Public Domain Cartoons

[Marty26]

Yes, I know I could probably be considered "ignorant" for questioning this, but how exactly does the whole "Public Domain Cartoon" thing work anyway? Are these shorts WB and other animation studios freely distribute or what?

I used to own a couple PD cartoon tapes (one with Heckyl and Jeckyl's debut, Dick Wittington's Cat, Yankee Doodle Donkey, and Rookie Revue and one with The Friendly Ghost, Little Audrey, and Porky Pig's Feet). I've also seen that "Daffy Duck And The Dinosaur" PD tape somewhere (I don't remember exactly where) and was often confused with why Daffy was drawn the way he was on the video cover. Why would WB even allow small video production companies to distribute cartoon VHSs with covers that bastardize their original artwork (and make Porky Pig look eerily femine)?

[Tim Lones]

Yes, I know I could probably be considered "ignorant" for questioning this, but how exactly does the whole "Public Domain Cartoon" thing work anyway? Are these shorts WB and other animation studios freely distribute or what?

I used to own a couple PD cartoon tapes (one with Heckyl and Jeckyl's debut, Dick Wittington's Cat, Yankee Doodle Donkey, and Rookie Revue and one with The Friendly Ghost, Little Audrey, and Porky Pig's Feet). I've also seen that "Daffy Duck And The Dinosaur" PD tape somewhere (I don't remember exactly where) and was often confused with why Daffy was drawn the way he was on the video cover. Why would WB even allow small video production companies to distribute cartoon VHSs with covers that bastardize their original artwork (and make Porky Pig look eerily femine)?


The short answer is:Copyright laws. For some reason, through neglect or just not caring, companies just allow copyrights to lapse on either the music or film content threfore allowing anyone to copy and sell the product without compensation to companies like Warner Brothers, etc. These companies in many ways have no interest in being exact or accurate in the packaging
which is why you see such horrendous pictures on some public domain packaging. That being said..some PD companies do a better job than others. We have discussed Public Domain cartoons on here in great detail in the past..Others will have better/more complete answers than me..

[Marty26]

I figured they were probably like pirate VHSs and tapes. I've seen several good Bugs Bunny VHS collections such as "Bugs Bunny Classics" and "Bugs Bunny's Wacky Adventures." But I've also seen some God awful ones that would have may be one Bugs short and the rest were shorts from other animation companies that had absolutely no affiliation with Warner Brothers. And why do Public Domain VHSs only cover cartoons up to, like, 1944 anyway? Is it because copyright neglect usually hurts cartoons from those periods (since they're so much older)?

[FleischerFan]

The question of box artwork also touches on copyright laws. While the cartoons may be in public domain, frequently, the characters are not.

In other words, the cartoon "Betty Boop's Rise to Fame" is now in public domain. The character of Betty Boop is still owned by Fleischer Studios (and is agressively marketed through a strategic alliance with King Features Syndicate).

In making a box for a DVD or tape containing "Betty Boop's Rise to Fame," I would be legally limited to using only images of Betty that came directly from that cartoon. I could NOT create an original drawing of Betty or I would run afoul of the trademark on that character.

That said, there is still a wide range of covers for these public domain offerings.

A couple of other thoughts about PD cartoons:

1.) Once anything enters the public domain, the copyright cannot be reclaimed. Frequently, companies will take a PD cartoon and make certain, small changes to it. This makes the new version eligible for a copyright, but only that specific new version. Anyone can still copy the original with impunity.

2.) Cartoons have slipped into public domain due to corporate neglect and oversight, but also because the original copyright owners have gone out of business, leaving in effect, no one to renew the copyright.

Probably the most famous case of cartoons slippng into the public domain is the entire series of "Superman" cartoons produced by Fleischer/Famous Studios and distributed by Paramount. When renewal time rolled around, Paramount thought that DC Comics (owners of the Superman character - now, ironically, a Time-Warner company) was going to renew the copyright and DC Comics thought Paramount was supposed to renew the copyright. The end result was no one renewed the copyright, so into public domain they fell.

You don't see many cartoons in public domain after the 1940's because copyright holders are more careful now - realizing there is an "after" market for films and cartoons. Also, copyright laws have been altered several times extending copyrights that should have lapsed. This is because the movie studios (such as Disney) have powerful lobbyists who have basically bent Congress to their will.

