Cites & insights Crawford at large.

              Cites & Insights August 2011 1

Cites & Insights

Crawford at Large

Libraries • Policy • Technology • Media

Volume 11, Number 7: August 2011 ISSN 1534‐ 0937 Walt Crawford

Bibs & Blather

It’s still here. I’m still here.

Those may be the most significant things to

say about the current state of Cites & Insights—

indeed, they may be the only useful things to say.

It’s still around, and you will note that this issue

has a single‐ month date, suggesting that I

anticipate doing another one next month.

At this point, given various circumstances,

Cites & Insights goes back to a lower priority level

among my activities than it’s had for some time.

Circumstances surrounding one particular essay

( where I really did think I was adding value to a

discussion that, as it happens, is by no means

over— but the collective yawn with which the essay

was met says to me that pretty much nobody else

thought I was adding value) certainly help push

C& I’s priority down— as does a general lack of links

to essays and issues, or mention of them, elsewhere

on the web. That’s not a complaint; it’s reality.

The issues are still being read— or at least

viewed and downloaded. I won’t bore you with

loads of statistics, but when I look at 2011 ( through

July 15), I see more than 44,000 issue downloads

and more than 92,000 article views ( for articles,

that is, excluding site overhead and others). I see

more than 13,000 IP addresses among the ( nearly)

75,000 sessions. The most frequently viewed

article this year, oddly enough, is from 2008: an

old media/ new media perspective from Volume 8,

Issue 4, “ Thinking about Kindle and Ebooks.”

Second, much less oddly, is the five‐ year followup

on Library 2.0. ( My experiment in turning the

Library 2.0 essays into a very inexpensive

paperback and PDF, yielding $ 4 for C& I’s ongoing

health? Five copies to date— two paperback, three

downloads. And it appears that only seven people

were sufficiently interested in the Library 2.0

essays to get the relocated PDF versions, even

though hundreds have linked to the original, now

essentially empty, versions.) Third is a golden oldie

on conference speaking; fourth, the 2006 “ great

middle” liblog study. And fifth, making any further

analysis entirely useless, is the OFFTOPIC

PERSPECTIVE on the first six discs of the 60‐ disc

Mystery Collection of 250 old movies. Go figure.

What gets higher priority, other than family

life? Work that pays— specifically, the book I’m

finishing up for one publisher and the book

( involving loads of research this Fall) that’s due to

another publisher next March. Also my remaining

column and any new paid writing gigs. I anticipate

working on ideas for other books ( no, they don’t

get as many readers as C& I articles do— but, you

know, they hang around for a while and I get a few

bucks from writing them) after the March 2012

submission. I’m hoping I might get a few speaking

engagements based on the next couple of books,

but we’ll see how that goes.

After family, writing that pays, reading and

relaxing, and hanging out online with LSW and

others, there’s likely to be energy enough for Cites

& Insights. Possibly with less regularity. Probably

with less intensity. That may turn out to be a good

thing. We shall see.

Inside This Issue

Copyright Comments ...................................................... 2

Offtopic Perspective ....................................................... 10

Odds of reaching Issue 144 ( one goal of sorts):

Nearly 100%, barring disasters. Odds of reaching

Issue 150 ( another goal of sorts): Probably greater

than 95%. Odds of reaching the 20th anniversary of

“ this thing” ( where “ this thing” includes C& I’s

predecessor in Library Hi Tech News): That’s still a

few years away ( the end of 2014 or early 2015), so I

won’t speculate.

Changes

After all my posts and the feedback I’ve received,

here are the current changes in Cites & Insights:

Cites & Insights August 2011 2

 HTML versions will have hyperlinks for cited

sources, beginning with this issue— and to

the extent that PDF supports hyperlinks, so

will the PDF. One consequence: I won’t

repeat the URLs as plain text.

 I will be using the new & improved “ Web”

template in Word to produce the HTML

versions from now on.

 The change in layout initiated last issue will

continue. So far, nobody’s told me they

know what that change is, so it’s clearly not

something most people notice.

