Copyright term, film labeling, and film preservation legislation : hearings before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 989, H.R. 1248, and H.R. 1734 ... June 1 and July 13, 1995 (1996)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

493 If an archive intends to publicly exhibit such material, it should consider requesting releases from the on-screen individuals if the donor can obtain such releases. Perhaps the best known use of privacy laws to block the exhibition of a film involved the 1966 film by Frederick Wiseman entitled Titicut Follies. The documentary exposed the squalid conditions of the Bridgewater State Hospital for the Criminally Insane, and contained extensive footage of patients from whom no consents had been obtained. The governor of Massachusetts, emban-assed by the publicity over the conditions at the hospital, sought an injunction against the showing of the film on the grounds that it violated the right of privacy of an inmate shown naked in his cell. The trial judge agreed with the privacy argument and banned the film. The Supreme Court twice declined to hear an appeal of the case. It was not until twenty-one years later, in 1987, after most of the patients in the film had died and a new prison had been built to replace the original 1850 building, that a court reversed the original ruling and permitted the film to be exhibited. (The film finally aired on PBS in 1993.) 4. Trademark laws Issues regarding trademark law generally do not occur in connection with typical archival film deposits or archival exhibition activities. Trademark claims may, however, be triggered if the archive engages in licensing or merchandising efforts related to the film (such as offering fund-raising tee shirts featuring materials from a film). Although unlikely, trademark claims of "false attribution" or "false light" may also arise from restoration efforts which dramatically alter the original appearance of a film. 5. Collective bargaining agreements with talent Most studio-produced and many independently produced motion pictures are subject to the terms of collective bargaining agreements with the major industry guilds, including the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), the Writers Guild of America (WGA), and the Directors Guild of America (DGA). As a general rule, no re-use or residual payments will be triggered by an archive making a film available to researchers or exhibiting the film to its visitors. Any "new use" of the film material may, however, trigger obligations including editing portions of various films together (in the format of the film That's Entertainment!). Under certain circumstances, the publishing of script material in book form can trigger WGA obligations to the original screenwriter(s). Therefore, if any derivative uses are contemplated for the deposit materials, either by the donor or by the archive, the relevant Guild agreements should be consulted. 70 Redefining Film Preservation