[ltnut]

1.) Once anything enters the public domain, the copyright cannot be reclaimed. Frequently, companies will take a PD cartoon and make certain, small changes to it. This makes the new version eligible for a copyright, but only that specific new version. Anyone can still copy the original with impunity.

Does this explain why a lot of PD cartoon videos will have the typical FBI warning against copying? I never understood how if they were PD cartoons that the companies doing the videos or DVDs had any right to keep anyone from copying them.

I guess it would also explain why that one of the first PD cartoon videos I had had what sounded like additional sound effects added so that the company that did the video could claim to have a copyright.

[Sogturtle]

Marty26~

And in the case of the public domain Warner Brother cartoons, the bulk of those were simply NEVER copyrighted in the first place, thus the rash of public domain toons from Warners in 1942-'43... The same held true for the early Warner Boskos...

Only the eminent rise of television created a significant "aftermarket" for previously released theatrical cartoons (okay besides the whole ugly Blue Ribbon mess). And thus the great eagerness on the part of the companies to renew copyrights.

[Marty26]

What kinds of companies make these Public Domain videos anyway?

Anyway, regarding box images of cartoon characters directly from the cartoons on the PD tape, it always looked to me like the cover art for these cartoons was just poor redrawings of classic WB characters. I've seen several with drawings of Bugs Bunny that looked absolutely nothing like him. Ditto to Daffy Duck and Porky Pig. Look at some of the box art in the "Ugly PD VHS/DVD Covers thread" to see what I mean.

[Jon Cooke]

What kinds of companies make these Public Domain videos anyway?

Usually smaller companies out to make a fast buck are the ones known to crank out public domain videos/DVDs of various quality. Many of these companies have very little or no knowledge of what they are releasing. Of course, this is not always the case and you have some smaller companies made up of animation fans, like Bosko Video and Thunderbean, who release high quality collections of PD material.

As for the poorly drawn covers... that is a result of the lack of care from the companies putting them out (which, of course, is what we make fun of every year in our annual Ugly PD Cover Contests).

[Ray Pointer]

[QUOTE=FleischerFan]The question of box artwork also touches on copyright laws. While the cartoons may be in public domain, frequently, the characters are not. In other words, the cartoon "Betty Boop's Rise to Fame" is now in public domain. The character of Betty Boop is still owned by Fleischer Studios (and is agressively marketed through a strategic alliance with King Features Syndicate).

In the case of BETTY BOOP'S RISE TO FAME, the technicality regarding the music rights could uphold the copyright. While a motion picture registration could have lapsed, other elements of the film such as Literary Rights and Music Right many times are still in effect. It is not enough to simply sell a PD tite without knowing the status of the other elements involved. While this is still going on with a number of old Paramount cartoons, they have been selective in prosecuting violators in the areas of music and literary rights in some cases.

While there are many versions of GULLIVER'S TRAVELS circulating, Paramount did sue MGM for using a clip in 1997 based on the two points of music and literary rights. It would appear that the degree of mass distribution and the revenue earned would be cause for action on the part of Paramount. For the most part, it would appear that it is not in Paramount's interest to go after every independent distributor selling GULLIVER'S TRAVELS since there is so much confusion and inconsistency regarding its copyright status. But the fact remains that the music is still under pending copyrights in the name of its music division, Famous Music, and the same issue pertains to music contained on many of the other cartoons in the Public Domain, regardless of which studio is being discussed. And since the Warner Brothers cartoons also contain music controlled by the Warners Music division, this is something to consider.

[frizfrelengfan]

I guess a company like Viacom, with their deep pockets and high-paid lawyers, could put a smaller company like VCI Entertainment out of business, if they really wanted to. But another reason not to do that would be the bad will it would engender among consumers.

[horsecollar12]

In the case of BETTY BOOP'S RISE TO FAME, the technicality regarding the music rights could uphold the copyright. While a motion picture registration could have lapsed, other elements of the film such as Literary Rights and Music Right many times are still in effect.

I was going to make much the same point. Just because the motion picture copyright expires doesn't mean that these deep-pocketed multimedia conglomerates won't find other ways to enforce their copyrights, if at all possible, when they expect to see a profit. The most famous case of this happening is with the film "It's A Wonderful Life", whose copyright expired in the mid-1970s, partly becuase its producer (Republic Films) no longer existed. Until about 1992, the film played everywhere on TV at Christmas, but was promptly taken out of the PD circuit when a court ruled that the music elements of the film were still under copyright. Nowadays, NBC has exclusive broadcast rights to the film, although anybody could conceivably air the film on TV silently (or even w/o the music, which probably isn't possible) and not face copyright violations (assuming they don't air a "restored" version of the movie containing new film elements).

