FREE DVD: Song of the South

[BJ_M]

Song of the South was also removed from Disney.com's Movie Finder

[BJ_M]

Perhaps lost in all the controversy over the film is the fact that James Baskett, a Black man, was the very first live actor ever hired by Disney. But Baskett was unable to attend the film's premiere in Atlanta because no hotel would give him a room.

[ViRaL1]

Perhaps lost in all the controversy over the film is the fact that James Baskett, a Black man, was the very first live actor ever hired by Disney. But Baskett was unable to attend the film's premiere in Atlanta because no hotel would give him a room.

There was a similar situation with Gone with the Wind.

Taken from IMDB...

Hattie McDaniel would have been prevented from attending the film's Atlanta premiere because of Georgia's racial segregation laws. So as not to put David O. Selznick in the awkward position of having to fight for her right to attend, she wrote to him, saying that she would be "unavailable".

[Rookie64]

I think if it were public domain more outlets would offer it - they don't...not even most bootleg sources.


Disney is one of those companies you don't want to take risks with - much like Playboy, they'll take legal action.

I'd stay away from anything George Lucas/Star Wars related also.

For your own benefit

[adam]

the copyright on "song of the south" ran out july 2004 ....

disney shows it as "Copyright © 1944-2004 Walt Disney Productions / The Walt Disney Company. All rights reserved.'


it is now public domain i guess - though i;m no legal expert by any means ...

Where are you seeing that the copyright expired? Even under original copyright law they'd still have almost 20 years left on it. After the passing of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act they'd have almost 40 years left if they re-applied.

Are you basing this on the fact that their copyright notice says 1944-2004? The 2004 is not an expiration date. It means they modified or added something to the movie in that year, and it is now all covered under the same copyright. If you see a copyright notice at all on a Disney product then you can be pretty well assured that it is still copyrighted.

[ViRaL1]

Every time I think of Sonny Bono, I can't help but think of George of the Jungle.

[Conquest10]

Every time I think of Sonny Bono, I can't help but think of George of the Jungle.

Oh, man. That is so wrong.

[BJ_M]

the copyright on "song of the south" ran out july 2004 ....

disney shows it as "Copyright © 1944-2004 Walt Disney Productions / The Walt Disney Company. All rights reserved.'


it is now public domain i guess - though i;m no legal expert by any means ...

Where are you seeing that the copyright expired? Even under original copyright law they'd still have almost 20 years left on it. After the passing of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act they'd have almost 40 years left if they re-applied.

Are you basing this on the fact that their copyright notice says 1944-2004? The 2004 is not an expiration date. It means they modified or added something to the movie in that year, and it is now all covered under the same copyright. If you see a copyright notice at all on a Disney product then you can be pretty well assured that it is still copyrighted.

yea - i was thinking it was 50 years as in canada and AU and EC and pretty much the rest of the world other than USA .. momentary lapse of reason and memory both .... The copyright DID run out here.



NOTE: it is now 95 years in the USA actually ..

For pre-1978 works still in their original or renewal term of copyright, the total term is extended to 95 years from the date that copyright was originally secured. For further information see Circular 15a. http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ15.pdf.

[ChrisX]

I have copied "Song of the South" from an old beta videotape the other day.

It was originally taped from Channel 7 sometime during the late 80s.

The videotape of the film as not the best or the top condition in terms of picture and sound and I am going to transfer it into a DVD soon.

The color system is PAL and the film length is 1 hr 58 minutes with ads.

The recording is in the process of digitally omit the commercials as soon as I can.

The film isn’t commercially available here in Australia and also not available on broadcast for now.

I would like a copy of the DVD and the question would be too hard for me to answer and I know Uncle Remus.

It is a good film and so enjoyable to watch.

[flaninacupboard]

I have copied "Song of the South" from an old beta videotape the other day.

It was originally taped from Channel 7 sometime during the late 80s.

The videotape of the film as not the best or the top condition in terms of picture and sound and I am going to transfer it into a DVD soon.

The color system is PAL and the film length is 1 hr 58 minutes with ads.

The recording is in the process of digitally omit the commercials as soon as I can.

The film isn’t commercially available here in Australia and also not available on broadcast for now.

I would like a copy of the DVD and the question would be too hard for me to answer and I know Uncle Remus.

It is a good film and so enjoyable to watch.

see my earlier point?

[adam]

yea - i was thinking it was 50 years as in canada and AU and EC and pretty much the rest of the world other than USA ..

I think you mean life + 50 years? That's what those countries you listed use and its the minimum term allowed under the Berne convention for all those countries who signed it. Here in the States it was extended from that to life + 70 years but we also have an option for corporations which is 95 years. All those works in limbo (pre 1978 works whose copyrights were still in effect) at the time of extension were just given 95 years.

I took a look at Canada's laws, and I don't believe Song of the South is public domain there yet. Its possible that the copyright was taken out by Walt himself. If it was taken out by Disney then the "author" is considered to be the principle shareholder at the time, which would still be Walt. Either way, he died in 1966 which means that the copyright won't run out until 2016.

