2

There's an extensive selection of public domain feature films available, but video quality is universally extremely poor as users generally prefer low filesize over high bitrate. Some of the films ("Night of the Living Dead", Charlie Chaplin catalogue and Christopher Lee's "Horror Express" as notable examples) have been released on Blu-ray. Is it allowed to create a lossless copy of a Blu-ray disc and spread the film all over the Internet as a video file? I won't share "extras" (commentary tracks, making of documentaries) which may have been created and owned by the publisher, subtitles, menus and foreign or alternative audio tracks to avoid legal issues.

I don't know if all Blu-ray discs and DVDs have DRM (circumventing may be allowed under some jurisdictions) — DRM is out of the scope of the question as it is uncertain if restricting material free of intellectual property rights is in turn legal.

-1

It is probably not legal, since the Blu-ray disc is likely to be protected by copyright. Prints of the original films could be in the public domain (for instance, Night of the Living Dead). However, a modicum of creativity is necessary to transfer the original film to DVD, and that is all that is required to make the DVD protected by copyright.

  • 2
    Do you have a source for this? In general, "slavish copying" (generally interpreted as making a best-effort attempt to re-create the original work in a new medium) does not attract a new copyright. Something like a pan-and-scan adjustment to adapt to a new aspect ratio would be sufficiently creative to be copyrighted, but things like letterboxing or dynamic-range adjustment aren't. – Mark Jan 18 '18 at 4:16
  • I'm not talking about slavish plug and chug copy, I'm referring to the relatively hi-tech reconstruction work done to clean up old audio and video. Blu-ray typically implies better quality that plug and chug copying. – user6726 Jan 18 '18 at 5:27
  • 3
    Reconstruction work doesn't create copyright in the United States (it might in countries with a "sweat of the brow" copyright doctrine). The amount of effort involved doesn't matter, only the amount of creativity, and attempting to reconstruct a work as it was originally published is not a creative effort. – Mark Jan 18 '18 at 9:01
  • If @Mark has any sources for that...? That said, I am under the same impression that a reproduction doesn't generate new copyright. – Stackstuck Jan 18 '18 at 18:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.