OW & the long arm of copyright

R Kadin · Post by **R Kadin** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:17 pm

In connection with another initiative I am researching (see "General Discussion - Online resource discussion"), I am looking into possibilities that might open up to avid Wellesnet visitors/contributors by virtue educational affiliations enjoyed by other members or guests, here.

More specifically, there has been concern expressed over such things as exhibition rights to Welles's copyrighted material in the event that some kind of centralized, restricted-access, on-demand, online streaming resource facility were to be devised. Such concerns might be mitigated, however, where recognized academic affiliations are a part of the mix.

Wellesnet exists to promote the discussion and appreciation of Welles's work, parallel pursuits that are sorely hampered by impediments as various as they are arbitrary. As a collective, Wellesnetters have searched far and wide to amass, through legitimate means, materials that, in their aggregate, might be among the most extensive on the planet. Therefore, if there are tools at our disposal to unleash the power of those materials in the service of furthering the study of Welles, then I am all for putting them to good use.

With that in mind, it strikes me that the level of discourse, here, can often carry with it academic value which should not go underrated or overlooked. Why should not the legitimacy of that discourse, then, serve also to validate the legitimacy of the kind of web-based resource being considered? And could some form of accreditation and/or affiliation with a bona fide educational facility provide valuable support?

In thinking of possible affiliations, the number of post-secondary film courses out there are probably too numerous to count, while, in the U.S., at least, such institutions as the Lilly Library and the Museum of Broadcasting also spring to mind. Overseas affiliations (and these might even be preferable in terms of untapping the wealth of Welles materials available beyond North America's confines) should be neither less numerous nor less welcome.

I open the floor to discussion and ideas...

blunted by community · Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:57 pm

please explain what you are trying to say, in a hemingway-ish fashion - plain, and simple. $5 words like discourse frighten me. $22 sentences like, "parallel pursuits that are sorely hampered by impediments as various as they are arbitrary" left me feeling.... well, perplexed, defogged, and somewhat disconnected from it's factual signification.

Christopher · Post by **Christopher** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:25 pm

I don't quite see how an affiliation between Wellesnet and, say, the Lilly Library would lessen concerns about putting copyrighted material now owned by the Welles estate on our web site. The Orson Welles papers at the Lilly are available to anyone doing research on Welles, and it is also possible, for a fee, to obtain Xeroxed copies of documents. At least it was some years ago when I visited the Lilly. However, that is very different from making the documents available on line. Perhaps I don't see what you are driving at?

R Kadin · Post by **R Kadin** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:37 pm

I'm talking about making them available online to a qualified (i.e., limited, academic) as opposed to an unrestricted (i.e., broadcast) audience.

What I'm hoping is that, as a recognized, affiliated, non-profit academic archive/resource, Wellesnet could maintain an online materials reference library for the use of registered contributor-researchers without the hurdles that might bedevil a public domain or a commercial proposition. Non-copyable streaming audio and video could be used to deliver the radio and film/TV content and image files could be presented in a view-only format to prevent reproduction.

Because the files would be available to qualified "borrowers" on demand, the inability to store the content locally should not present an undue hardship, while allaying any fears concerning unauthorized commercial distributions. While it's true that visuals delivered via today's streaming technology will leave something to be desired, I for one would much rather see the Criterion "Othello" or "Chimes" that way as opposed to not at all.

blunted by community · Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:18 am

i don't see any way to do that except the old fashioned way of clandestine trades. the lilly has been threatened by the estate and copies of creative writing are not available except by permission. you can get 10 pages of screenplay per day, but you can't come in on monday and get 1 thry 10, on tuesday 11 thru 20, etc. you have to mix it up. and even if you could, at 10 pages a day, a 170 page screenplay would take you 17 visits.

if you started offering welles' creative writing on the web for academics, or even shriners, you would have your ass sued off. thomas white is one of the great white sharks of lawyers. i would no want him looking at me.

R Kadin · Post by **R Kadin** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 8:27 am

Then a North American affiliation would be less advisable. Other affiliations, however, might mitigate many of those concerns. Perhaps we need to emphasize the "world" part of "world wide web".

