MovieChat Forums > Night of the Living Dead (2006) Discussion > Is this movie legal?

Is this movie legal?

posted 16 years ago by belazierjr
28 replies | jump to latest

Do the producers and the director actually have legal authority to make this remake without George A. Romero's blessing?

Oh, and by the way, this movie makes "House of the Dead" look like a f-ing masterpiece.

[–] Bone_Jacker 16 years ago

Yes, it's public domain. George can't say squat about any of the remakes. If it was illegal, do you think Lionsgate (or any other studio) would have picked it up?

[–] alpeaston 16 years ago

Romero has talked about the stupidity of not puting a copyright remark in the original and unfortunately the rules at that time (1968-69) allowed his masterpeice to fall into public domain. That is why anyone can copy it and offer it for sale (and have). It ends up on every horror dvd compilation. Think of it as the "it's a wonderful life" of the horror genre!

[–] vny109-1 16 years ago

So anybody can make a remake of Night, Dawn or Day? Just like that?

[–] KingDor 16 years ago

He learned his lesson after the original.

Night of the Living Dead is his only film that has landed in public domain.

[–] model101 16 years ago

So anybody can make a remake of Night, Dawn or Day? Just like that?
---

Night, Yes, when they had to change the title to avoid a lawsuit, Walter Reade removed it for some damn reason. Walter Reade ripped them off on that one.

Dawn is a big no. It has to go through Richard Rubenstein who George sold the rights to Rubenstein to even get Dawn of the Dead made, let alone distribute it.
Currently Anchor Bay is the only company allowed to release Dawn 1978, as they got the rights for home release.

Day of the Dead to get made George had to sell the rights to James Glenn Dudelson to get Day of the Dead made. They own the rights to Day of the Dead. He spearheaded that supposed sequel (which really isn't) Day of the Dead 2 Contagium.
He is also doing a remake that is going straight to DVD in April 2008.
Day of the Dead can be only distributed by Anchor Bay again since they have the home distribution rights.

As for Land,that belongs to him. Universal has the rights to distribute it.

[–] filmdrifter 16 years ago

Thats why they did the 1990 remake so they can make up for the copyright they did`nt put on the original.

[–] filmdrifter 16 years ago

"It`s a Wonderful Life" is no longer public domain cause it was found out that 1 of the songs used in the movie is copywritten but thats another story.

[–] christopher_greenleaf 14 years ago

"It`s a Wonderful Life" is no longer public domain cause it was found out that 1 of the songs used in the movie is copywritten but thats another story.

You don't know what you are talking about. Actually, the film is still in the public domain, but the original story, which Republic Pictures also owns, is copyrighted, so if you copy it, you will be hit with a 'cease and desist' order by Republic Pictures, even though the film itself is public domain, it might as well not be.

Because one song???!!! WTF are you talking about? Even if there was a song with a copyright included in the film, that would not make any difference.

Every bit of music in 'Night of the Living Dead' is under copyright, and the film is still public domain.

The soundtrack was acquired through music rights, and if the film falls into the public domain, the music is still part of the film, and nobody owes royalties, nor can anyone force the removal of the music.

You have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about, but I'm amazed that you advertise your ignorance in this way!

And there was no "one song" that was copyrighted, that created copyright issues!

It never happened, where are you hearing this bull****??

[–] Blues32 15 years ago

Pretty much, yes. Copywrite mishap way back when.

Wasting is what humans do best. I'm just excelling in my field.

[–] Grimm-Grimm 15 years ago

[–] jamesdean-13 15 years ago

Not to be a stickler, but it's actually "copyright" and "copyrighted" not "copywritten"

[–] Blues32 15 years ago

Check up on it. There was a huge issue about it. George Romero didn't get even half of the money he should have due to the copyright mishap.

Wasting is what humans do best. I'm just excelling in my field.

[–] Grimm-Grimm 15 years ago

I did do some googles searching and read that. But it still doesn't sound right to me. I'm guessing their is more to the legal story. I know that one cannot have exclusive copyright to song names. I think maybe the issue could have been that he did not trademark the franchise. Trademarking is different. Either way, I think the issue is more complex. I'm going to look into the issue more because I've always been interested in "copyright" law. Did I spell it right? hehehe.