Most of the PD cartoons out there could probably be reclaimed by their copyright holders in much the same way, if the copyright holders thought it was worth the while. But they don't because, they figure, these cartoons won't turn a profit. After remastering the old prints and authoring them to DVD, and then marketing them, and everything else, most of the conglomerates realize there's little to be gained from restoring cartoons from the 1930s and 1940s, especially considering the toys and fast food tie-ins and all the other stuff that can be gained by producing new series of computer-aided TV toons.

[Sogturtle]

And there is a little more yet... When Warners (aka Time-Warner) chose to sell their HUGE recording business to the group headed by Edgar Bronfman Jr., they opted to include (as memory serves me) ALL of the long held Warner music publishing businesses. Thus for Time-Warner to sue to protect underlying active music copyrights on public-domain cartoons would be illegal as they are no longer the owner of the music copyrights.

[Cartman]

Of course, this is not always the case and you have some smaller companies made up of animation fans, like Bosko Video and Thunderbean, who release high quality collections of PD material.

Another example would be Cartoon Craze, especially in the case of the Banned and Censored DVD set. That had some historical background on the Hayes Production Code and gave a little insight on the objectionable material in each of the cartoons on that disc.:betty:

[Ray Pointer]

Usually smaller companies out to make a fast buck are the ones known to crank out public domain videos/DVDs of various quality. Many of these companies have very little or no knowledge of what they are releasing. Of course, this is not always the case and you have some smaller companies made up of animation fans, like Bosko Video and Thunderbean, who release high quality collections of PD material.

As for the poorly drawn covers... that is a result of the lack of care from the companies putting them out (which, of course, is what we make fun of every year in our annual Ugly PD Cover Contests).

As I've continued to say, if it's ugly on the outside, chances are it's ugly on the inside.

[Mr. Semaj]

Has anyone ever owned a PD video from Star Maker? I long lost the cover for "12 of the Greatest Cartoons", but the cover had a relatively clean, polished image of some random cartoon characters (Bugs Bunny, Casper, Felix the Cat, The Three Stooges, Daffy Duck (for some reason, appearing as a giant), and Woody Woodpecker), as well as film reels from various shorts in the background.

[Bobby Bickert]

And why do Public Domain VHSs only cover cartoons up to, like, 1944 anyway?


There are Paramount cartoons as "recent" as 1957 that are PD. :sailor: :huey:

[ltnut]

The first PD cartoon video I had was from Burbank Video, and was later re-released by Starmaker. It was called 50 Classic Cartoons Vol. 1, and was the one I mentioned earlier that had added sound effects. They had pretty decent looking covers with a group of different characters. These were what got me started collecting PD cartoon videos, and these were probably the best ones until the Cartoon Craze DVD series started coming out. Of course I realize that the DVDs from Bosko and Thunderbean are probably a lot better.

I later picked up Vol. 2, and the re-released versions from Starmaker, which had 3 volumes. The main difference between them was that the WB cartoons that were in the first versions were dropped from the later versions, and Vol. 3 was added, which was totally different.

As far as the age of some PD cartoons, the New 3 Stooges cartoons that show up on PD videos were from the 60's.

[Brundledan]

And in the case of the public domain Warner Brother cartoons, the bulk of those were simply NEVER copyrighted in the first place, thus the rash of public domain toons from Warners in 1942-'43... The same held true for the early Warner Boskos...

Whoa.... the early '40s shorts were never copyrighted? How can that be? How could it possibly have been overlooked, especially with popular characters like Bugs Bunny coming in? They've got copyright notices on them, notices than can also be seen in the public-domain releases of the shorts....

What's the story behind this?

-Dan

[Jon Cooke]

Whoa.... the early '40s shorts were never copyrighted? How can that be? How could it possibly have been overlooked, especially with popular characters like Bugs Bunny coming in? They've got copyright notices on them, notices than can also be seen in the public-domain releases of the shorts....

What's the story behind this?

I don't know the story, but it is possible it was just an oversight of some sort.

I also recall reading that Paramount never bothered to copyright the final theatrical season's worth of POPEYE cartoons (which were released to theaters about the same time as the sale of the backlog of Popeye cartoons to AAP --- perhaps somebody thought it was AAP's problem or why should they bother since they wouldn't have any rights to the shorts once they were out of the theaters?). I am sure somebody has more details than I. :sailor:

[J Lee]

I don't know the story, but it is possible it was just an oversight of some sort.