If I get energetic ( beyond writing some essays for

future issues), I might convert some previous

issues to the new HTML template. If I do that, I

might also do retrospective blog posts for each

“ restored” essay.

Copyright Comments

Talking About the

Public Domain

Ah, the public domain: Where creative work is

supposed to wind up after a limited period during

which the creator has exclusive control over

distribution and copying. An ever‐ growing pool of

literature, music, photography, video and art that

we can use not only as inspiration but also as the

direct basis for new works, annotating, deriving or

just plain redistributing.

What a wonderful thing.

Too bad it’s basically been frozen for quite a few

years now, with almost nothing new entering the

pool ( except government publications— which start

in the public domain) and things tagged with the

Creative Commons CC0 license. Oh, and probably a

few cases where a creator’s been dead more than 70

years and has works produced since 1923.

Not only has it been frozen in the U. S., there

are laws and treaties that would appear to shrink

the public domain pool— which should, by any

rational reading of the Constitution, be flatly

unconstitutional.

I won’t dignify this set of notes with either a

“ Perspective” label or a claim of currency ( note the

flag: COPYRIGHT COMMENTS, not COPYRIGHT

CURRENTS). These are just some notes on items

that have accumulated over the years, with

commentary where I think it’s useful.

Can You Remove Material from

the Public Domain?

As constant readers should know, I’ve been

watching “ old movies” published in large, cheap,

VHS‐ quality DVD collections by Mill Creek

Entertainment for quite a few years now. Although

there are exceptions— TV movies and productions

where the publisher could apparently arrange free

or cheap licensing— most of these movies are in

the public domain. In most cases, you could watch

them from the Internet Archive or other sources; I

find MCE’s packages worthwhile and reasonably

priced. When I complete a disc ( typically four

movies), I post a set of mini‐ reviews to Walt at

Random. When I get through half a typical

collection ( six discs) or, for smaller collections, the

full collection ( or, for one massive 60‐ disc set, six

discs), I publish an OFFTOPIC PERSPECTIVE in this

ejournal. ( That’s the other essay in this short issue,

for example.)

One smaller collection, given to me by Mill

Creek Entertainment as part of a remarkably

generous correction for a tiny problem, was Alfred

Hitchcock: The Legend Begins— a four‐ DVD set

containing 18 of Hitchcock’s pre‐ Hollywood films,

two episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents and a great

55‐ minute extra: a collection of trailers, mostly from

Hitchcock’s Hollywood era. I wrote up that

collection in the September 2009 Cites & Insights.

When I posted reviews of the first disc’s

movies, I got a long comment from a British reader

saying that this set was legally questionable ( not

the term used)… because the early Hitchcock

movies, clearly in the public domain in the U. S. at

one point, had copyright “ restored” by the Uruguay

Round of IP agreements and the 1996 copyright

law in the U. S… and wouldn’t re‐ enter the public

domain until at least 2050.

I removed the first version of the comment,

and paragraphs of a second version, because of

legal claims that simply didn’t belong in my blog.

But that left the issue: Was— Is— Mill Creek

Entertainment flagrantly infringing copyright?

The four‐ disc set is still available from Amazon, if

you’re willing to lay out $ 5.49. Except for the

trailers ( an unfortunate omission), it’s also all

contained within one of MCE’s 50‐ packs, Legends

of Horror ( probably the weakest collection I’ve

encountered, but it’s $ 10 or so if you’re interested).

Cites & Insights August 2011 3

If these are gross infringements, you’d think they’d

disappear.

I commented on this situation after posting

the final set of reviews— and that comment

appeared during the brief period when Walt at

Random was part of ScienceBlogs, so the

formatting on the post is unfortunate ( migrating

posts back to WordPress from TypePad

“ simplified” some formatting and had a nasty habit

of turning paragraph breaks into line breaks).

Here’s part of what I had to say at the time:

Legitimate?

… Was I watching a legitimate packaged set of old

movies or is this set “ dodgy”?

