NOLD 68 - Public Domain or not?

[Yojimbo]

We have all heard from time to time that NOLD 68 is a public domain film, ostensibly due to the omission of a copyright notice on the title screen of the film which is rumored to have happened when the name of the film was changed from "Night of the Flesheaters" to "Night of the Living Dead" when Walter Reade felt that the original name was too close to that of another movie. I am not an attorney, and what little I do know of the legal system does not pertain to that of Copyright Law and the assorted regulations meant to protect intellectual property. But it would seem that the omission of the "circle C" with a date next to it on the title page of a film should not instantaneously thrust that film into the public domain. So my question for the group, for those of you in the know about legal matters or those of you who have extensive knowledge or insider info about the backstory of the creation of NOLD, is this film in fact part of the Public Domain and therefore be legally used (and mechanically printed) without permission or licensing fees being paid, or is this a misconception? Is there more to the story than just the omission of the "circle C"? I suspect that there is more to this story than meets the eye. Perhaps one of our resident experts, or Gary, might be able to shed some light on this issue for me.

[sandrock74]

I am a comic book creator/self-publisher, so while I do know about copyrights, its about printed material and in the modern day. This very issue is something I wondered about myself. I know that copyright laws have changed since then, so maybe that did indeed fly back then, but I don't think it would nowadays. I also once heard that the creators of NOTLD did try to chase down bootleggers, but it was to Herculean of a task, since the movie spread like wildfire illegally. The REAL or "official" copies of the film were said to be much better quality than the bootlegs that everyone became so familiar with over the years. I will second Yojimbo's question. Does anyone have any solid knowledge about this?

[Suicycho]

Researched it quite a bit the last hour and everything points back to it being a PD movie because the copyright logo wasn't there, as per the law at that time. Supposedly, there was a copyright logo for the title Night of the Flesh eaters, but when the title was changed, no logo was inserted. Romero is quoted saying the distributor ripped them off.

[C5NOTLD]

You can check the copyright status on any movie through the United States Copyright Office online. http://www.copyright.gov/records/ For the original Night Of The Living Dead it states "Cancelled Registration Number: PA0000046101 PA reg. cancelled. Published pre ’78 without copyright notice. "

[DubiousComforts]

But it would seem that the omission of the "circle C" with a date next to it on the title page of a film should not instantaneously thrust that film into the public domain. This is correct; leaving off a copyright notice does not automatically thrust the film into public domain. It's a combination of not having registered the work with the Copyright Office and omitting the notice from copies that puts the film into public domain. This is how several Roger Corman films, such as the "Puerto Rico Trilogy", fell into public domain. Before the convenience of video tape became available, you would have had to submit an actual film print to the Copyright Office in order to register the work. Rather than tie-up prints that could be making money in theater rentals, Corman decided to forgo the registration on a number of his films. Obviously Image Ten didn't have the luxury of sending a print of Night of the Flesh Eaters to reside at the Library of Congress, or else a copy would still be found there today, the copyright would have been registered prior to the Continental fiasco and the work would have been protected with or without the notice.

[Yojimbo]

I had missed these responses to the thread I had posted some time ago, so I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the responders for the information and feedback. It has since occured to me that, to some degree, the success of NOLD 68 may actually have been helped by the fact that this film had fallen into the public domain and as a result was widely distributed, albeit without direct financial gain to the creative team.

[DubiousComforts]

It has since occured to me that, to some degree, the success of NOLD 68 may actually have been helped by the fact that this film had fallen into the public domain and as a result was widely distributed, albeit without direct financial gain to the creative team. It's possible, Yojimbo, but not necessary. This was discussed over the weekend at the Chiller show among Gary and other NOLD fans. I believe that NOLD's success is due primarily to being widely distributed in the early 70s on television via syndicated film packages. Without it, NOLD and other low-budget flicks like Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things would not have easily been seen outside the theaters and could have faded into obscurity. TV syndication simply gave NOLD the chance to be seen by millions, though it was the filmmakers' skill and creativity that gave the film longevity.

[Yojimbo]

Thanks Dubious, you also RULE! This makes sense, since my first exposure to the ghoul world was via a heavily edited television broadcast. May have been edited but scared the crap out of me all the same, and gave me nightmares for a long time and also ushered me into this lifelong fascination with zombies.

[darth los]

I had missed these responses to the thread I had posted some time ago, so I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the responders for the information and feedback. It has since occured to me that, to some degree, the success of NOLD 68 may actually have been helped by the fact that this film had fallen into the public domain and as a result was widely distributed, albeit without direct financial gain to the creative team. It's possible, Yojimbo, but not necessary. This was discussed over the weekend at the Chiller show among Gary and other NOLD fans. I believe that NOLD's success is due primarily to being widely distributed in the early 70s on television via syndicated film packages. Without it, NOLD and other low-budget flicks like Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things would not have easily been seen outside the theaters and could have faded into obscurity. TV syndication simply gave NOLD the chance to be seen by millions, though it was the filmmakers' skill and creativity that gave the film longevity. I think yojimbo has a point there even if that was not the case in this instance. You're both right. Yes, the reason why the film has so much longevity is due to the quality of the product. That has nothing to do with prudent business decisions that Gar and the rest failed to make. At the same time, it's common knowledge that, originally, the film wasn't "a financial success" when it was first released and that it was "rediscovered" over seas, at drive-ins, etc. Perhaps the fact that an unpopular film that most people had never heard of benefitted from the fact that there was little risk associated in showing it because they didn't have to pay anyone for the priviledge. No risk / all profit sounds like a pretty good business deal to me. These guys must work for AIG or something.

[C5NOTLD]

At the same time, it's common knowledge that, originally, the film wasn't "a financial success" when it was first released and that it was "rediscovered" over seas, at drive-ins, etc. Perhaps the fact that an unpopular film that most people had never heard of benefitted from the fact that there was little risk associated in showing it because they didn't have to pay anyone for the priviledge. No risk / all profit sounds like a pretty good business deal to me. These guys must work for AIG or something. Actually the film did do business when it opened in the U.S. Oct 8 of 1968, Walter Reade was publicly estimating a gross of over $1 million from domestic (U.S. release) receipts. In a November 1971 edition of Newsweek the estimated gross was at $3 million. By 1972 Image Ten sued their distributor Walter Reade (who distributed the film in the U.S. Australia, England, France, and West Germany) for $1,346,736 for their percentage. The real problem was always trying to a get a true accounting of the grosses for Night Of The Living Dead from the distributor. All the above figures are likely low compared to what the distributor was actually making. Above is just what was publicly admitted to. I wouldn't be the least surprised if the actual sales were at least doubled.

[archivesofthede]

Kind of off the subject a little, but I always wondered what the actors got paid. What was the scale back then for actors?, Did most of them do it for free? If so, I wonder who was the actors that did get paid, if any?

[Yojimbo]

These guys must work for AIG or something. Good One!!!!! What was the scale back then for actors? I am fairly certain (perhaps someone can verify) that Romero made movies outside of the realm of the union at that time. Without union regs, scale basically does not exist. Though, at some later point in his career he went DGC, so at this point I think Romero's films would have to adhere to the regulations. I too am curious what, if anything, the actors got for NOLD.