I also recall reading that Paramount never bothered to copyright the final theatrical season's worth of POPEYE cartoons (which were released to theaters about the same time as the sale of the backlog of Popeye cartoons to AAP --- perhaps somebody thought it was AAP's problem or why should they bother since they wouldn't have any rights to the shorts once they were out of the theaters?). I am sure somebody has more details than I. :sailor:

They were originally copyrighted by Paramount Pictures Corp., but when the (at the time) 27-year original copyright period expired, it was 1984, which was just after the near total collapse of the cartoons' then-owner, United Artists after the departure of all its top execs in 1980 and the ensuing 1981 "Heaven's Gate" debacle, and their takeover by Kirk Kekorian's MGM, and Kirk's sale of the old MGM, pre-48 WB and Paramount Popeyes to Ted Turner at the end of 1985. Basically, virtually no one was minding the store when it came time to renew the copyrights in the period from 1980-84, when the 1953-57 Popeye theatricals came up for renewal.

[Sogturtle]

And in the case of the public domain Warner Brother cartoons, the bulk of those were simply NEVER copyrighted in the first place, thus the rash of public domain toons from Warners in 1942-'43... The same held true for the early Warner Boskos...

Only the eminent rise of television created a significant "aftermarket" for previously released theatrical cartoons (okay besides the whole ugly Blue Ribbon mess). And thus the great eagerness on the part of the companies to renew copyrights.

Whoa.... the early '40s shorts were never copyrighted? How can that be? How could it possibly have been overlooked, especially with popular characters like Bugs Bunny coming in? They've got copyright notices on them, notices than can also be seen in the public-domain releases of the shorts....

What's the story behind this?


Brundledan~

Sorry I tried to be precise in what I wrote (or rot:p)... Evidently I failed miserably:D. There was indeed a group of 1942-'43 Warner cartoons that failed to ever be copyrighted, but it certainly wasn't anything like all of the early '40's cartoons... I've suspected that it MIGHT have been because of Leon Schlesinger's growing desire to sell the studio but haven't yet found any corroborating evidence for that... But regardless, either somebody at Warner's or somebody at Schlesinger's failed to EVER file copyrights on these titles...

"The Wabbit Who Came To Supper" (1942) Freleng
"The Wacky Wabbit" (1942) Clampett
"Gopher Goofy" (1942) McCabe
"Foney Fables" (1942) Freleng
"The Ducktators" (1942) McCabe
"Fresh Hare" (1942) Freleng
"Fox Pop" (1942) Jones
"The Sheepish Wolf" (1942) Freleng
"Daffy Duckeroo" (1942) McCabe
"A Tale Of Two Kitties" (1942) Clampett
"Ding Dog Daddy" (1942) Freleng
"Case Of The Missing Hare" (1942) Jones

"Pigs In A Polka" (1943) Freleng [(c) NOT filed till '48 claiming "in notice 1942"]
"Fifth Column Mouse" (1943) Freleng
"To Duck Or Not To Duck" (1943) Jones
"Yankee Doodle Daffy" (1943) Freleng
"Wackiki Wabbit" (1943) Jones
"Scrap Happy Daffy" (1943) Tashlin
"Porky Pig's Feat" (1943) Tashlin
"Hiss And Make Up" (1943) Freleng
"A Corny Concerto" (1943) Clampett
"Fin 'N Catty" (1943) [(c) NOT filed till '48 and then as a Blue Ribbon]
"Falling Hare" (1943) Clampett
"Daffy The Commando" (1943) Freleng
"Puss 'N Booty" (1943) Tashlin

Annnnnnd, NO copyright was filed on "Horton Hatches The Egg" (1942). I believe it has been left alone by P.D. companies because of the ACTIVE copyright on the underlying Dr. Seuss book...;)

Additionally, copyrights weren't filed for...
"Boom Boom" (1936) King
"Porky's Railroad" (1937) Tashlin
"Get Rich Quick Porky" (1937) Jones-Clampett (credited to just Clampett:rolleyes:
"Porky's Garden" (1937) Avery
"I Wanna Be A Sailor (1937) NOT copyrighted till 1949 as a Blue Ribbon and Warners indicated then that it was "in notice in 1937"

