovedregissøren, manusforfatteren, dialogforfatteren og komponisten av filmmusikken. Vernetiden begynner å løpe etter utgangen av dødsåret til den lengstlevende av disse. [...] Der opphavspersonen er ukjent, utløper opphavsretten 70 år etter første kjente offentliggjørelse av verket. Det er kun de økonomiske rettighetene som faller bort i det vernetiden er utløpt. De ideelle rettighetene må fortsatt respekteres, noe som blant annet innebærer at man plikter å navngi opphavspersonen ved tilgjengeliggjøring.

I følge nettstedet The Encyclopedia of Disney Animated Shorts er følgende personer gitt æren for denne kortfilmen:

Regissør
Walt Disney (1901-12-05 – 1966-12-15) +70 år = 2037
Animasjon
Ub Iwerks (1901-03-24 – 1971-07-07) +70 år = 2042
Rollin "Ham" Hamilton (1898-10-28 - 1951-06-03) +70 år = 2022
Hugh Harman (1903-08-31 – 1982-11-25) +70 år = 2053
Kamera
Mike Marcus (?-?)

Alle fødsels- og dødsdatoene er fra engelske Wikipedia. Det er ikke oppgitt navn på manusforfatter, dialogforfatter og komponist, men jeg mistenker at tegnerne vil få opphavsrettigheter på tegnefilmer her i Norge, og tar derfor med disse. Kameramannen vil ikke få noen rettigheter så vidt jeg forstår, og er derfor ignorert her.

Slik jeg forstår den norske opphavsretten vil dermed dette filmverket bli allemannseie (også kalt å falle i det fri) i 2053, 126 år etter at det ble utgitt. Hvis kun regissørens rettigheter er relevante, vil det skje i 2037, 110 år etter at det ble utgitt. Etter det vil enhver kunne dele det med alle de har lyst til, fremføre det offentlig eller klippe og lime i det for å lage sin egen film basert på det - helt uten å måtte spørre noen om lov.

Måtte så Nasjonalbiblioteket spørre om lov før de kunne kopiere sitt nitrat-eksemplar over på mer varig format? Nei, heldigvis. Åndsverklovens § 16 sier at arkiv, bibliotek, museer og undervisnings- og forskningsinstitusjoner har rett til å fremstille eksemplar av verk for konserverings- og sikringsformål og andre særskilte formål.

Oppdatering 2017-11-24: I følge en lengre post på toonzone.net, så er denne filmen i det fri i USA på grunn av at åndsverksbeskyttelsen ikke ble fornyet i 1955 (se selv i Copyright Registration And Renewal Records).

Som vanlig, hvis du bruker Bitcoin og ønsker å vise din støtte til det jeg driver med, setter jeg pris på om du sender Bitcoin-donasjoner til min adresse 15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b.

Tags: freeculture, norsk, opphavsrett, verkidetfri, video.
Why isn't the value of copyright taxed?
17th November 2012

While working on a Norwegian translation of the Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig (76% done), which cover the problems with todays copyright law and how it stifles creativity, one idea occurred to me. The idea is to get the tax office to help make more works enter the public domain and also help make it easier to clear rights for using copyrighted works.

I mentioned this idea briefly during Yesterdays presentation by John Perry Barlow, and concluded that it was best to put it in writing for a wider audience. The idea is not really based on the argument that copyrighted works are "intellectual property", as the core requirement is that copyrighted work have value for the copyright holder and the tax office like to collect their share from any value controlled by the citizens in a country. I'm sharing the idea here to let others consider it and perhaps shoot it down with a fresh set of arguments.

Most valuables are taxed by the government. At least here in Norway, the amount of money you have, the value of our land property, the value of your house, the value of your car, the value of our stocks and other valuables are all added together. If the tax value of these values exceed your debt, you have to pay the tax office some taxes for these values. And copyrighted work have value. It have value for the rights holder, who can earn money selling access to the work. But it is not included in the tax calculations? Why not?

If the government want to tax copyrighted works, it would want to maintain a database of all the copyrighted works and who are the rights holders for a given works, to be able to associate the works value to the right citizen or company for tax purposes. If such database exist, it will become a lot easier to find out who to talk to for clearing permissions to use a copyrighted work, which is a very hard operation with todays copyright law. To ensure that copyright holders keep the database up-to-date, it would have to become a requirement to be able to collect money for granting access to copyrighted works that the work is listed in the database with the correct right holder.

If copyright causes copyright holders to have to pay more taxes, they will have a small incentive to "disown" their copyright, and let the work enter the public domain. For works with several right holders one of the right holders could state (and get it registered in the database) that she do not need to be consulted when clearing rights to use the work in question and thus will not get any income from that work. Stating this would have to be impossible to revert and stop the tax office from adding the value of that work to the given citizens tax calculation. I assume the copyright law would stay the same, allowing creators to pick a license of their choosing, and also allowing them to put their work directly in the public domain. The existence of such database will make it even easier to clear rights, and if the right holders listed in the database is taxed, this system would increase the amount of works that enter the public domain.

The effect would be that the tax office help to make it easier to get rights to use the works that have not yet entered the public domain and help to get more work into the public domain and .

Why have such taxing not happened yet? I am sure the tax office would like to tax copyrighted work values if they could.

Tags: english, freeculture, opphavsrett, verkidetfri.

RSS Feed

Created by Chronicle v4.6