A couple of key points up front:

I am not a lawyer. I’m interested in copyright and

have written about it, but always from a semi‐informed

layperson’s point of view. Let me say that

again: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

Mill Creek Entertainment, successor to TreeLine

Films, has been around for a while. The company– a

division of Digital1Stop– has a street address. It is

possible to contact them. The Hitchcock set’s been

for sale for at least two years, through such obscure

distributors as Amazon.

Anyway…

When I posted my off‐ the‐ cuff reviews for Disc 1,

one of my online correspondents from the UK

objected strongly– that these movies were not in the

public domain and that Mill Creek wasn’t a known

licensee. The post came from someone I respect,

but I had to edit the comment, as it made legal

claims I wasn’t going to get in the middle of.

On the other hand, the post did alert me to

something I’d never heard of before: Copyright

restoration. Apparently, thanks to the wonders of

international treaties, some UK material that was

definitely in the public domain within the U. S. ( and

maybe even in the UK) had copyright restored

retroactively– with a clause allowing distributors,

who had released the PD material in good faith, to

sell out existing stocks for a year after being

notified by copyright‐ holders that the works were

now once again protected.

So, well, other than saying “ that’s appalling if true”–

as it seems to violate not only the spirit of U. S. law

but also the Constitutional basis for copyright– I

could only fall back on the second point above: The

material’s being sold openly by a legitimate company

with a known U. S. address; if there’s a problem, it’s

up to the copyright‐ holders to address it.

But wait! There’s more!

More recently, I heard about Golan v. Holder, a case

in the U. S. District Court for the District of

Colorado, decided on April 3, 2009.

Briefly, the 10th District Court found that the

copyright restoration ( Section 514 of the Uruguay

Round Agreements) was unconstitutional.

Which would appear to put these movies ( back?) in

the public domain. At least for now. At least in the

10th district. Subject to appeal, of course. And to

possible new Congressional acts– but it’s getting a

little tougher for Congress to keep imposing longer

and tougher copyright in the assumption that

nobody’s looking.

Why the licensees might step back

I don’t believe it should be legitimate to restore

copyright in materials that legally, properly fell into

the public domain. I believe copyright is too long in

the U. S. anyway– and this particular restoration

means that materials created by non‐ U. S. citizens

actually have an advantage over U. S. creations,

within the U. S. ( The act didn’t restore any native‐

U. S. materials to copyright.) That also seems odd.

But there’s another issue to consider– namely, that

for movies, at least, proper license holders with

actual access to original materials shouldn’t worry

too much about public domain versions. Why?

Because the license holders can offer something the

PD vendors can’t: Fully‐ restored DVDs created from

the masters, rather than from whatever prints

happen to be available. The movie may be in the

public domain, but the masters continue to be the

physical property of whoever owns them.

Having watched the Mill Creek set of 18 movies, 2

TV episodes, and 19 trailers ( the 19 trailers being

one of the most charming aspects), I would think

that any true Hitchcock enthusiast would spend the

$ 156 extra to get the “ proper” versions of ten of the

18 movies from Criterion, Lions Gate or MGM after

spending the $ 8 for this set. You’d presumably get

better print quality, extras and expert commentary.

( Not that these prints are all terrible– most of them

are actually pretty good.)

Would I pay the extra money? No, because I’ve

realized I’m never going to be a great fan of early

Hitchcock. But I wouldn’t have paid that money

anyway– and at least I’ve been exposed to some

interesting flicks I’d have never heard of otherwise.

More on the April 2009 Situation

I probably picked up my information from an ars

technica story from April 2009, “ Court: Congress

Cites & Insights August 2011 4

can’t put public domain back into copyright,”

written by Nate Anderson. Excerpts:

In 1994, Congress jammed a batch of foreign books

and movies back into the copyright closet. They

had previously fallen into the public domain for a

variety of technical reasons ( the author hadn't

renewed the rights with the US Copyright Office,

the authors of older works hadn't included a

copyright notice, etc.) and companies and

individuals had already started reusing the newly

public works. Did Congress have the right to put a

stop to this activity by shoving the works back into

copyright? On Friday, a federal court said no…

Lawrence Lessig and a team from Stanford have

been arguing for years in Golan v. Gonzales ( now

Golan v. Holder) that Congress overstepped its

authority when it [ restored copyright in these

works]. A federal court disagreed and issued a

summary judgment against Golan, a music teacher

who had been freely using Prokofiev sheet music

before it reverted back into copyright. But the 10th

Circuit Court of Appeals said back in 2007 that the

case should be reconsidered on First Amendment

grounds. Last week, the federal judge who oversaw

the trial changed his ruling and agreed that URAA

violated the First Amendment….