MySpace/Music www.myspace.com/grimmwebsite
www.myspace.com/TheFutureLooksGrimm

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] deaddest 15 years ago

Romero tells that story at every con he attends, which is where we got the info from. If it is wrong, then someone conned Romero. I doubt it is wrong.

[–] AutopsyOfTheDead 15 years ago

Romero's story isn't incorrect, only the reason for the film being in public domain.

For the film to have fallen into public domain, it's because they failed to register the work with the copyright office prior to handing it over to the distributor. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter if there had been some copies of "Night of the Living Dead" without a © notice because there would have been a prior registration in the Library of Congress under the original title "Night of the Flesh Eaters." The same pertains to the film's screenplay.

Btw, similar to the situation mentioned with "It's a Wonderful Life," copying the original Night of the Living Dead is actually illegal because of the stock music that was used on the soundtrack. All of this music was copyrighted prior to "Night of the Living Dead" and the publishers only provided a license for its use to George Romero & company, not for the rest of the world to do with as they pleased. If any of the rights owners to this music wished to sue distributors of "public domain" Night of the Living Dead DVDs for copyright infringement, they could and they'd be successful.

[–] christopher_greenleaf 14 years ago

If any of the rights owners to this music wished to sue distributors of "public domain" Night of the Living Dead DVDs for copyright infringement, they could and they'd be successful.

Another graduate of the Law School at The University of Make Believe.

No they would not, and they could not! That is so incredibly stupid!

Why don't you cite the case law that states music rights revert to the original lessor, if the film reverts to the public domain?

You can't cite it, because it does not exist.

All of this music was copyrighted prior to "Night of the Living Dead" and the publishers only provided a license for its use to George Romero & company, not for the rest of the world to do with as they pleased.

Ummm...No! The music right were granted for the one film, and that film alone. These rights are permanent, in so far as the film is concerned.

They can't "sue and be successful", because the film lapsed into the public domain! They have no legal grounds for action, no any legal cause for an argument of infringement.

Do you just make this weird stuff up off the top of your head??

The copyright would protect the music apart from the film but not in regard to the film, since it is now part of the film.

And while we are at it, why don't you explain the bizarre comment you made about being able to watch the Region 'B' Blu-Ray of NOTLD "if you know how"(!!??)

[–] romeroseviltwin 14 years ago

What I heard is that you can simply just copy the movie. I don't know about any details concerning music or trademarking, but just that anyone can copy and sell the movie.

Wow. michaeljcarey, what is your problem? Maybe you're wrong or maybe you're right, but you're a textbook example of someone who hides behind the Internet, yelling and screaming about how much smarter they are than everyone else because everything here is faceless. If you need to correct something, there are less douche bag ways of doing it. You're being downright needlessly insulting.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] paul_warren_54 15 years ago

Night of the Living Dead lapsed into the public domain because the original theatrical distributor, the Walter Reade Organization, neglected to place a copyright indication on the prints.

In 1968, United States copyright law required a proper notice for a work to maintain a copyright.[88] Image Ten displayed such a notice on the title frames of the film beneath the original title, Night of the Flesh Eaters. The distributor removed the statement when it changed the title.[89] According to George Romero, Walter Reade "ripped us off".[90]

Because of the public domain status, the film is sold on home video by several distributors. As of 2006, the Internet Movie Database lists 23 copies of Night of the Living Dead retailing on DVD and nineteen on VHS.[91] The original film is available to view or download free on Internet sites such as Google Video, Internet Archive and YouTube.[92][93][94] As of October 2, 2008, it was the Internet Archive's second most downloaded film, with 515,561 downloads.[95]

Several notable DVD releases have been issued by The Weinstein Company/Genius Products, 20th Century Fox/Legend Films (a new colorized version), and Anchor Bay Entertainment.

[–] christopher_greenleaf 14 years ago

I'm not sure where a few of you guys got the idea that you need to have a copywright mark to claim copywright. That's not true. I'm an artist who released material on my own label and was going to open a public record label so I have done a lot of research on the subject.

First off it's 'copyright' not 'copywright', don't spell it like that you'll look stupid.

