Public Domain?

[DeadlyCinema]

No, it isn't. Once a movie becomes public domain, it can't be copyrighted. Although Williams claims copyright on this one, he has never, and will never own the film.

Sorry, you're right, then. That's refreshing to hear.

Matthew
myspace.com/deadlycinema

[Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck]

As for "Plan 9", I'm pretty sure it's registered under the Wade Williams name.

No, it isn't. Once a movie becomes public domain, it can't be copyrighted. Although Williams claims copyright on this one, he has never, and will never own the film.

Then how did Godzilla vs. Megalon go from being PD (when The Brains used it in the show) to copywrited again (so that Toho could threaten Rhino and get Vol. 10 pulled)?

I mean, Yahoo Movies used to stream G vs. M once upon a time along with White Zombieand NOTLD....

And as far as Williams' claim....according to the book "Nightmare of Ecstacy", Williams bought the rights for all of Wood's films from Kathy Wood after Ed's death.  All the people they interviewed for the book were really pissed that he took advantage of her.   Unless of course she didn't really own them either....

[Petey Wheatstraw]

how did Godzilla vs. Megalon go from being PD (when The Brains used it in the show) to copywrited again (so that Toho could threaten Rhino and get Vol. 10 pulled)?

It was never PD. It was believed to be PD. But, as was the case with It's a Wonderful Life, the film was still under copyright, but nobody bothered to check on it.

[tohoscope]

It's A Wonderful Life was never public domain.

Actually, it was.  Sort of.  Originally the copyright for the movie wasn't renewed in 1974 and the film slipped into public domain were the film found a resurgence of interest being played over and over on local TV stations.   However, it turned out the soundtrack was still in copyright.   Technically the visual half of It's a Wonderful Life is in public domain, it's specifically the music that's not in the public domain.

Also, according to Wikipedia, the movie is protected as a "derivative work" that is based on published story that happens to still be in copyright.  Which is a pretty messed up legal argument if you ask me, but I'm not a big time city lawyer working for a big Hollywood studio with deep pockets and big bank accounts so what do I know?