In the new ruling, Judge Lewis Babcock conducted

his First Amendment analysis and concluded that

URAA did change the " traditional contours of

copyright" in one important sense: it meant that

the copyright sequence no longer moves only from

protection to public domain. Indeed, at the whim

of Congress, public domain works can now migrate

into copyright. " Such an alteration is inconsistent

with the copyright scheme as designed by the

Framers and as implemented by Congress in the

ensuing years," wrote Babcock…

While further appeals are likely in such a

prominent case, Lessig & Co. can at least take some

momentary comfort from confounding the

naysayers and finding the edge of Congressional

authority to tinker with copyrights.

Groklaw also had an item on this holding,

published April 6, 2009, including the text of the

decision itself and links to some other

commentaries and resources. A key sentence about

the decision: “ I read it as saying that nothing, not

any treaty, not even the Berne Convention, can

trump the US Constitution.” You might find the rest

of the item worth reading. Do note that the case is

about scores for musical works, not old movies—

but it applies to a great many works created outside

the U. S., including the Hitchcock flicks.

Win Some, Lose Some… for Now

The decision was, of course, appealed— and on

June 22, 2010, Mike Masnick published this item at

techdirt: “ Terrible News: Court Says It’s Okay To

Remove Content From The Public Domain And

Put It Back Under Copyright.” Excerpts:

Warning: this one is depressing if you believe in the

public domain. You may recall that last year, a

district court made a very important ruling on what

appeared to be a minor part of copyright law. The

" Golan" case asked a simple question: once

something is officially in the public domain, can

Congress pull it out and put it back under

copyright?... Getting a second crack at this, the

district court got it right ‐‐ and was the first court to

point out that massively expanded copyright law

can, in fact, violate the First Amendment.

But, of course, it couldn't last.

On Monday, the appeals court reversed the lower

court's ruling and said there's no problem with the

First Amendment because copyright law " addresses a

substantial or important governmental interest."

This is, plainly speaking, ridiculous. The argument

effectively says that the government can violate the

basic principles of the First Amendment any time it

wants, so long as it shows a " substantial or important

government interest." But that makes no sense. The

whole point of the First Amendment was to protect

citizens' interests against situations where the

government's interests went against citizens'

interests. It should never make sense to judge a First

Amendment claim on whether the government has

" substantial or important" interests.

On top of that, the court basically said " Congress

knows best" on this issue. Again, this seems to go

against the entire point of the First Amendment

and the important judicial protections of the First

Amendment. The whole point of court oversight of

Congress is because Congress doesn't always know

best. But here, the court has no problem deferring

entirely to Congress…

Most worrying of all? The court says that it should

keep out of this discussion because it involves

international relations and international treaties. See

why you should be scared to death of ACTA? The

courts are effectively admitting that once you get these

" international obligations" in place, the courts should

mostly stay out of the discussion, even if it violates the

basic tenets of US law. That's downright scary. The

court gives a lip service defense to this, saying that it

can still review international agreements to make sure

they abide by the First Amendment... but... for the

most part, it'll just defer to Congress….

Cites & Insights August 2011 5

In this particular case, a very serious issue was

raised: works that clearly were in the public

domain, and which some publishers were relying

on as public domain documents suddenly are no

longer in the public domain. If you have any respect

at all for the core notion of copyright ‐‐ which was

originally supposed to be about getting more works

into the public domain ‐‐ the idea that you can then

take works back out of the public domain is

downright ludicrous. It goes beyond being a

violation of the basic contours of copyright law. It

goes against the very Constitutional principles

behind copyright law ‐‐ and does so in a way that is

a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Which part of " Congress shall make no law...

abridging the freedom of speech" does this court

not understand?

