Screenwriters and filmmakers take heed — just because you possess original material doesn’t mean you own it.
Ownership of previously uncopyrighted original material does not necessarily grant a copyright, say local entertainment attorneys and Library of Congress officials.
Once a script, song, film or other piece of work has entered the public domain, it’s nearly impossible to claim a copyright.
This may be good news for Santa Monica filmmaker Michael Rose, who recently lost a lawsuit in Santa Monica Small Claims Court after he used 62 seconds of an old Ford Motor Co. promotional footage in a special he produced for the History Channel last year.
Though Judge Pro Tem Richard Goldstein ruled against Rose, experts say the case is out of the court’s jurisdiction.
“Copyright law is preempted by federal court and federal law,” said entertainment attorney Michael Donaldson. “A state trial judge has no jurisdiction or authority to rule on matters concerning copyright.”
Shortly after producing the History Channel film, Rose received an invoice for $7,956 from Manny Samaniego, who owns the master to the 1960s Ford promotional footage.
Samaniego claimed he put the footage back into circulation in 1995, thereby establishing what he called a common law copyright.
So when Rose didn’t pay up, Samaniego sued and won.
In his decision in favor for Samaniego, Judge Goldstein cited principles of fairness and awarded Samaniego $1,450, plus court costs. Samaniego had filed a $5,000 claim, the maximum allowable amount in small claims court.
Samaniego testified he obtained the Ford footage from an unnamed friend in Washington who bought a film lab’s entire library after it went bankrupt. The lab obtained the aging originals when the production house that Ford used went out of business. The original material had never been copyrighted.
Samaniego admitted, however, that the footage had entered the public domain, meaning it was not copyrighted and did not have an owner.
According to West Los Angeles attorney Michael Klein, that simple fact precludes Samaniego from claiming a copyright.
“It’s a meaningless ruling,” Klein said. “If this was a public domain piece of work, then no one can come along and claim a copyright.”
“If this was a public domain piece of work, then no one can come along and claim a copyright.” — — MICHAEL KLEIN Attorney
Samaniego’s later contention that the film was never published could complicate the case. If the footage was viewed by only a select group of people, it might put into question whether or not it had actually entered the public domain. In that case, the film could be subject to copyright through subsequent publishing.
But Rose argued the promotional footage was widely distributed and that Ford had no intention of limiting its viewers.
“It was a promotional video, after all,” he said.
Samaniego told the court he is still awaiting official confirmation of his copyright papers, filed five years ago. But Rose’s recent Library of Congress search revealed no copyright on the material.
In the meantime, Rose is still deciding whether or not to appeal Judge Goldstein’s ruling. He believes that Samaniego’s argument is misplaced and flawed, but isn’t convinced that another day in court would be worth his time.
Though Samaniego would like to pursue the matter in federal court, he said the amount of possible recovery in the case would make the cost of going to trial not worth it.
But according to industry experts, simple ownership of the master copy does not grant Samaniego a copyright. Documents from the Library of Congress agree.
If ownership did grant copyright, said Donaldson, a plethora of new lawsuits could entangle Hollywood.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 19, 2002. Read the original PDF.