Right when you release your idea or write soemthing out, it's automatically yours. It doesn't matter if you put a copywrite mark on it or not. It doesn't matter if you pay $30 and mail it in to the goverments copywright deeds area. All that is, is basic proof you are mounting in case of theft you can prove it easier. The old man's copywright was having your own product mailed back to you via registered mail and not opening it so that you had a dated piece of proof.

I don't know why or if it is true that Night of the Living Dead is public domain because it normally takes 70 years after copywright. But it's not because of a mere letter c and a date.

Secondly, you are correct about not having to place a copyright symbol on a work, BUT in 1968 that was not the case. When NOTLD was released you had to affix a copyright notice. The laws changed later and were not retroactive.

You do understand that laws often change and are revised?

I don't know why or if it is true that Night of the Living Dead is public domain because it normally takes 70 years after copywright.

Well do you think that everybody in the world is mistaken about this except the guy that can't even spell 'copyright'???

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, it is in the public domain, and I am expert on the subject of this film, and there are others.

C-O-P-Y-R-I-G-H-T

LOL!!!!!!

And p.s. It's still a better idea to go ahead and copyright your work rather than the silly "mail yourself a registered letter" stuff. In order to save $30, you're leaving yourself wide open, and in a position of having to prove you own the intellectual property, and we hope you'll be able to find your registered letter to yourself. All the aggravation would cost more than the $30.00 registration.

[–] Director-21 14 years ago

I'm not sure where a few of you guys got the idea that you need to have a copywright mark to claim copywright. That's not true. I'm an artist who released material on my own label and was going to open a public record label so I have done a lot of research on the subject.

That's true today. That's not how it worked in the 1960s. Back than if you made a bunch of film prints with no copyright notice you were screwed, anyone could copy and distribute them if they could get their hands on a copy. Romero once said that when they were traveling the picture around the US he doesn't think they every had more than 12 prints that they just kept moving all around the country. This was also before big national releases of movies where they come out on the same day all over the country.

Once someone noticed the lack of copyright info theater owners realized that they could make their own copy of the print when they had it & use it for later midnight showings that they didn't have to get permission from the distributor or cut any money back to them. Lots of small VHS (and later DVD) distributors would do cheap releases of "Night" that usually came from old scratchy drive-in prints.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_States#Examples

The distributor of the cult film Night of the Living Dead, after changing the film's title at the last moment before release in 1968, failed to include a proper copyright notice in the new titles, thereby immediately putting the film into the public domain after its release.[20] This provision of US copyright law was revised with the United States Copyright Act of 1976, which allowed such negligence to be remedied within five years of publication.

Of course that loophole was closed 8 years after "Night" was released with no copyright notice. The act does give a window of 5 years for a copyright holder to rectify the situation, but it was already 8 years later in the case of "Night."

[–] wallacesawyer 15 years ago

So if I were to write a remake, I could get it made without legal trouble?

For DEMONIC TOYS and updates on Full Moon Films:
www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

[–] Father_Anthonis 14 years ago

Romoero sucks turtle zombie wiener haha there so damn slow and stupid godamn Hans moleman can beat them. Return of the living dead is the best of all time zombie movie. This old fart just ripped the whole "zombie thing" from the last man on earth he admitted it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TzcANOHiDo

[–] christopher_greenleaf 14 years ago

So if I were to write a remake, I could get it made without legal trouble?

Yes, correct.

[–] Dream_Demon 14 years ago

You are correct sir!

Welcome to my Nightmare- Freddy Krueger

[–] AgentSniff 14 years ago

Then i will do it! No one has ever made i zombie movie in Sweden before!

I wish i could remake Assault On Precinct 13 the same way. You could make a faithfull remake based on the current situation in some of Sweden suburbia. I watch the news and see these criminal gangs attacking the police i think Assault oOn Precinct 13!

[–] sumankey13 8 years ago

Hey this is old news, but I WAS IN THIS MOVIE! was the female zombie who crashed through the window and got shot in the head! was only onscreen for about 2 seconds, but eh,...my first film work upon moving to L.A. lol!

and YES, George Romero not only gave his blessing on this film, but he attended the premiere in L.A., and seemed to generally enjoy himself

we all had a good laugh, and being that it was basically a stoner-type take on the originals, no one took it all that seriously (except maybe Broadstreet) 😜

omg-osh---what an experience that was!

*Sometimes, I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion!*