All in all this is an incredibly frustrating ruling. It

feels like the court didn't actually want to address

the admittedly difficult question of how the First

Amendment and copyright law come into conflict,

so it just punted and said " well Congress knows

best, so it's okay." The case will almost certainly be

appealed, potentially for an en banc ( full appeals

court review) or directly to the Supreme Court. So

this most certainly is not over yet. But after a

reasonable ruling last year to this year's reversal,

it's definitely a step backwards for anyone who

believes in the importance and sanctity of the

public domain….

There’s quite a bit more to the post, including

some other arguments and a viewable version of

the decision itself. You might even want to read

the 161 comments— or maybe not.

The good news? As reported by Marc Perry in

a May 29, 2011 Chronicle of Higher Education

article, “ Supreme Court Takes Up Scholars’

Rights.” Which is to say: The Supremes did agree

to hear this case. It’s an interesting article,

focusing primarily on plaintiff Lawrence Golan,

who conducts the University of Denver’s student

orchestra ( he’s a tenured professor) and relies on

scores in the public domain to stretch the group’s

tiny budget. A key excerpt:

The change was surprising from a philosophical

point of view: Under copyright law, the

Constitution grants authors a limited monopoly

over their works as an incentive to promote

creativity. Over the years, Congress has often

delayed the passage of works into the public

domain by lengthening the duration of copyright

terms. But removing pieces already there was

different, Mr. Golan's lawyers argue, a radical

change in what one scholar describes as the basic

" physics" of the public domain.

That may sound abstract, but the impact on Mr.

Golan was direct. When a work is in the public

domain— that Puccini opera, say— an orchestra

can buy the sheet music. Symphonies typically

cost about $ 150. And the orchestra can keep those

pages forever, preserving the instructions that

librarians laboriously pencil into scores. But works

under copyright are typically available only for

rent. And the cost is significantly higher: about

$ 600 for one performance. With the flip of a

switch, the new law restored copyright to

thousands of pieces.

Golan’s group gets about $ 4,000 a year to rent and

buy music— and many colleges have a lot less than

that to spend on music, sometimes as little as

$ 500. “ When the Conductors Guild surveyed its

1,600 members, 70 percent of respondents said

they were now priced out of performing pieces

previously in the public domain.” Again, there’s a

lot worth reading in the full CHE article— and,

sigh, comments that are in some cases exactly

what you’d expect, including those from copyright

extremists, although there are also some

thoughtful comments.

This situation isn’t unique to the U. S. There is

an International Music Score Library Project, a

Wiki offering scores that were in the public

domain in Canada— because Canada has a term of

life plus 50 years, not the life plus 70 years of the

U. S. and some European countries. According to

“ The Public Domain is Offline,” posted October 21,

2007 at copy this blog, the Wiki was shut down

after Universal Edition, a European music

publisher, sent IMSLP a cease & desist letter to

stop offering scores from publishers within that

20‐ year window ( and some who’d been dead more

than 70 years). “ There are many issues brought up

by this situation. One of the most worrying is that

the most restrictive copyright law in the world can

potentially become the de facto copyright law of

the Internet, particularly for those with few

resources.” In fact, the library ( the Petrucci Music

Library) is still there, with nearly 100,000 scores

from more than 5,800 composers ( as well as more

than 2,500 recordings), but it’s fair to assume that

a fair amount of stuff was removed. Still, even

reduced, IMSLP is a good example of what the

public domain can do for you— as is, of course, the

Internet Archive. Returning PD material to

Cites & Insights August 2011 6

copyright does nothing to increase creativity but

does much to mess things up in general.

Where will this end? Possibly in this year’s

Supreme Court decisions— and given the current

court’s attitudes regarding corporations and

citizens, I’m less than sanguine about the outcome.