"Ali Baba Bound" (1940) Clampett

Lastly in this "OOOOOPS!! Failed to copyright list :D" were the BULK of the Harman-Ising cartoons made for Warners between 1930 and '33... In 1930 ONLY "Sinkin' In the Bathtub" was copyrighted (all others for that year UNcopyrighted). In 1931 only "Ups 'N Downs", "Dumb Patrol" and "Yodeling Yokels" were copyrighted, NO other Harman-Ising toons (though the two Dr. Seuss cartoons made that year were copyrighted by Warner Bros. Pictures). In 1932, NO cartoons were copyrighted for Vitaphone or Warner Bros. Then abruptly in 1933, ALL the cartoons were copyrighted...

[Detroiter]

[/color][/color]



Brundledan~

Sorry I tried to be precise in what I wrote (or rot:p)... Evidently I failed miserably:D. There was indeed a group of 1942-'43 Warner cartoons that failed to ever be copyrighted, but it certainly wasn't anything like all of the early '40's cartoons... I've suspected that it MIGHT have been because of Leon Schlesinger's growing desire to sell the studio but haven't yet found any corroborating evidence for that...


My money is on someone at the Warner legal department who was in charge of such things simply screwing up. Given the timing, all bunched together in '42-43, you could easily imagine a scenario in which good old Joe or Mary, who used to be in charge of the US Copyright submissions, was drafted or got a better paying war job, and the replacement didn't get things filed. We should look to see if other Warner releases were also left uncopyrighted.

[/color][/color]
Lastly in this "OOOOOPS!! Failed to copyright list :D" were the BULK of the Harman-Ising cartoons made for Warners between 1930 and '33... In 1930 ONLY "Sinkin' In the Bathtub" was copyrighted (all others for that year UNcopyrighted). In 1931 only "Ups 'N Downs", "Dumb Patrol" and "Yodeling Yokels" were copyrighted, NO other Harman-Ising toons (though the two Dr. Seuss cartoons made that year were copyrighted by Warner Bros. Pictures). In 1932, NO cartoons were copyrighted for Vitaphone or Warner Bros. Then abruptly in 1933, ALL the cartoons were copyrighted...




During this stretch of 1930-32, almost none of the Vitaphone releases were copyrighted: cartoons, vaudeville acts, comedies, novelties, nothing. I'm not sure if there was a similar gap with the Warner or First National features or not. Warner was not the most centralized outfit in the early 1930's, and Vitaphone maintained some seperate facilities. Again, failure to copyright looks like a screw up by someone who's job it was to file these things.

Frank Flood

[Sogturtle]

My money is on someone at the Warner legal department who was in charge of such things simply screwing up. Given the timing, all bunched together in '42-43, you could easily imagine a scenario in which good old Joe or Mary, who used to be in charge of the US Copyright submissions, was drafted or got a better paying war job, and the replacement didn't get things filed. We should look to see if other Warner releases were also left uncopyrighted.

During this stretch of 1930-32, almost none of the Vitaphone releases were copyrighted: cartoons, vaudeville acts, comedies, novelties, nothing. I'm not sure if there was a similar gap with the Warner or First National features or not. Warner was not the most centralized outfit in the early 1930's, and Vitaphone maintained some seperate facilities. Again, failure to copyright looks like a screw up by someone who's job it was to file these things.

Frank Flood

Detroiter-Frank~

Putting last things first... My vague recollection is that the Warner and First National features were scrupulously copyrighted in that early Thirties era. And you mentioning that they were not the most centralized outfit in that juncture in time is a wonderful understatement...:) Imagine the lone surviving West Coast brother (Jack) trying to supervise and keep tabs on the workings of what had been three seperate California studios (the original low-budget Warner, the high budget First National, and the ancient Vitagraph (now reconfigured as Vitaphone)... And then there was the Harman-Ising studio pumping out cartoons for them every month with the Vitaphone name affixed to them. It's amazing that the main legal dept. got the features all taken care of (besides all the constant contracts flowing their way). It's almost as if in that period there was a "if it's not a feature then don't worry about it" attitude at Warners (okay Vitaphone's) legal department.

The handful of 1937 escapees from copyright ALMOST look like the prime person responsible for copyrighting was simply away on vacation... And maybe that is a valid explanation as several other cartoons immediately adjacent to those three had their copyrights filed months late!

