International status of Batman &amp; Robin photo, Public Domain USA? There is a Batman &amp; Robin photo which, according to Wiki, is public domain in the USA because it was published in the 1960s without a copyright notice. I would like to use this image in a song video I am producing for publication online (YouTube, TikTok, etc). I’d be very grateful if someone could advise me on the likely copyright situation OUTSIDE of the USA. Details of the image are here: File:Batman and Robin 1966.JPG - Wikimedia Commons
The situation is complicated. The easy cases: In the United States, it's in the public domain for lack of a copyright notice. In countries that are parties to neither the Berne Convention nor the TRIPS Agreement, it's in the public domain because those countries don't recognize anyone else's copyrights. In countries that have adopted the rule of the shorter term, it is in the public domain because the image was never copyrighted in the country of origin. In the remaining countries, it is likely but not certain that the photo is in the public domain. Article 18 of the Berne Convention provides that: (1) This Convention shall apply to all works which, at the moment of its coming into force, have not yet fallen into the public domain in the country of origin through the expiry of the term of protection. (4) The preceding provisions shall also apply in the case of new accessions to the Union... So in theory, since it was in the public domain in the United States as of March 1, 1989 (the date the United States ratified the Berne Convention), it's in the public domain in all Berne countries. However, not all countries may have implemented Article 18 exactly as written.
The lyricist and composers already have copyright. Copyright exists for the moment of creation: registration is not necessary to enforce copyright rights and to grant licences. Registration in the US is merely useful if you want to prove that you own the copyright which otherwise would require providing evidence of the date of creation, priority etc. Most countries do not have copyright registers. Similarly, you will have copyright in the derivative work of the soundtrack from the moment of its creation.
No This is not a copyright issue as you are not making a copy (save for a transient one in your cache which is allowed). You are allowed to record it for personal time-shifting as that is fair use/dealing. The broadcaster either owns the copyright (unlikely) or has a contract with the copyright holder that allows them to broadcast it. Assuming the broadcaster chooses or is not permitted to subsequently stream it, if you miss it, you miss it. Your contract with the broadcaster is over. Their obligation was to make the broadcast available to you, yours was to pay for it - nobody is obliged to watch it. You can, of course, seek the content from any other legal sources, complying with their terms including payment if necessary.
Public domain means that there is no (longer) copyright in the given work. This means that all rights associated with copyright are not controlled by anyone and there is no way to run afoul of copyright laws (note that in some countries a true &quot;public domain&quot; doesn't exist). Assuming you're correct that these works are in public domain, answers to your particular questions are: Does that mean I can play the video's as much as I want to any size crowd I wanted? Could I charge money to watch the videos? Yes and yes. If something is in the public domain does that mean all the parts of that thing are? This kind of begs the question. A work in public domain has no copyright in it. If one of its part has copyright, then it's not really public domain is it? What about the characters in the videos, could I make a new Bugs Bunny or Might Mouse animation on my own? If I wanted to use Popeye or Betty Boop or daffy duck in a video game could I? Copyright isn't your issue here, trademarks are. The characters are most likely trademarked, meaning you generally can't use them in your own works without licensing.
Copyright still exists even if you don't know who owns it In this particular case, however, the copyright has expired - UK copyright lasts for 70 years after the last author passes away. For a death in 1918, copyright expired on 31 December 1998. For other cases where the author was still alive in 1940 (for this year - 2020) but has since passed, the copyright belongs to their heirs and assignees. It's possible that you don't know who that is. It's even possible that they don't know that they own it. Doesn't matter, it's still copyright protected and those people (whoever they are) can enforce their rights if they want to. When you think that everything everyone ever writes, records, photographs, paints, draws etc. will have copyright for 70 years after their death and that most of that stuff has little to no value, is usually not explicitly dealt with in a will, and their heirs will generally not think to deal with it or pass it on in their will it's no wonder the world is full of orphan works. Some copyright legislation deals with this; the UK's does. You can pay the government for a 7-year licence for orphan works. If the right's holder ever comes forward, they get the fees collected.
Copyright protection is about certain acts, and not about relationships between products. Copyright law says that the creator of an original work hold the exclusive right to copy and to authorize creation of derivative works. Copyright law does not say that anybody can freely create derivative works as long as they are different to a certain extent. So if you take an original Mario and modify it a teeny bit, that is a violation of copyright; if you take an original Mario and modify it hugely, that is a violation of copyright. Degree of similarity is relevant on some cases when the factual question arises whether the allegedly-infringing work is based on some protected original. This is most obvious in music cases, where all baroque music has some similarity to all other baroque music, all death metal has some similarity to all other death metal, and so on. There is not a legal quasi-statutory standard for measuring substantial similarity in music. The scientific underpinning of such a standard would be based on (weighted) combinatorics and the idea that there are only so many tunes possible (that would be a huge number, until you get to the "within a genre" condition). It seems obvious (by your "admission") that the derived works are based on protected works, so Nintendo's permission is required to legally create such works. However, you do or would hold copyright in your unauthorized derived work. Without a trail of evidence such as a SE question pointing to the connection, the derived images might be hard to connect to the originals. In addition, you may be able to avail yourself of a "fair use" defense, in case you get sued by the original creator. Factors favoring such a defense are the insubstantiality of the copying (a small portion) and the "transformativeness" of your creation.
It is not possible to say that this is generally fair use, although sometimes it would be. A copy for personal use is still a copyright right violation on its face, and fair use does not categorically exclude non-commercial or personal use of copyrighted works. It is a highly fact specific inquiry. The likelihood of anyone discovering that you have done so and deciding to sue over it is slight, but that doesn't mean that there isn't potential copyright infringement liability. Compare this to speeding. People do it all the time, and even driving one mile per hour above the speed limit is still a traffic violation. But it is rare for less serious violations to be ticketed.
In the US, the author would be able to wind an infringement lawsuit against the re-publisher. Title 17, the US copyright law codified, grants the author the exclusive right to authorize republication, and does not require that a person use their real name. The argument "It was on the internet, it's in the public domain" is utterly without legal merit. The same goes for the assertion that a person loses his rights if he is uncontactable. The author has stated the terms of the license, so there isn't even a reasonable argument that the infringement is innocent (unknowing: "I thought it was with permission). There is no requirement that you have to allow a potential user to hassle you about the license terms. The one thing that is special regarding anonymous and pseudonymous works is that under 17 USC 302, "copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first". For a work whose author is identified, copyright "endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death". This assumes that the host site has not preempted author's license: Stack Exchange, for example, preempts an author's exclusive right, so you can copy stuff from here accorting to the SE terms of usage.