Copyfraud and the

Public Domain

Here’s a topic that deserves a big, fat, controversial

essay by somebody who’s done the research and

isn’t afraid to call a spade a bloody shovel. I’m not

that person, but here are a few posts related to one

big aspect of copyfraud: Claiming that public

domain material is actually under copyright.

Special collections and the public domain

Steve Lawson posted this discussion at See Also…

on February 5, 2009. He links to a post on Sage

Ross’s blog— but that blog’s moved. Here’s a link to

the current home of “ Libraries and copyfraud,”

posted January 30, 2009.

The situation: Sage Ross, a Wikipedian, was

working on a list of portraits of Darwin for Darwin

Day 2009, and ran across a photograph at the

Huntington Library taken in 1881 and “ possibly the

last [ photo] before Darwin’s death.”

Press releases and exhibition descriptions invite

people to contact the Huntington to request

images, so I requested the Darwin photo. The

response I got was typical of how libraries and

archives deal with digital copies of rare public

domain material.

The Huntington quoted distribution fees for the

digital files ( different sizes, different prices), and

also asked for specific descriptions of how the

image would be used, so that the library could give

explicit permission for each use. Had I wanted to

use it for more than just publicity ( e. g., in a

publication) more fees would apply. Apparently

the curators were not used to the kind of response

they got back from me: I politely but forcefully

called them out for abusing the public domain and

called their policy of attempting to exert copyright

control over a public domain image

“ unconscionable.”

The post continues regarding Ross’s exchange with

the Huntington, wherein he argued that, while

charging fees for distribution itself is fine, the

library “ has neither the moral nor legal right to

pretend authority over the image”— and that

“ everybody does it” isn’t a defense. In the end, Ross

was told to contact Yale libraries and museums to

see whether they do things differently— again the

“ everybody does it” defense for what Ross

considers copyfraud.

Unfortunately, the Curator is right that copyfraud is

standard operating procedure for libraries and

archives. Still, I think it’s productive to point out the

problem each time one encounters it; sooner or later,

these institutions will start to get with the program.

In this case, there’s clearly no question about the

status of the image. The photograph was taken in

1881. The photographer died in 1896. The version at

the Huntington is from a postcard published

around 1908. By any standard, this is public domain

material. Oh, and by the way, “ Everybody does it”

with a finger pointed at Yale turned out to be the

wrong response: Yale’s libraries and archives ( as

noted in comments) understand the distinctions.

One of the more interesting copyright court

cases— and one of the few that’s been on the side of

broader usage— shows up here: Bridgeman Art

Library v. Corel Corp. You can read about it at

Wikipedia. In brief, the decision ruled that exact

photographic copies of public domain images are

not protected by copyright: They lack originality. By

inference, an exact digital copy of a public domain

item should also be in the public domain. ( How did

Corel get involved? Corel used to sell CD‐ ROMs

containing excellent high‐ resolution photographs

of artworks, obtained from a company that’s since

disappeared— and Bridgeman Art Library, which

licenses copies of similar photos of artworks, sued

Corel, claiming that the photos could only have

come from Bridgeman and were therefore copyright

infringements.)

I’ll leave Lawson’s post for you to read on your

own, if only because I don’t find that I have much

to say about his comments.

With some trepidation, I’ll point to

“ Copyfraud: Poisoning the public domain” posted

on June 26, 2009 at The Register by Charles Eicher.

Why trepidation? Because it’s The Register, for

one— but also because I’m not at all sure that

Eicher isn’t confusing copyfraud (“ plundering the

public domain”) with legitimate enhancement—

that is, building new works based on public

domain works. Eicher certainly asserts that the

examples he gives are “ nothing but excerpts” of

public domain material and that Google Books is

Cites & Insights August 2011 7

complicit with copyfraud by suppressing access to

the PD originals. ( How is it that Google Books can

be legally required to make scanned material

available?) There are some interesting links in

Eicher’s piece and it’s worth reading— but I do

believe a distinction needs to be made between

pure reproduction and new editions of public

domain works. A new edition adds value, even if

that value is only in the new cover and the

typography used. Yes, if the publisher claims

copyright over the original text, that’s copyfraud—

but I think that’s a subtler issue.