The 50 years from date of publication term only applies if the author isn't known.

[Treebeard]

Never released on dvd, but its on Ebay LOL. Not that those are legal copies but everything is on ebay

[BJ_M]

yea - i was thinking it was 50 years as in Canada and AU and EC and pretty much the rest of the world other than USA ..

I think you mean life + 50 years? That's what those countries you listed use and its the minimum term allowed under the Berne convention for all those countries who signed it. Here in the States it was extended from that to life + 70 years but we also have an option for corporations which is 95 years. All those works in limbo (pre 1978 works whose copyrights were still in effect) at the time of extension were just given 95 years.

I took a look at Canada's laws, and I don't believe Song of the South is public domain there yet. Its possible that the copyright was taken out by Walt himself. If it was taken out by Disney then the "author" is considered to be the principle shareholder at the time, which would still be Walt. Either way, he died in 1966 which means that the copyright won't run out until 2016.

The 50 years from date of publication term only applies if the author isn't known.

Canada and Australia may have signed it -- but appears not to have ratified it into law as on both their web sites it states just the max 50 year in total ... 95 years is nuts , but of course will not change ...

the "author" of many of the Disney works - in whole or part is ub iwerks and others ... not that he got any royalties from it ....

[adam]

I got that from Canada's "Copyright Act."

Term of Copyright

6. The term for which copyright shall subsist shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, be the life of the author, the remainder of the calendar year in which the author dies, and a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year.

R.S., 1985, c. C-42, s. 6; 1993, c. 44, s. 58.

You guys definitely do life + 50 years. Most countries are the same way. I agree, 95 years is nuts. I'm guessing you already knew this but, it was Disney that got the law changed when poor old Mickey was about to pass into public domain.

[BJ_M]

japan

For the first time under a newly designed settlement mechanism, a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute resolution case was filed on February 9 against Japan by the United States and the European Union. Japan's reluctance to amend its copyright laws to protect pre-1971 U.S. recordings prompted the U.S. government to present the case to the WTO. Mickey Kantor, U.S. trade representative, described the motivation behind such action as one of absolute necessity: The Recording Industry Association of America asserts that U.S. companies have been incurring losses of up to $500 million per year because of Japan's refusal to "roll back" its foreign sound recording provisions with the worldwide standard of a 50 year duration period. Currently, Japan extends copyright protection to U.S. sound recordings for a period of twenty five years, leaving a tremendous body of recorded works unprotected in Japan. According to industry sources, millions of unauthorized compilations of pre-1971 recordings are manufactured annually in Japan, for sale throughout the world, without the permission of the originating record companies.

Before the WTO filing, the Japanese government had informally announced that it planned to amend its laws. On February 5, Japan's major financial newspaper, Nihon Keizai Shimbun, reported that the government had decided to take steps to roll back its neighboring rights protection period to fifty years. However, some argue that this decision was not altogether rooted in altruism. According to Washington officials, Japan was obligated by the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, which took effect on January 1, 1996, to extend protection to foreign sound recordings for a period of fifty years from their creation. This means that U.S. recordings dating back to 1946 are now entitled to protection. Japanese ministry officials refute this and maintain that TRIPS does not specify a 50 year requirement. Japanese government sources had instead suggested that the roll back was in the way of a "trial balloon" floated to gauge public reaction.

Initial reports both in Washington and Tokyo cited Japan's reaction to the WTO case as conciliatory, maintaining that it is ultimately to Japan's benefit to update its laws. Indeed, a February 23rd meeting in California between U.S. and Japanese officials resulted in Prime Minister Hishimoto's statement that Japan should follow "other developed countries' moves to respect the Beatles, Presley, and other splendid musicians from the fifties and sixties." The first step in the resolution process, a dispute settlement consultation, nonetheless took place in Geneva on March 4th, and the complaint remains pending as this edition of News & Views goes to press.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.law.gov.au/agd/Department/Publications/publications/copyrightlawaust/8.html

8.5
The duration of copyright protection for sound recordings and films is generally 50 years from the end of the year of first publication. If the film or sound recording is unpublished, the protection period is indefinite until it is published.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

canada:

...films and photographs (where the original negative was owned by a corporation not controlled by the photographer) and similar manufactured devices embodying a copyright work, copyright lasts for 50 years from the end of the year in which the original master or negative is made.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


all of the above clearly state that in these countries -- it is 50 years or less it seems ...

[BJ_M]

anyway - "song of the south" is not registered, that i can find, in our database here ...

disney did pull it from thier movie find database ...

it is over 50 years old...

[adam]

BJ_M, with all due respect, I have no idea where that language came from but its not in Canada's Copyright Act. That language looks very similar to the section on photographs made as work for hire from a corporation, where yes the protection expires 50 years after creation. But I am looking right at Canada's Copyright Act and it clearly states that copyright lasts for 50 years plus life. Under the section describing qualifying works, it lists "cinematographic works". You can read the full text of the law here.

