Black History Month

Joelsbass

Hopefully this won't be viewed as political even though it does pertain to Copyright Laws...

---

At 8pm on February 8th we will celebrate the struggle and triumph of the civil rights movement with screenings of Eyes on the Prize Part 1: Awakenings. Eyes on the Prize is the most renowned civil rights documentary of all time; for many people, it is how they first learned about the Civil Rights Movement (more about the film). But this film has not been available on video or television for the past 10 years simply because of expired copyright licenses. We cannot allow copyright red tape to keep this film from the public any longer. So today we are making digital versions of the film available for download. Join us in building a new mass audience for this film: organize or attend a screening in your city, town, school or home on February 8th.

Sunk by CopyrightSo why has Eyes on the Prize been unavailable for the past 10 years? Copyright restrictions. For example, the film includes footage of a group of people singing "Happy Birthday" to Martin Luther King. Incredibly, "Happy Birthday" is under copyright and some rights holders believe that they should be given licensing fees if the song appears in any film, even a documentary. (Yes that's correct, "Happy Birthday" is restricted under copyright--so if you've ever sung it in a restaurant or a park, you could literally be breaking the law.)

But "Happy Birthday" is just the beginning. Eyes on the Prize is made up of news footage, photographs, songs and lyrics from the Civil Rights Movement that are tangled up in a web of licensing restrictions. Many of these licenses had expired by 1995 and the film's production company, Blackside, could not afford the exorbitant costs of renewing them. "Eyes on the Prize" has been unavailable to the public ever since.

How could this happen?Copyright law has expanded out of control, and its public mission is no longer being served. Copyright was originally designed to encourage creativity and innovation--much like patent law. But for the past 50 years multi-national corporations like Disney and the major record labels have aggressively lobbied Congress to expand and expand and expand the reach of copyright law. Instead of lasting 20 years and requiring registration (like patents do) copyright has become automatic and now corporate copyrights last 90 years.

In addition to the excessive 90 year copyright, corporations have created a legal environment that effectively strips the free speech rights of documentary filmmakers and artists to excerpt copyrighted works for their productions. Nowadays even incidental copyrighted material appearing in a documentary (e.g. a television that's visible while people are talking) is being tossed on the cutting room floor because filmmakers are threatened with lawsuits. Copyright has become so twisted that it now severely restricts innovation, creativity and speech rather than encouraging it. In this case, our unworkable copyright law has kept "Eyes on the Prize" out of homes and classrooms, depriving us of a crucial historical record.

Last week Lawrence Guyot, a prominent civil rights leader with the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, told the Washington Post, "This is analogous to stopping the circulation of all the books about Martin Luther King, stopping the circulation of all the books about Malcolm X, stopping the circulation of books about the founding of America... I would call upon everyone who has access to 'Eyes on the Prize' to openly violate any and all laws regarding its showing."

So, are these community screenings civil disobedience?We don't think so at all. The First Amendment and the doctrine of "fair use" can clearly be extended to include the right to distribute a film of such important historical significance as Eyes, when such a film is otherwise unavailable. The history of the Civil Rights Movement is simply too important for us to let its most comprehensive documentary languish in copyright purgatory. This Black History Month we're working to ensure as many people as possible have access to this essential film.

But that doesn't mean that the law shouldn't change. Our present copyright clearance environment forces filmmakers to pay exorbitant fees and to go through piles of paperwork before their films ever see the light of day. Consequently, many works of art will never be released or even attempted and that weakens our culture and our shared history. We need to move back to the original purpose of copyright and find ways to ensure that creativity is supported rather than unnecessarily stifled. And Congress should positively reaffirm the fair use rights of the public... so that "free speech" doesn't just mean the right to hire a lawyer.

---

If you're interested here's the link.

http://www.downhillbattle.org/eyes/

F1nut

Ya know now that you mention it, I haven't seen much of the classic movie, "Reefer Madness" in a long time.

Strong Bad

Originally posted by F1nut
Ya know now that you mention it, I haven't seen much of the classic movie, "Reefer Madness" in a long time.

