Copyright is important. But it’s turned into a money pit, and the result is not just abstract, but concrete: a loss of of documentaries due to “copyrighted” film footage.
As Americans commemorate Martin Luther King Jr. and his legacy today, no television channel will be broadcasting the documentary series Eyes on the Prize. Produced in the 1980s and widely considered the most important encapsulation of the American civil-rights movement on video, the documentary series can no longer be broadcast or sold anywhere.
Why? The makers of the series no longer have permission for the archival footage they previously used of such key events as the historic protest marches or the confrontations with Southern police. Given Eyes on the Prize‘s tight budget, typical of any documentary, its filmmakers could barely afford the minimum five-year rights for use of the clips. That permission has long since expired, and the $250,000 to $500,000 needed to clear the numerous copyrights involved is proving too expensive.
This is particularly dire now, because VHS copies of the series used in countless school curriculums are deteriorating beyond rehabilitation. With no new copies allowed to go on sale, “the whole thing, for all practical purposes, no longer exists,” says Jon Else, a California-based filmmaker who helped produce and shoot the series and who also teaches at the Graduate School of Journalism of the University of California, Berkeley.
And even where there’s a claim that the long-standing “fair usage” doctrine should cover such stuff — money again stands in the way.
Broadcasters and film distributors, in turn, have become more stringent in making sure they are legally covered, too. As illustrated in a recent study by the American University in Washington, which interviewed dozens of documentary-makers on the myriad problems of getting copyright clearances, broadcasters and film distributors insist that a documentary have what is known as errors and omissions insurance, to protect against copyright infringement. Of course to get it, all copyrights in the documentary have to be cleared anyway.
Ironically, because documentaries have become more popular, more folks are seeking to use copyrighted material — which means that the interests (often corporate) that hold those copyrights are more likely to see them as valuable, and charge more for them.
Before the digital and documentary explosion, a clip of President Nixon speaking, for instance, usually could be licensed “in perpetuity,” meaning that the film could continue to use the footage indefinitely. Now the incentive is for copyright owners to grant only limited permission. “Increasingly, it’s harder and harder to get ‘in perpetuity,’ because rights-holders realize that somebody will have to come back in five years or 10 years and pay more money,” Flahive says.
It also means that documentary makers have to be all the more careful even when they shoot footage themselves.
It’s enough of a legal rigmarole to make underfunded filmmakers simply avoid using archival clips altogether or to remove footage that they shot themselves that might include someone singing a popular hit or even Happy Birthday to You (a copyrighted song). […] The American University study is a fascinating, if dispiriting, look at the tricks documentary-makers have to pull to get around copyright restrictions, from turning off all TVs and radios when filming a subject indoors to replacing a clip of people watching the World Series with a shot of professional basketball on the TV set instead because that’s what the filmmaker had rights for.
Explain to me again how this helps protect creativity and innovation?
(via BoingBoing)
More on the travails of Eyes on the Prize in Wired.
The relevant part of the constitution (section 8, paragraph 8) says Congress will have the power “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”.
Warning: I am not a Lawyer, so this is just uninformed speculation and musing: Assuming that “useful arts” includes literature, video, music, etc, it seems to me that one might argue that if the current copyright law retards progress in those arts, then it is unconstitutional. I wonder if this kind of court challenge could successfully bring down or change the DMCA or other copyright laws.
The other thing this suggests to me is to ask whether or not “exclusive” rights can legally be bought and sold under the constitution.