And bear in mind I'm not talking about researchers taking away copies; it would be view-only access, if that is what circumstance dictates. (Yes, I am aware of the ironic echo in all this of the Thatcher Library in "Kane". Would that the Welles Estate were likewise aware and moved, instead, to avoid so odious an association. Is there any character in Welles's works for which he showed greater disdain than Thatcher? What have things come to?)

For those seeking actual possession, you're quite right - private trading arrangements would have to suffice, at least for now.

Wilson · Post by **Wilson** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:01 am

I don't think doing it even solely by viewing access would work, because someone could, either via permission or not, access the material, copy it by hand if necessary, and start distributing it via eBay or wherever. The Estate is what it is: unless there's a huge payoff involved, they couldn't care less what happens to Welles' work. Which is its legal right of course; it is not obligated to make fans and scholars happy. My own thought is that any kind of group wanting to call itself a Welles Institute/Think Tank/Militia/etc must be strictly non-profit and not deal in materials which could get it sued.

On another related note, what would people think of a scholarly newsletter type thing, coming out a couple or so times a year, based on interest and other factors? Someone mentioning the MacGuffin web site made me consider this, as I remembered that the guy who ran the site also edited a journal about Hitchcock. Needless to say, this would strictly be an electronic only affair to start, likely done in PDF format, for free distribution to those who ask for it. People would need to volunteer or write some material also, as one or two people shouldn't/can't supply it all. It's easy enough to put together newsletters these days, and it doesn't have to be lengthy to start, maybe no more than 6 or 10 pages. Thoughts, comments, etc?

R Kadin · Post by **R Kadin** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:55 am

Are librairies around the planet, then, all imminent targets, since - as lenders of access to many of Welles's works - they, too, could enable brigands to use their guile to skulk off with ill-gotten copy-booty?

Clearly, the reach of the Estate has its limits, geographically, logistically, financially and legally - elsewise Asia and the entire EU would already be mountains-deep in litigation. Perhaps my own humble home-country could offer a form of sanctuary, as well. Who knows? I'm not above tesing some waters. While I certainly respect the significance of U.S.-oriented concerns in this regard, I'm not so sure that they alone need rule the day, here.

As for a newsletter, it would be a great complement to the site and a boost for its image as a legitmate forum - and it would be totally consistent with an initiative like the foregoing.

The thing of it is, though (hence my harping on the materials-resource concept), both its breadth and depth are going to be restrained by the fact that many of the works worthy of most coverage and discussion will have been taken in by relatively few of its readers.

Which only brings us back to the same point: art appreciation cannot survive without some form of access to that art. If, in Welles's case, we are in earnest about promoting the one, we need to be equally committed to promoting the other.

Wilson · Post by **Wilson** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:08 am

I daresay most libraries are safe, because of the various copyright warnings they post on copy machines and so on. Anyone can go to the Lilly, and over time, copy scripts in their entirety. But as long as the Lilly or whomever has taken the necessary steps to limit copying and let people know that they may violate copyright law if they do anything with the materials (such as the copyright warnings that appear on every page copied from the Welles mss), they are safe. Making materials available in a viewing only format is probably safe, as there is clearly no attempt to make money off of it. But the Estate (or any estate in a comparable situation) could probably claim it as a potential drain on any future use they might make of the materials. I guess it depends on the legalities; making the material available in and of itself, even in such a limited access format, may be violating copyright.

R Kadin · Post by **R Kadin** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:27 am

Let's see if the following excerpt from The U.S. National Park Service's "Museum Handbook - Part III, Chapter 2.C 'Copyright Laws' (pg. 2.2)" helps:

11. What is fair use? Fair use is an exception to copyright protection. The Copyright Act permits limited reasonable use of a work that is not harmful to the rights of the copyright owner. Fair use by definition is reasonable copying done without the permission of the owner for purposes such as:
• non-profit teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use)
• private study, scholarship, or research
• satire, parody, commentary, and criticism
• news reporting

I can't speak for others, but I know this bolsters my comfort level, more than a tad.

Christopher · Post by **Christopher** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 5:56 pm

The key word in the "fair use" clause pertaining to the copyright laws is "limited." The term "limited reasonable use" usually means a quote or excerpt from the work; it does not mean the entire work. At one time I knew the exact number of words that could be quoted under "fair use" without infringing copyright, but I have forgotten.

