New Pornstar Interviews - [more]
Audrey Madison Interview

"I really want even more DPs and double anal. And more gangbang stuff."
All Forums > The Porn Pool > The Porn Pool Forum Page 335 > Copyright laws.
AuthorPost
simon33333 All-Star Supporter
All-Star Member

828 Posts
9/09
Posted - Apr 22 2011 : 5:44PM
I believe it is my understanding that there is a 100 year copyright law on all porns, like for the ones that even going back to 1975. I have seen people advertise them and they are just copying vhs to dvd and editing. They have sown some shots that are in their ad tht are not great, thus the transfer equipment is lousy. I have not bought one, just want to confirm the 100 year law. I know it is on books.
lurflurf
Member

115 Posts
10/03
Posted - Apr 23 2011 : 4:32AM

This stuff is complicated, but I think the basic idea is
before 1923:public domain
1923-1977:may be public domain if owner did not file required paperwork
1978 and newer:copyrighted
It is widely believed that most porn from before 1978 is public domain, as its owners like the owner of Night of the Living Dead did not correctly file their paperwork.
john lyons
Senior Member

Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome
1188 Posts
1/08
Posted - Apr 23 2011 : 12:12PM
This is true, but not because producers were lazy.
It was very hard to defend copyrights of XXX material because such a case could also result in the film in question being declared obscene.
ninja1
Senior Member

2939 Posts
1/08
Posted - Apr 23 2011 : 1:29PM
I believe this is just an 'academic' question. Producers of much 1980's and 1990's and 2000's porn, with full copyright protection, don't bother to distribute it, because it's not economically feasible. Reproduction+distribution+promotion costs vs. sales earnings only works for the most popular titles. For the 1970's-1980's stuff there is also the additional expense of converting film or analog tape to digital form and DVD. Yes, copyright is good for protecting the owners' ability to earn money. But copyright is bad for saving the life of the older and/or less popular movies.
simon33333 All-Star Supporter
All-Star Member

828 Posts
9/09
Posted - Apr 23 2011 : 3:23PM
Good info Thanks, I wanted to see if someone was breaking the law.
 
simon33333 All-Star Supporter
All-Star Member

828 Posts
9/09
Posted - Apr 23 2011 : 3:24PM
Thanks for the breakdown, i appreciate it.
simon33333 All-Star Supporter
All-Star Member

828 Posts
9/09
Posted - Apr 23 2011 : 3:30PM
makes sense.
simon33333 All-Star Supporter
All-Star Member

828 Posts
9/09
Posted - Apr 23 2011 : 3:33PM
But a good lwayer could say it was legally done in the 80's and a copyright would stand for instance of the movie L'amour starring Harry Reems and Angel if someone started to spin off 200 copys thru the basic vhs to dvd deal and make money, right?
john lyons
Senior Member

Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome
1188 Posts
1/08
Posted - Apr 23 2011 : 10:50PM
L'AMOUR is a bad example because it was made in '84, and it has a good standing copyright which was filed properly at the time of its production.
But most films made pre-78 were never registered, even after it could be done. And now it is too late.
Many pre-78 XXX films don't have declarations of copyright on the films themselves, meaning that after-the-fact registration is nearly impossible.



Jump To: