In the original announcement about our Eyes on the Prize screening, we mentioned the copyright and distribution problem that the film currently faces. Basically, the filmmakers originally only had a limited license to use much of the archive film footage, photos, and songs incorporated in the film, so once those licenses expired, it was no longer legal to broadcast the film on TV. It was also not legal to sell any more copies.
This story first came to light in December of 2004. Below are links to a few articles discussing it.
Wired News article
Wired News was the first to break the story, with this article. It gives a bit of background to the issue, and also includes a slideshow of images from the film.
Wired News follow-up on file-sharing
Wired News followed up on the issue with a story in January about a group that had a started what they were calling a technological "civil disobedience" campaign to get the film out to a wider audience. They were encouraging people to download the film from the internet and organize public screenings, in defiance of US copyright law. Since this story was posted, lawyers for Blackside, Inc. (the company that produced Eyes on the Prize), have objected to their actions, and they have taken down the links to the films.
Boston Globe article
The story that Wired News first reported in December hit the major US newspapers in mid-January. This article appeared in the Boston Globe, and starts out with an explanation how even the song "Happy Birthday" caused a licensing expense for the film.
Washington Post article
The Washington Post also did an article on the issue, which, if you've already read the others listed above, does contain some of the same information. However, the Washington Post article doesn't just focus on Eyes on the Prize, but also goes into more detail on the copyright problem in the broader context of documentary filmmaking in general.
The other side of the copyright fight
JB Zimmerman is the nephew of Henry Hampton, the director of Eyes on the Prize. He also has a blog, and has been documenting his response to the copyright problem, and to the effort of some people to encourage downloading and distribution in violation of the copyright. His response shows how copyright is a double-edged sword, and makes the case that infringing on Henry Hampton's rights as an artist (by downloading and publicly broadcasting the film) is not the way to solve the problem of expensive and complicated copyright procedures hindering documentary film. NOTE: because Zimmerman's comments are in a blog (newest content listed first) you should scroll down to the bottom of the page and read the posts in chronological order by date.
Comments