And I agree that checking for other uncopyrighted Warner releases of the 1942-'43 period would be in order. The idea that the prime person in charge of copyrighting the cartoons (whether inside of Warner's or Schlesinger's) was drafted or left is a pretty good one. However I should add that these uncopyrighted Warner toons are not simply a whole big "slug" like you would think if one person was missing... They are sporadic and commence in the early Spring of 1942 and have a kind of 'on again, off again' timing to them, one cartoon not copyrighted, the next one or two copyrighted... In the WEIRD warp and woof of things both "Coal Black And De Sebben Dwarfs" and "Tin Pan Alley Cats" WERE protected while those around them weren't!!! And indeed it's not till the Summer of '43 that you actually get that big "slug" of uncopyrighted toons back-to-back...

I'll add one final point here... The first ones in this 1942 group start IMMEDIATELY after the last of the Tex Avery cartoons were released and the sudden integration of Bob Clampett and the former Ray Katz (Norm McCabe) unit into the REAL Schlesinger studio... That ALMOST sounds like the copyrighting was being done by the Schlesinger studio FOR Warners and that suddenly they were overwhelmed with the additional unit's cartoons (as if the Katz unit had had their own "copywriter person" who was then laid off).

[Sogturtle]

Tiny update to my uncopyrighted Warner Bros. toons list above... While going through the complete filmography I compiled back in '77-'78, I just now spotted one more that I omitted the other day, namely "Ali Baba Bound" from 1940 (Clampett).

I don't know how to explain a lone cartoon being missed for copyright though...:confused::rolleyes: [Ifffff it had been 'Chicken Jitters' I'd have understood:p;):D].

[Marty26]

[/color][/color]



Brundledan~

Sorry I tried to be precise in what I wrote (or rot:p)... Evidently I failed miserably:D. There was indeed a group of 1942-'43 Warner cartoons that failed to ever be copyrighted, but it certainly wasn't anything like all of the early '40's cartoons... I've suspected that it MIGHT have been because of Leon Schlesinger's growing desire to sell the studio but haven't yet found any corroborating evidence for that... But regardless, either somebody at Warner's or somebody at Schlesinger's failed to EVER file copyrights on these titles...

"The Wabbit Who Came To Supper" (1942) Freleng
"The Wacky Wabbit" (1942) Clampett
"Gopher Goofy" (1942) McCabe
"Foney Fables" (1942) Freleng
"The Ducktators" (1942) McCabe
"Fresh Hare" (1942) Freleng
"Fox Pop" (1942) Jones
"The Sheepish Wolf" (1942) Freleng
"Daffy Duckeroo" (1942) McCabe
"A Tale Of Two Kitties" (1942) Clampett
"Ding Dog Daddy" (1942) Freleng
"Case Of The Missing Hare" (1942) Jones

"Pigs In A Polka" (1943) Freleng [(c) NOT filed till '48 claiming "in notice 1942"]
"Fifth Column Mouse" (1943) Freleng
"To Duck Or Not To Duck" (1943) Jones
"Yankee Doodle Daffy" (1943) Freleng
"Wackiki Wabbit" (1943) Jones
"Scrap Happy Daffy" (1943) Tashlin
"Porky Pig's Feat" (1943) Tashlin
"Hiss And Make Up" (1943) Freleng
"A Corny Concerto" (1943) Clampett
"Fin 'N Catty" (1943) [(c) NOT filed till '48 and then as a Blue Ribbon]
"Falling Hare" (1943) Clampett
"Daffy The Commando" (1943) Freleng
"Puss 'N Booty" (1943) Tashlin

Annnnnnd, NO copyright was filed on "Horton Hatches The Egg" (1942). I believe it has been left alone by P.D. companies because of the ACTIVE copyright on the underlying Dr. Seuss book...;)

Additionally, copyrights weren't filed for...
"Boom Boom" (1936) King
"Porky's Railroad" (1937) Tashlin
"Get Rich Quick Porky" (1937) Jones-Clampett (credited to just Clampett:rolleyes:
"Porky's Garden" (1937) Avery
"I Wanna Be A Sailor (1937) NOT copyrighted till 1949 as a Blue Ribbon and Warners indicated then that it was "in notice in 1937"

"Ali Baba Bound" (1940) Clampett

Lastly in this "OOOOOPS!! Failed to copyright list :D" were the BULK of the Harman-Ising cartoons made for Warners between 1930 and '33... In 1930 ONLY "Sinkin' In the Bathtub" was copyrighted (all others for that year UNcopyrighted). In 1931 only "Ups 'N Downs", "Dumb Patrol" and "Yodeling Yokels" were copyrighted, NO other Harman-Ising toons (though the two Dr. Seuss cartoons made that year were copyrighted by Warner Bros. Pictures). In 1932, NO cartoons were copyrighted for Vitaphone or Warner Bros. Then abruptly in 1933, ALL the cartoons were copyrighted...