I vote for Jeff's idea of a newsletter coming out several times a year. I would hope that it would not be entirely "scholarly" or academic, though, since the interest and vitality of the Message Board stems from the diversity of the people who contribute to it. Just speaking for myself, I am more interested in the technical information that comes out about filmmaking and different film techniques, since this is not my area of expertise, and I have learned quite a lot from the various posts and threads. Perhaps each newsletter could include some of the more interesting posts or exchanges that appeared on the Message Board since the previous newsletter.

Wilson · Post by **Wilson** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:07 pm

Well, my hope would be that any newsletter grows beyond simply the scope of the message board to feature material by people with no interest in contributing to the board. A mix between more academically inclined material and general work would be the ideal in my mind, though it would depend on the contributors, really. And I think maybe two "issues" in twelve months would be plenty to start with, distributed via email in PDF format, which people could print out if they wanted a hard copy, as well as being archived on Wellesnet. Granted, if no one wants to contribute, it won't matter much, but we'll see what the reaction is. Right now, I think a beginning length of 6 to 10 pages, or more if the material is long enough, is plenty to begin with. Not sure repeating material from the board is worthwhile, but I am open to more ideas.

TheMcGuffin · Post by **TheMcGuffin** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:25 pm

I think the newsletter is a great idea, both interms of exploring the work of OW in a more critical, academic and/or technical manner as well as being a vehicle to drawing interest this Welles community. As for topics and articles that should be in the newsletter, we can take the MacGuffin newsletter and website as an example (http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin/) There have been articles that explored the common themes of Hitchcock Villians or articles dealing with specific movies such as a great article they did on the various endings of Suspicion. It is very wide open, we could even try and enlist various writers to contribute or atleast allowing us to reprint some of their previous essays for our news letter. I know that Bill Krohn is a regular contributer to the MacGuffin Website...and he is also a great supporter of Welles as well.

Rob

Johnny Dale · Post by **Johnny Dale** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 1:37 am

a scholarly newsletter,

A mix between more academically inclined material and general work,

two "issues" in twelve months, distributed via email in PDF format, 6 to 10 pages,

Let's Do It! How do we begin?

L French · Post by **L French** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 4:03 am

The PFD newsletter sounds like an interesting idea, especially since I've compiled over 20 pages of telegrams to and from Orson Welles (with pictures) between 1942 and 1943 relating to the making of IT'S ALL TRUE. I think it makes for fascinating reading in getting at the real truth behind the kind of operation that was going on in South America, with everyone's point of view well represented.

Below is just one short excerpt from a telegram to Welles from his very shrewd New York attorney, A. Arnold Weissburger, which sheds a great deal of light on why his RKO career ended so badly...

If only Welles idiotic lawyer in LA signed an extention to Welles' original contract, there might have been no cutting of AMBERSONS!!
___

After returning to the U.S. from Brazil, on August 22, 1942 Welles New York attorney, A. Arnold Weissburger, wrote to him outlining the huge mistakes that had been made in his absence by both his manager, Jack Moss and his lawyer in Holllywood, Lloyd Wright. To start with, Welles' original contract with RKO - which Weissburger had negotiated - stipulated that Welles was to deliver two pictures after CITIZEN KANE within a specified time period. If this did not happen, an agreement needed to be signed extending the time frame, or Welles' would technically be in default with RKO. Thanks to Weissburger's canny legal moves, four extensions where negotiated with RKO while Welles was in Rio, but Lloyd Wright did not sign the fourth extension, thereby putting Welles' in default.

A. ARNOLD WEISSBURGER TO ORSON WELLES (Excerpt):
September 16, 1942

…the fourth (extension), which I was negotiating when I left California, (Lloyd) Wright refused to sign, although it was presented to him by RKO. The result was that when the time expired... you were in default. RKO could, by waiving your default, hold you to the contract, but you could not hold RKO to the (original) contract.

The deal that I worked out with (George) Schaefer... provided that you were to get everything that the Kane contract gave you and in addition an autonomy to an extent of your not having to find your work impeded by RKO red tape... This picture was entirely upset, as Schaeffer himself has told me, when Moss's injection into the scene antagonized him and made him wary about granting you the terms which he had theretofore been willing to grant.

In the five years that I had complete charge of your affairs, there was never a slip-up, even though I sometimes had my hands full in pinning you down.