Talk:Royal Family (film)

Crown copyright

The article says The film is protected by Crown copyright and has not been shown since the 1970s. According to Heseltine, "we put very heavy restrictions on it because we realised it was a huge shift in attitude". This is footnoted to Robert Hardman (2012). Her Majesty: Queen Elizabeth II and Her Court. Pegasus Books. pp. 240–245. ISBN 978-1-4532-4918-5. but those pages in the edition scanned at the archive.org link seem to be all about lord-lieutenants, not this documentary, so I can't verify the source. Further down, the article says the BBC sought to have it removed from YouTube, but if it's crown copyright rather than belonging to the BBC like their other productions, how is the BBC in a position to demand this? Moreover, our crown copyright article says Published Crown copyright material has protection for 50 years from the date of publication. As the film was broadcast in 1969 it would therefore be in the public domain now, and the takedown claims would be spurious. I hope a copyright expert can clear this up! Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

That line is on page 244 of my kindle version, but in the Archive.org copy (added to Wikipedia by a bot) it can be found on page 212...

The film has since become a broadcasting yeti, world-famous yet unseen on television screens since a repeat during the 1970s. It is in no video libraries. A trawl for a VHS or DVD edition will draw a blank. Today, television researchers are only allowed to access it under close supervision. Copyright is controlled by the Queen’s Private Secretary and successive private secretaries have kept it under lock and key. The occasional clip has been authorised to form part of another documentary but the film itself remains out of bounds to the public. The official reason is that this was a programme of its time and for its time. ‘We put very heavy restrictions on it because we realised it was a huge shift in attitude,’ says Sir William Heseltine. ‘And we thought it was not something which should be quarried for other programmes or be shown every few months.’ Like any home video more than forty years old, it contains scenes which some members of the family would rather keep private...

As for how the BBC was able to get it removed from YouTube, the contract between the Queen (commissioner) and BBC/ITV (producers) may have agreed to Crown copyright for 50 years and then copyright reverts to the broadcasters in 2021. Or both parties have had joint copyright the whole time; I guess we'll never know... Firebrace (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the reference. This is going slightly beyond the scope of a talk page, but I wonder if it would be possible for someone to do a Freedom of Information Act request for that contract so the nature of the agreement between the Queen and BBC/ITV could be made clear. It does seem extraordinary that they have been able to maintain an effective ban on people viewing a film that was at the time of its release one of the most widely seen television productions in the country, but it looks like the cat is very much out of the bag now. Beorhtwulf (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Beorhtwulf and Firebrace: In terms of UK law, I think the crucial thing is the way the 1995 Copyright term extension legislation (SI 1995/3297) re-wrote the 1988 Copyright Act. Essentially it said that new copyright terms would apply, which it rewrote into the 1988 Act, regardless of when previous Acts had said the copyright would expire. In most cases that would mean the rewritten section 12. But that section had a carve out -- section 12(9) -- which said the section didn't apply to Crown copyright works, which were governed by section 163, which wasn't changed by the 1995 legislation. So that's why (most) Crown copyright things have slightly different copyright durations to the situation under regular copyright.

So is the material Crown copyright? If the film had been made after 1988 it wouldn't be: as our article Crown copyright#United Kingdom says, the scope of Crown copyright was considerably narrowed at that time. But for material from before 1988, the old 1956 rules apply (according to the 1988 Act, schedule 1 paragraph 40). These said (1956 Act section 39(5)) that a film would be Crown copyright if it was "made by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or a Government department". The film was commissioned by the Queen, who also set the ground-rules for what was done; so it looks like there is indeed a strong case that that would apply.

However, there's a catch. The 1995 Copyright term legislation added a special new section to the 1988 Act for film: section 13B. That new section doesn't have a carve-out for Crown-copyright works. And the list of the things which do have special term-lengths for Crown copyright material (in s. 163(3) specifically doesn't include film. So the copyright term for Crown-copyright films isn't 50 years from the date of publication, as written above. It's 70 years after the death of the director, the author of the dialogue, or the composer of the music, whoever lives longest -- the same rules as for films under ordinary copyright. So whether Royal Family is under Crown copyright, or whether it is under ordinary copyright that has been assigned to the Crown, the effect is the same: the film is likely still to be going to be covered by copyright for a very considerable number of years still to come.

It's possible (depending on the exact interpretation of the 1956 law, and then what exactly were the contracts that were signed) that the copyright holder might be the BBC. But either way, whether they were acting as authorised agents for the Crown, or whether the copyright is actually their own, they would seem to be within their rights to be sending YouTube a take-down notice.

(Cf also a reddit thread with some discussion on this). Jheald (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added a note to the article to the above effect. Jheald (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW The end caption says "A joint production by BBC Television and Independent Television", without a copyright statement. Jheald (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The Crown

Season 3 episode 4 of The Crown depicts the making of this film and the Duke of Edinburgh's involvement in it, but I'll leave it for others to decide whether that deserves a mention in this article. Beorhtwulf (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

origine of the leak

The leaking was committed in verity in November of 2020: https://i.imgur.com/Rg776o8.png only I do not now how properly include that as a reference. 194.57.7.222 (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

We can't use that as a reference it because it is not a WP:Reliable source. -- Firebrace (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Viewable on vimeo

The film remains available to view on vimeo as evidenced: here. Please do not remove reliably sourced and accurate content without any reason. Cambial foliage❧ 20:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Great, but the video was not loading on 'History of Royal Women' (who looks at that website and thinks it is a reliable source anyway??) Firebrace (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)