What about Daffy Duck And The Dinosaur? That seems to be one of the favorite cartoons to pirate amongst PD video companies. The most common cartoons I've seen on PD videos are:

Daffy Duck and the Dinosaur
The Ducktators
To Duck or Not To Duck
Prest-o Chang-o (I think I even once saw a "Bugs Bunny themed" PD tape with this being the only "Bugs short"!)
The Wabbit Who Came To Supper
Get Rich Quick Porky
Foney Fables

By the way, those covers are pretty hilarious (especially the two Daffy Duck And The Dinosaur ones). Does anybody have some more thumbnails they could post here?

[Sogturtle]

What about Daffy Duck And The Dinosaur? That seems to be one of the favorite cartoons to pirate amongst PD video companies. The most common cartoons I've seen on PD videos are:

Daffy Duck and the Dinosaur
The Ducktators
To Duck or Not To Duck
Prest-o Chang-o (I think I even once saw a "Bugs Bunny themed" PD tape with this being the only "Bugs short"!)
The Wabbit Who Came To Supper
Get Rich Quick Porky
Foney Fables....


Marty26~

Both "Daffy Duck And The Dinosaur" and "Prest-o Chang-o" were DEFINITELY copyrighted by Vitaphone in 1939... And frankly I can't remember IFFFF the copyrights were renewed by UA in 1966 or not (Detroiter-Frank???:confused:. I don't THINK they were... If they WEREN'T then they both lapsed into public domain in the Spring of 1967... [They were made back to back by Jones so their apparent p.d. status is likely due to something being up in the UA office at renewal time].

However NONE of the other cartoons in your list were EVER copyrighted, soooo the term "pirate" is essentially incorrect since those toons were basically "given" to the public upon their release back yonder.:)

[Jon Cooke]

By the way, those covers are pretty hilarious (especially the two Daffy Duck And The Dinosaur ones). Does anybody have some more thumbnails they could post here?

Here's a montage of various "Daffy Duck and the Dinosaur" themed public domain video covers! Enjoy!

http://looney.goldenagecartoons.com/contest4/Untitled-dinos.jpg

[Marty26]

Here's a montage of various "Daffy Duck and the Dinosaur" themed public domain video covers! Enjoy!

http://looney.goldenagecartoons.com/contest4/Untitled-dinos.jpg


Whoa, a couple of those character drawings look absolutely nothing like Daffy. Ironically, Daffy Duck And The Dinosaur isn't even a very good cartoon. So why it would be one of the most common PD cartoons is beyond me.

[Tim Lones]

Whoa, a couple of those character drawings look absolutely nothing like Daffy. Ironically, Daffy Duck And The Dinosaur isn't even a very good cartoon. So why it would be one of the most common PD cartoons is beyond me.

I didnt think it was that bad. I liked the early "Jack Benny" Caveman Character..

[Ray Pointer]

I didnt think it was that bad. I liked the early "Jack Benny" Caveman Character..

Wasn't this one of Chuck Jones' early directoral works? It shows that he was concentrating on the Jack Benny-like character more than Daffy, who was still developing.:daffy:

[J Lee]

Wasn't this one of Chuck Jones' early directoral works? It shows that he was concentrating on the Jack Benny-like character more than Daffy, who was still developing.:daffy:

It was really Jones' first "I'm-not-trying-to-be-cute" cartoon -- it's lower-keyed than a similar Avery or Clampett short of the time, but there's nothing in there that's trying to elicit some sort of Disney-like "ooohh-aaahhh-awww" emotions from the audience.

But on the main character side, "DD&tD" also is an early sign of how Jones was going to treat Daffy -- getting blown up at the end here was just the first of many punishments his duck would endure, since all but two of the cartoons Chuck ever did with Daffy has him coming out as a loser at the iris out (The cartoon was also the first appearance of Chuck's love of gag signs in his cartoons, which continued with gags like Bugs' "yipe/Yipe!" in "Hare-Raising Hare" to Daffy's forest of signs in "Rabbit Seasoning" and all of the coyote's signs in the Road Runner series).