Cheap 53 Year-Old Films Are Legal

[Mulboyne]

[floatr][/floatr]Business Week: Japan court rejects Paramount DVD request
A Japanese court rejected a request by Paramount Pictures to halt sales of bargain-priced DVD releases of movie classics such as "Roman Holiday," Kyodo News reported Tuesday. The Tokyo District Court ruled that the copyrights to the movies in question had already expired and the company rereleasing them in DVD format was not required to stop their sales, the report said...Many versions of such DVD movie classics are priced as low as 500 yen ...an eighth of the cost of Paramount's price of 4,179 yen...Judge Makiko Takabe ruled that the titles released in or before 1953 with 50-year patent protection are not covered by the 2004 law and thus their patents had expired at the end of 2003, rejecting Paramount's claims that their products are subject to patent protection for 20 more years under the new law, Kyodo said...more...

[Mulboyne]

No matter who reports this story, they only seem to mention "Roman Holiday".


Photo Asahi

[Taro Toporific]

The Tokyo District Court ruled that the copyrights to the movies in question had already expired...Paramount's claims that their products are subject to patent protection for 20 more years under the new law

Does anyone understand how these 53+ year old movies are being defended as a "patented" property rather than a copyright property?

Many other movies such as Mickey Mouse cartoons have a 70+ year copyright life--What gives?

[ojara]

Does anyone understand how these 53+ year old movies are being defended as a "patented" property rather than a copyright property?

Many other movies such as Mickey Mouse cartoons have a 70+ year copyright life--What gives?

Copyright term can set up each country, so, original movie(English) cannot sale 500 yen, if we export to abroad, then, protect export, reporter said.

Now, movies copyright term chainged 70 year, in japan recently,
but, Just Showa 53year movie is before revision the row, other years movie, still protect on row.

sorry, my bad english. I hope Taro understanding this.

[amdg]

Does anyone understand how these 53+ year old movies are being defended as a "patented" property rather than a copyright property?

Many other movies such as Mickey Mouse cartoons have a 70+ year copyright life--What gives?

It's just a case of laypeople getting confused between patent and copyright, as you could probably guess, doing what you do. They really mean 'copyright', but to the great unwashed the distinction between different regimes of IP protection is largely ignored and many just use 'patent' as a coverall term to mean a 'protected' or proprietory thing.

In the past there have been noises made about patenting (movie and book) storylines, but it's not likely to happen anytime soon.

Ojara is right when he talks about different terms of copyright protection being applied in different countries, and when he talks about whether the law is retroactively applied. In Japan, it's not retroactive, so the previous law applies to those old movies.

[Mulboyne]

[amdg]

Kyodo via Crisscross: Paramount appeals court's rejection to stop sales of cheap DVDs

At a tangent to the earlier patent/copyright question, I noticed this Yomiuri article about patent translating:

Hmm, you don't often see patent attorneys who do their own translations!8O Translating a single patent spec can take a few weeks - so if he's charging his usual attorney fees for it then his clients are getting reamed. On the other hand if he's only charging a normal translators' fee, then why the hell did he become a patent attorney in the first place only to pull in translators' wages all week? Either way, someone is getting screwed. I could perhaps understand if it was a young guy just starting out, but he's not.

Anyway, the most important part is not the translation, it's the initial claim drafting. This is done in one's own native language and done by a qualified patent attorney, almost without exception, because everything that follows in the life of that patent is a consequence of that initial draft. It seems very odd that he didn't even mention the importance of claims drafting.

Conclusion: this guy operates in a very non-standard corner of the patent business.

But thanks for the link Mulboyne, and sorry to all for boring the shit out of you - I just got nothing better to do right now, sitting at home watching TV, surfing and waiting for the Mrs to get home so we can go eat.

[jingai]

Does anyone understand how these 53+ year old movies are being defended as a "patented" property rather than a copyright property?

Many other movies such as Mickey Mouse cartoons have a 70+ year copyright life--What gives?

I think the copyright terms differ, as the above poster said, but the international convention regulating copyrights between countries is also an issue.
I don't believe Japanese works made before 1978 are protected under US copyright law, as they predate the major treaty on this subject (forgetting name, need more brain RAM).

[amdg]

If you're interested in learning the basics of how it works...

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl100.html

[Greji]

Kyodo via Crisscross: Paramount appeals court's rejection to stop sales of cheap DVDs

At a tangent to the earlier patent/copyright question, I noticed this Yomiuri article about patent translating:

At one time there were a lot of allegations that when a foreign person or entity applied for a patent in Japan there was an undue long period of time required for application and approval. It was then alleged (but unproved to my knowledge) that identical patents would magically appear for approval by Japanese companies and be processed before the foreign one.

As I said I know of no case where this was ever prooven, but it always made for great happy hour talk at Trader Vic's and the FG happy hour in-places of that era.

[Mulboyne]

UPI: Japan may catch up on copyright protection

The Japanese government is looking into whether the length of the country's copyright protection should be increased to that of U.S. regulations. The Yomiuri Shimbun said following a recommendation from 14 arts and cultural organizations in Japan, the government will begin investigating the possibility of increasing the copyright protection of an artist's works from the current 50 years to 70 years. With this year marking the 50th anniversary of the deaths of famous Japanese poets, Kotaro Takamura and Yaichi Aizu, and with the country's literature and music gaining popularity worldwide, many believe such an increase is imperative, the newspaper said.

In 2004, the Japanese government increased the protection on domestic films to the U.S. standard of 70 years to remain competitive with corresponding international products. The arts and cultural organizations plan to officially request the increase in September to Japan's Cultural Affairs Agency, which will discuss the matter with an advisory panel in 2007, the newspaper said.

[Mulboyne]

AFP: Japan court says Charlie Chaplin still holds copyrights

A Japanese court on Wednesday ruled that late comedy icon Charlie Chaplin still holds the copyright for his work until 2015, in the first ruling of its kind. The decision came as the Tokyo District Court ruled that two Tokyo-based DVD producers violated the copyrights of nine Chaplin movies by duplicating and selling cheap DVDs. "Their copyright should be protected for 38 years after the death of the rights holder," presiding Judge Misao Shimizu said. "The authorship of the nine movies belongs to Chaplin." The court suspended the sales of the DVDs and ordered the companies to pay 10.5 million yen in compensation to the Roy Export Company Establishment, which holds the rights to Chaplin's movies. Chaplin died in 1977. It was Japan's first ruling of its kind on the copyrights of a late film director. The nine movies, released between 1919 and 1952, included Chaplin's celebrated parody of Adolf Hitler, "The Great Dictator," along with "Modern Times" and "The Gold Rush." Roy Export had sought the suspension of the cheap DVDs and 94 million yen in compensation, arguing the companies violated the copyrights. The defendants contended the copyright protection period had expired.