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33296

Again section 6 states:

The term for which copyright shall subsist shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, be the life of the author, the remainder of the calendar year in which the author dies, and a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year.

As for whether Song of the South is actually registered or not, I don't know but here in the states it takes quite a while to run a proper search. Rights get assigned all the time and unless you do a full archival search you won't find what you are looking for. Also, in the states and with most other countries, you don't have to register to get your copyright. If it was ever published in the country then that alone establishes the copyright, though you are required to at least deposit the record with the Copyright Office, and I would certainly assume that Disney would do this.

[BJ_M]

i took that quote from the copyright act of Canada ... for corporation owned films ... which our company of course makes ..

we get 50 years - thats it (here) .... that is what my company tells me also ....


though I'm not in the legal dept. here ... they say that what you are quoting is for private owed works , not corp ...

[adam]

Well your legal department would know better than I. But I'm looking on Westlaw and Lexisnexis and the only copyright laws shown for Canada are the "Copyright Act" which I quoted from. I'm confused because it also says that it applies to both individuals and corporations under section 5, and that the terms for both are identical.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, at this point I'm genuinely curious. What is the actual name of the law you are quoting from? That language does not appear in the "Copyright Act."

[BJ_M]

i may have been looking at "an original arrangement" part of the copyright .. i was quoting directly from the act in fact ...

maybe everyone here is thinking I'm asking about my own films - which fall into the non original category (i.e. home movies) and have only a max of 50 years ...

like i said -- I'm not the legal eagle and just make the stuff ...... we live off our royalties and such for sure .. pays my wages anyway ..

Canada does have quite a few different laws than USA when it comes to new media and the net (and Canada law is further divided into Napoleonic law and common law depending which province you live in, Louisiana is also Napoleonic law based in the USA )

[Doramius]

That is definitely true. I was telling adam about some of the information I found on Song of the South. There may still be copyright here in the US on it, but a ton of copyrights were taken out due to some clerical error and a huge legal battle was set forth. THey had to pull copyrights practically every month or so in 1986 until something was passed, but Disney got hit bad in that case. I'm trying to find more details, but it is VAGUE. Apparently Disney didn't want public or media to know about this little issue with copyrights. They did get a couple of other movies cleared up BEFORE they tried releasing them on VHS in the US. THis included Badknobs & Broomsticks, Mary Poppins and a bunch of others. Song of the South was a big worry for them because of POSSIBLE racial views, but apparently that's not the main issue for Disney not releasing it. There is something much deeper and Disney is keeping it VERY quiet. The racial background just gives them a more media friendly way of keeping it out of circulation. In fact they are about to redo a lot of their parks (as they've already adjusted quite a bit already) to change the 'Song of the South' characters to characters in newer movies. They will completely remove as much as possible that refers to the movie. There's definitely more to it.

[flaninacupboard]

THis included Badknobs & Broomsticks,definitely more to it.

Who knew Disney did S&M porn?

They will completely remove as much as possible that refers to the movie. There's definitely more to it.

Yep it's a big evil conspiracy. oooooooooooooooooooo.

[Doramius]

They will completely remove as much as possible that refers to the movie. There's definitely more to it.

Yep it's a big evil conspiracy. oooooooooooooooooooo.

You can read all about the exploits in the National Enquirer and the Daily Star.

[Fairhope]

I've always heard the reason why Disney never released Song of the South was for the racial reasons as well. Luckily, I was able to purchase a copy of the VHS tape from a flea market here in the States.

Another one, along the same gender and including one star which was on Song of the South as well as Gone With the Wind - Hattie McDaniel - was the Shirley Temple movie, The Little Colonel. It came out on VHS about 3 years ago but was pulled from the shelves almost immediately. They've since released a boatload of Shirley Temple movies, but did not include The Little Colonel.

[Doramius]

THere has to be more to a lot of these, because if there is reason to pull them, there are a bunch of other movies that are widely available that aren't pulled. Gone With the Wind would be one of them. Dumbo even had problems because of the crows. The Little rascals are on DVD and VHS, but they aren't pulled, and the DVDs have a lot to be questioned from a racist point of view. There is something much deeper that is holding them back. Possibly image of the actor or a particular company.

[ChrisX]

I have copied "Song of the South" from an old beta videotape the other day.

It was originally taped from Channel 7 sometime during the late 80s.

The videotape of the film as not the best or the top condition in terms of picture and sound and I am going to transfer it into a DVD soon.

The color system is PAL and the film length is 1 hr 58 minutes with ads.

The recording is in the process of digitally omit the commercials as soon as I can.

The film isn’t commercially available here in Australia and also not available on broadcast for now.

I would like a copy of the DVD and the question would be too hard for me to answer and I know Uncle Remus.

It is a good film and so enjoyable to watch.

see my earlier point?

I understand now and just that I am not used to the coding and I got to translate to letters to make sense of what the question is.

Anyway, adam posted the translation to English to make sense and the answer Uncle Remus afterwards.