Amazon Prime Studios is under fire for shortening the classic Christmas film, It’s a Wonderful Life by cutting out the key scenes where George Bailey sees what life would have looked like if he was never born. The suggested reasons have varied from removing disturbing scenes for modern sensibilities to a copyright dispute.
I read once of a movie theater owner who wanted to show a doubleheader film with the Sound of Music but did not want over four hours of viewing…so he cut out all the songs.
For viewers, the impact is the same when the scene goes from the angel Clarence telling George he has to earn his wings to George running through the streets of Bedford Falls in his unrestrained happiness. There is reportedly no explanation of why he came to the epiphany.
One explanation is that the suicide scene is now considered too dark. There is also a suggestion that, even though the film is now in the public domain, there is a continuing copyright dispute over the struck scenes.
The copyright claim is curious because Amazon still offers the full movie as an alternative. Notably, the reason that the film is in the public domain is because Republic Film (which purchased the rights after RKO sold it to Liberty Films which was then taken over by Paramount) failed to renew its copyright in 1974. It was an apparent glitch.
However, there is a dispute that goes back to the original short story by Philip Van Doren Stern who penned the short story The Greatest Gift. While the film itself has a lapsed copyright, Stern renewed his copyright in 1971 for an additional 28 years (Congress then extended expiration dates under the Copyright Act of 1976 until 2038). I have been a long critic of these copyright and trademark laws, but Congress has been an eager partner in such extensions.
So, there is a copyright claim based on the short story. In 1990, the Supreme Court viewed a copyright challenge connected to the movie Rear Window. Putting aside the fact that Jimmy Stewart appears to be the Kevin Bacon of copyright cases, the Court ruled that the unauthorized exploitation of a film could infringe the copyright of an underlying work like a short story.
So, if A Wonderful Life has been reduced to a Not-So-Wonderful Hour, it may be because Congress continues to daisy-chain extensions of copyright periods. As Clarence said, “Strange, isn’t it? Each man’s life touches so many other lives.” The same can be said of copyrights.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”