I think a group of us should gather at Jesse's and film a re-make of this classic!


John

RuSsMaN

I'm half black.

From the waist down.

Cheers,
Superfly TNT

polkatese

Originally posted by RuSsMaN
I'm half black.

From the waist down.

Cheers,
Superfly TNT

Who's going to confirm that, Russ?

dorokusai

Most likely everyone who got mooned by Russ and myself at the SC Polkfest.

Frank Z

I would have thought that songs like"Happy Birthday" and films like Eye on the Prive would be considered to be Public Domain just because of the age alone. Guess I was wrong.

RuSsMaN

Originally posted by polkatese
Who's going to confirm that, Russ?

Your mom?



Just hackin' bro

Cheers,
Rooster

polkatese

I swear she said something about seeing AA battery stuck in between a couple 8 balls...

PolkThug

PBS announced that it would be airing Eyes on the Prize in fall of 2006. The tentative air dates will be three consecutive Mondays: October 2, 9, and 16.

Early B.

I recall this series being very good, but rather lengthy. Anyone know how long it is?

Skynut

F1nut wrote:

Ya know now that you mention it, I haven't seen much of the classic movie, "Reefer Madness" in a long time.

I just picked this one up in the $5.00 bin at BB.

Now I want to find Eyes on the Prize for my collection.

bobman1235

In addition to the excessive 90 year copyright, corporations have created a legal environment that effectively strips the free speech rights of documentary filmmakers and artists to excerpt copyrighted works for their productions. Nowadays even incidental copyrighted material appearing in a documentary (e.g. a television that's visible while people are talking) is being tossed on the cutting room floor because filmmakers are threatened with lawsuits. Copyright has become so twisted that it now severely restricts innovation, creativity and speech rather than encouraging it. In this case, our unworkable copyright law has kept "Eyes on the Prize" out of homes and classrooms, depriving us of a crucial historical record.

I'm sorry, but your point is ridiculous, and has no bearing on reality.

The point of copyright is to protect someone's creative works from being stolen, and from someone else profiting from them. Just because a film is a documentary doesn't mean squat. If I decided to make a documentary about the TV show M*A*S*H, does that mean I can just steal episodes of the show without permission from the owners of the show? Of course not. And a lot of people bring up "Happy Birthday" as an example of why copyright law is ridiculous, which I don't understand. Someone made the song at one point, so because it is popular they should lose their rights to it? How does that make sense? I think it's a testament to their creativity that the song became so popular, why should they be punished for it?

Also, the fact that a documentary is culturally significant or important in your eyes doesnt' mean that it is not subject to the law. And stop misconstruing fair use.

Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he pardoned Nixon.

I'm sorry that you want to steal people's stuff for free just because you think you're producing something good, but you're just wrong.

krabby5

Ever notice how African Americans get the shortest month..:D

aaharvel

"Ever notice how African Americans get the shortest month.."

that continues to be a running-joke with me and friends back home in Wilkesboro.

heiney9

Frank Z wrote:

I would have thought that songs like"Happy Birthday" and films like Eye on the Prive would be considered to be Public Domain just because of the age alone. Guess I was wrong.

Actually the rights to this song are owned by Paul McCartney and while you'll have no fear of being fined or having the cuffs slapped on you if you perfrom it in public or at Aunt Betty's 90th b-day, royalties need to be paid if it's used in a commercial recording of any kind.

H9

P.s. that's waht I read several years ago and I don't believe the situation has changed.

Early B.

heiney9 wrote:

Actually the rights to this song are owned by Paul McCartney and while you'll have no fear of being fined or having the cuffs slapped on you if you perfrom it in public or at Aunt Betty's 90th b-day, royalties need to be paid if it's used in a commercial recording of any kind.

H9

P.s. that's waht I read several years ago and I don't believe the situation has changed.

Nope. AOL Time Warner owns the copyright.

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

heiney9

Thanks EB, I could've done a little research myself, I guess statements like mine are how rumors get perpetuated. I really thought if he wasn't the current owner that he'd atleast owned the rights at one time.