ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

9 years, 4 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Oooohh, this sounds dull...

From Archive.org -
RIGHTS
Rick Prelinger and The Internet Archive hereby offer public domain films from Prelinger Archives to all for free downloading and reuse.

You are warmly encouraged to download, use and reproduce these films in
whole or in part, in any medium or market throughout the world. You are
also warmly encouraged to share, exchange, redistribute, transfer and copy
these films, and especially encouraged to do so for free.

Any derivative works that you produce using these films are yours to
perform, publish, reproduce, sell, or distribute in any way you wish
without any limitations.

This statement of rights describes the rights granted to you so that you can use films from the online Prelinger collection at the Internet Archive.

Your right to use these films is granted by the Creative Commons Public Domain license when it appears on the "detail page" for a film. For details on this license, please click the Creative Commons license logo below.

Neither the Internet Archive nor Rick Prelinger can offer additional information regarding the rights to these films, or provide written license agreements. If you require a written license agreement or further information on the rights status of any Prelinger Collection titles, please see below.

Please be aware that:

-- the Creative Commons Public Domain license is the only license relating to films from the online Prelinger Collection;

-- the Internet Archive "Terms of Use" do not apply to the online Prelinger Collection;

-- the CC Public Domain license refers to the public domain status of the films, but not necessarily to every element that a film may contain;

-- and that other films, videos, texts and audio files hosted at the Internet Archive are not necessarily covered by the same license that governs the online Prelinger Collection. Please research these items individually if you wish to reuse any of them.

Descriptions, synopses, shotlists and other metadata provided by Prelinger Archives to this site are copyrighted jointly by Prelinger Archives and Getty Images. They may be quoted, excerpted or reproduced for educational, scholarly, nonprofit or archival purposes, but may not be reproduced for commercial purposes of any kind without permission.

If you require a written license agreement or need access to stock footage in a physical format (such as videotape or a higher-quality digital file), please visit our Stock Footage page. Neither Rick Prelinger nor the Internet Archive furnish written license agreements, nor do they comment on the rights status of a given film above and beyond this Creative Commons license.

---

I suspect it means that SOME of the Prelinger material is released via archive.org under public domain rules, but not the whole of the Prelinger archive (which is managed through Getty). If you can find your clip and the associated licence on archive.org you may be clear and able to rebuff the all too common licence overreach.

Otherwise, if your clips are a part of the Getty-managed content, for sure they'll licence them to you and you can discuss terms. They don't tend to be particularly cheap, but you're in a corner. What may be cheaper is 'screen replacement' vfx - if not too much crosses the path of the screen (or if you can key it or roto it where it does), you can put new content on the screens easily enough.

9 years, 4 months ago - Chris Bogle

Yup, dull it is. And therein that last half of text lies the confusion. What I read is: You can use anything from here you like for anything, but don't take that as permission.

The clips I've used are marked as CC Public Domain. But everything in Prelinger is also on Getty at £500 per clip. So go figure. The lawyer also said CC licenses are worthless.

9 years, 4 months ago - John Lubran

Excellent response Paddy and as good or better than might be gotten from many lawyers.

Producers need to acquire a degree of empirical legal precision when thinking and planning and not only because we ought not entirely leave our souls in the keeping of lawyers, even good ones (how can one tell which is which above the smoke screen of confident urbanity).

As Paddy says, check the actual status of your clip Chris within the context of all of the 'small print' because you may be lucky.

One ought to always remember that 'The devil is in the detail' and that the definition of things in law can be altered 180 degrees without making any changes other than its label.

9 years, 4 months ago - Chris Bogle

Hey John,

That's the problem - the small print contradicts the large print. The clip is marked with a Creative Commons public domain licence - free to disseminate or use in derivative works. The confusion lies in the later half of the Prelinger Ts and Cs which also say 'contact Getty for a licence'.

I guess the answer is to contact Prelinger directly but was hoping someone else might have been through it as it's a really popular archive for PD material.

9 years, 4 months ago - John Lubran

I fully sympathise with you Chris it may well be that the so called free to use library is just a cynical front to lead folk to paying for something they are initially led to believe is free. Personally I loath such outfits.

This is getting interesting in fundamental law terms, but even if one can argue, and I believe there's a case, that the contradiction amounts to a release into the public domain by the copyright holder because the 'but if' clause seemingly contradicting that release fails to do so with sufficient clarity required unassailably undermine its own clear declarations. Assuming of course that the copyright is actually owned by the entity distributing the property in the first place. Unfortunately such arguments can become time consuming and costly. Fortunately for some though many a settlement agreed on the basis of confidentiality, out of court, where risk might bite either party.

It's not a million miles from court cases arguing about whether or not Soviet era IP, including films and music fell into the public domain. After a few higher court rulings on both sides of the Atlantic it's been clearly established that regardless of any copyrights or possession of original ownership, once a property has been released into the public domain prior to or without any such recognised registration then that property is forever beyond enforcement.

Providing a licence when the licence giver has no authority to do so is an offence. Where there is a form of convoluted collaboration between the owner and the licence issuer resulting in confusing terms and conditions a Common Law Tort may arise in favour of the confused party. Mere assertion is ultimately toothless but lower courts often favour legal babel over common law and common sense. We ought to celebrate the heroes of case law revision more than we do.

9 years, 4 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

My HUNCH is that Getty will happily sell a licence to something that is public domain, maybe as some kind of clearance fee, whatever. Warner were quite happy to do so for Happy Birthday, after all. And I suspect the terms are all confused so Archive.org can't be forced into the middle of any complex bickering that may spring up down the line, like the Happy Birthday issue.

I can, however, reassure you that Archive.org's ethics are impeccable. I've met Brewster Kahle, he spent millions he made from selling Alexa to create a new 'Library of Alexandria' for the digital age. He's backed fully licenced print on demand mobile 'keeping libraries' in rural Uganda as he saw such imbalance with access to information... And this was back in the 1990's. He's spent a lot of money clarifying copyright positions through the courts. He's one of the good guys in an inspiring way. Getty, however...

9 years, 4 months ago - John Lubran

Thanks for that Paddy, good to know.

9 years, 4 months ago - Claudette FLINT

It reminds me of my experience with Elvis Presley. I thought his songs were about 50 years old! To use his tunes in a short film, it cost £83 per second... every time the short film is shown. Therefore £2490 for 30 seconds of rock and roll.
I wish my granddad wrote songs like that instead of dying in the trenches of Verdun.