Talk:Invasion of the Bee Girls

message: :Image:Invasion of the Bee Girls video cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Invasion of the Bee Girls video cover.jpg

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Invasion of the Bee Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209091021/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/shockfestival.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/shockfestival.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Invasion of the Bee Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120719195552/http://dailyuw.com/1998/10/29/a1.beegirls/ to http://dailyuw.com/1998/10/29/a1.beegirls/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The public domain status of Invasion of the Bee Girls was challenged by the following post, a response is below. Deanlaw (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Public Domain Status Discussion

message: The article states that the film is in the public domain, and a recent edit (which I reverted) stated that that was because the film's copyright had not been registered. But that can't be right.
The source cited for the premise is this American Film Institute page, which states "Although onscreen credits include a 1973 copyright statement for Sequoia Pictures, the film was not registered for copyright." Which is probably true, but that doesn't put it into the public domain, nor does the AFI page say it did.
Under the 1909 Copyright Act in effect in 1973 (which you can read here), when the film came out, the requirement for federal copyright was publication with a proper copyright notice. See section 9. There was no requirement for registration. Mere publication with notice provided an initial 28-year term. There was a requirement to deposit a copy of the work, but it was not a condition of copyright (although one could not sue for infringement until that was done, just as even under today's law one cannot sue for infringement until you've registered, even though registration is not a condition of copyright). To obtain a second 28-year term (later 47 years, then later 67 years), the copyright needed to be renewed, although that will turn out not to be the case for this film.
The initial 28-year term from 1973 would take this copyright to 2001. But by that time, the 1909 Act had been replaced by the 1976 Copyright Act, and most importantly here, the 1976 Act as amended by the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 (CRA). If not for the CRA, even under the 1976 Act, the film's copyright would have had to been renewed. But the CRA changed that; it made all copyright renewals automatic. So when the films 1973 copyright came up for renewal in 2001, the 1992 CRA controlled, and the copyright was automatically renewed. And with the copyright term extensions, that would be a 67-year renewal term, taking copyright to 2068.
If you don't want to go through the actual statutes, Cornell Law School has an excellent summary of how to determine public domain status. The block this film falls into is this one:
 Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.
Date of Publication	Conditions           	Copyright Term
1964 through 1977  	Published with notice	95 years after publication date
And that 95 years from publication date is 1973+95=2068 (as I did the hard way above).
It's possible but unlikely that the film is PD for some reason unrelated to registration and renewal; but more likely someone either misunderstood that registration was a requirement, or was not aware of some of the intricacies of the process and the effect of CRA (indeed, you can see from my edit summary reverting that I suggested it was PD for lack or renewal, because I didn't take into effect the timing of publication and the CRA). The film It's a Wonderful Life, for example, did go PD for lack of renewal; it was released (and copyrighted by having a notice) in 1946, and not renewed when required 28 years later in 1974. But the difference there was that the Bee Girls film had the benefit of the 1992 CRA; It's a Wonderful Life did not. TJRC (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probably not public domain 

message: The public domain challenge made in the above good faith post does not fully account for the effect of the failure of the copyright owner to register the film with the U.S. Copyright Office, which was a requirement when the film was issued:
*"Public domain" for this film, as for any other public domain film, means that the film has lost copyright protection (same definition as in Public domain in the United States). The film has a copyright notice, but has lost its copyright protection for failure to observe the copyright formalities of registration, which were a requirement at that time.
*When the film was issued in 1973, registration was a requirement. (Note that registration is not a requirement today for having a copyright.) This is discussed on page 4 U.S. Copyright Office Circular 45, "Copyright Registration for Motion Pictures, Including Video Recordings", which states for films published before 1978:
Works first published with notice before 1978 had an original 28-year term of copyright, and registration had to be made within that first term. The copyright could then be renewed in the 28th year for an additional term. Legislation enacted in 1992 made renewal automatic for works copyrighted between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977, and made it possible to register such works during their renewal term provided they were published with an acceptable notice. Such registrations must be made on Form RE accompanied by Form RE/Addendum. If such works were registered during their original term, their registrations can be renewed at any time during their renewal terms with just Form RE.
*Invasion of the Bee Girls was never registered with the Copyright Office. A records check did not show any registration for the film, indicating that the American Film Institute record is correct. (One curiosity is that the copyright for the film score was recorded, its registration is EU405779 issued on 11 May 1973, p. 371 of Catalog of Copyright Entries, 3rd Ed., Part 27.) The lack of registration also means that the copyright of the film is unenforceable, making it public domain.
*Registration of films is still important under current for copyrights to be enforced. Under 17 U.S.C.S. § 411(c) registration must be made within 5 years of publication, and under § 411(a) no civil action in federal court may be instituted until registration has been made. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com,  586 U.S. ___ (2019), notes that the right to enforce copyright civil claims requires the issuance of a registration certificate by the Copyright Office. Thus, an unregistered film similar to Invasion of the Bee Girls would have a copyright unenforceable by civil action under current law since more than 5 years had passed since its publication.
Thus, the public domain status stated in the Invasion of the Bee Girls wiki article, its AFI entry, and the Internet Archive are correct. Deanlaw (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Invasion of the Bee Girls'' is in the public domain due to failure to register with the U.S. Copyright Office 

message: I don't have the editing knowledge for the best way to put this information in the article myself, but Invasion of the Bee Girls was a "guilty pleasure" of famed critic Roger Ebert, as shown in this episode of Siskel and Ebert's old show at around 22:12: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lk-EELm2UY 24.16.142.135 (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Favorite of Roger Ebert