Copyright infringement?

[Fred Voorhees]

Guys...I have a question that I hope someone amongst the vast sea of knowledge around here knows something about. I recently crossed paths with a picture of a racing accident from an event from back around 1985. I knew the accident well because it was a fairly memorable incident and plus...I had the video of the event that that accident occurred in and the accident was caught on tape. I thought it would be cool to somehow capture a clip of that incident so that todays fans can take a look at it. Well...first of all...going back so far, the original video was on cassette. I had long ago transferred the video over to DVD format. With this thought of providing the video of this accident so that others can view it...I began to investigate the process of doing so so that I could eventually get it on YouTube. It was a process, but I managed to figure it out. My question is this....the videographer who authored the tape has long since passed away....I actually think I remember him committing suicide for one reason or another. Anyway....at the beginning of each video...he has a quick screen flash that states the video is copyrighted. Whether that was just stuck in there for effect or whether his stuff was actually copyrighted...I am not sure. But I wish to respect copyright laws. But, since the guy...his name was Larry E. Horn, since he passed away years ago...would this make any copyrighted stuff by him null and void and could I do such a thing as get his video up on YouTube for todays fans to enjoy some racing from the past? Credit would be given to him with each video clip...whether it be what he added to the beginning of each tape...or the same thing added to any short clips pulled from the full version. I am not looking to break any laws...just want to do the right thing. It's a bit of work to do the process of making clips...but I would enjoy doing it, but if it were to be illegal...I would have to think about moving forward with the whole deal. Anyone?

[Dan Hintz]

A lawyer is the best person to as, but...

Copyright does not disappear when a person dies. It generally passes on to his/her estate. If that wasn't the case, a lot more people would be scamming Disney stuff

[Mike Lassiter]

I partially agree with Dan. Disney is a corporation not a individual. While Walt Disney founded it, it was incorporated which essentially makes it a legal entity. Funny Dan mentioned Disney, because the copy write was actually changed because of Mickey and Donald. The original law was for 75 years I think and the protection by copywrite was about expire due to Disney being still in business.
Not sure what the law was changed to, but I remember hearing this on the national news a few years back.
My opinion ( for what it's worth) is your intent is not so much trying to pass his work as yours but share it for "old times sake" is basically the same thing most videos posted on Utube are. Nearly all claim no rights or copy infringement intended. Look at all the music videos that surely would be copywriter protected that are placed on it by individuals.

[Bruce Pratt]

Not a lawyer, however, current US copyright law is lifetime of author + 75 years. Also copyright for a work exists by the act of creation of the work.

[Bill Cunningham]

There is a lot of old stuff on youtube that belongs to other people.. Google has a HUGE database of stuff that can find copyright infringements. If you post it, it 'will' be scanned and if it's in their database as protected, they will remove it and let you know. Also, it will be removed if someone complains. post it and see what happens..

[Eric DeSilva]

Also copyright for a work exists by the act of creation of the work.

That is my recollection too--the marking and registration, I think, entitle you to statutory damages, but pretty much everything is protected.

[Charles Wiggins]

If it was published in the U.S. after 1977 with a copyright notice then the term is 70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

So the question becomes was it "published"?

According to the definitions in copyright law:
“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

If it is "unpublished," then it would be the life of the author +70 years: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

[Curt Harms]

Not a lawyer, expert or anything else but it seems like if you're not profiting, the worst that is likely is a request to remove the copyrighted item.

[Dave Sheldrake]

Not a lawyer, expert or anything else but it seems like if you're not profiting, the worst that is likely is a request to remove the copyrighted item.

Unless the copyright owner *believes* your actions damage or diminish their brand value or trademark. Being right and surviving a lawsuit from somebody like Arcadia, Harley Davidson or Disney are two different things.

cheers

Dave

[Eric DeSilva]

There are statutory damages for registered copyrights so a holder doesn't need to prove harm. My recollection is that statutory damages run about $50K.

[Dan Hintz]

Not a lawyer, expert or anything else but it seems like if you're not profiting, the worst that is likely is a request to remove the copyrighted item.

Making a profit is not taken into account when determining if you're in the wrong. It can be used against you when determining how much you need to pay the lawyers, however...

[Jim Matthews]

A lawyer is the best person to as, but...

Copyright does not disappear when a person dies. It generally passes on to his/her estate. If that wasn't the case, a lot more people would be scamming Disney stuff

The Mickey Mouse Protection act, written by Disney lawyers exempts Disney products from entering public domain.
While they built many of their feature films on public domain frameworks, they retain control of all images generated by their creative staff.

In 1998, Mickey scampered to Capitol Hill when a bill proposing a 20-year extension of U.S. copyright limits was brought before the Senate. Under the planned revisions, corporations (for example: the Walt Disney Company) would retain exclusive rights to original characters and content for a period of 95 years. The previous limit, set in 1973, guaranteed rights for just 75 years. (The changes would also affect works created by individuals, protecting them for an additional 70 years following the death of their author, up from 50 years in 1973.) - Mental Floss.

It's the cornerstone for their current media holdings; exclusivity.

[Clarence Martin]

If a person had a copyright on something and then died and no estate and no heirs, what happens to the copyright ? Nobody can profit from it because it belongs to no one. The person that had it died. Shouldn't that copyright be expired ?

[Dan Hintz]

If a person had a copyright on something and then died and no estate and no heirs, what happens to the copyright ? Nobody can profit from it because it belongs to no one. The person that had it died. Shouldn't that copyright be expired ?

This one I'm very unsure on, but... typically, assets not claimed by heirs go to the state. Therefore, copyright would fall to the state. I doubt the state would profit from anything unless the copyrighted item was already well known and making money, so they would just let it die. It's also likely they would not chase anyone down for using it. Another likely possibility is it would just pass into the public domain.

[Fred Voorhees]

Thanks guys....I ended up putting the clips on YouTube in the end. No problems...and I really don't anticipate any problems. Someone mentioned elsewhere that I posted this question mentioned how YouTube is inundated with other clips of movies and music videos from nationally known artists and no problems arise. With that...I figured I was in no position that would cause a problem.