Otherwise— if we claim that any work based

on public domain material is itself public

domain— there’s another slippery slope: There’s no

economic motive for someone to produce new

work based on PD material. That would be an odd

perversion of the whole idea of the public domain.

An April 5, 2009 post by Jason Griffey at

Pattern Recognition, “ Ebooks, copyright, and the

University of Virginia,” appears to deal with a

situation similar to Sage Ross’s— a reasonably pure

case of claiming copyright where copyright

probably can’t be claimed. Part of the conditions of

use for UV’s ebooks collection:

While many of these items are made publicly‐accessible,

they are not all public domain — the

vast majority of the images, and a number of the

texts, including all of those from the University of

Virginia Special Collections Department, are

copyrighted to the University of Virginia Library,

for example, and a number of other texts are still

copyrighted to their original print publishers and

made available here with permission.

Griffey has “ no qualms with the texts that are

copyrighted by their original publishers” but is

taken aback by the rest of the claim.

Really?

I had my suspicions here… it’s not like the UVA

Special Collections Department are writing books,

right? After look around, I found this text: Po’

Sandy by Charles W. Chestnutt. Published in 1888

in the Atlantic Monthly in New York, it is clearly in

the public domain in the United States. But there it

is, in the front matter:

Copyright 1999, by the Rector and Visitors of

the University of Virginia

Looking around just a bit, it looks like this shows

up on all sorts of texts that UVA digitized. My

favorite is The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin,

completed in 1788 by Franklin but the particular

version republished by UVA was published in 1909

by P. F. Collier & Son Company in New York. Also,

without any doubt, in the Public Domain in the US.

It also has the note:

Copyright 1999, by the Rector and Visitors of

the University of Virginia

What gives UVA the right to claim copyright on

these texts? They couldn’t have legally digitized

them if they weren’t in the Public Domain at the

time of their digitization, and changing the form of

something doesn’t give you the right to claim a

copyright, especially on the bits that make the work

up. Even stranger, they aren’t just claiming

copyright, but including a EULA!

After a couple of other questions, Griffey ends: “ Can

anyone explain to me how they could possibly have

legitimate copyright claims on things that they

didn’t create and are beyond the time limit for

copyright protection in the US?” The handful of

comments— one of which notes the Corel

decision— doesn’t provide any satisfactory answer,

and none seems to have emerged from UVA.

A Bunch of Interesting Items

There’s your organizing principle: These are all

about the public domain, but don’t necessarily

have much else in common, so the “ roughly

chronological” organizing method applies. First,

though, there’s one I’d like to link to but can’t: John

Wilkins’ “ Discovering the Undiscovered Public

Domain.” It’s from 2008 and about a modest

University of Michigan project to determine the

copyright status of works published between 1923

and 1963— but Wilkins prunes his blog, and I can’t

find this post anywhere. Too bad: It was an

interesting project, and I was mostly going to say

“ Go read it.”

Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the

United States

You can go read and use this piece, by Peter Hirtle

at Cornell, which I flagged in 2009 but which has

been updated as recently as January 1, 2011. It’s a

heavily‐ footnoted table that shows where each

category of material should stand— starting with

the strangest case, “ Never Published, Never

Registered Works” ( which can be protected for as

long as 120 years from the date of creation in some

conditions).

I can but point and say “ This is good stuff,”

available as an HTML page or printable PDF

Cites & Insights August 2011 8

version. A key point: If a work was first published

in the U. S. without a copyright notice between 1923

and 1977, it’s in the public domain— but that “ first

published in the U. S.” had better be certain. Oh,

and think 120 years is bad? Sound recordings

published prior to February 15, 1972 won’t fully

enter the public domain until February 2067! So,

for a recording published in 1923 ( the equivalent of

a book that’s definitely PD), that’s 144 years of

protection… and sound recordings go back quite a

few years before 1923.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to

explain this to you

This one’s by Mark Pilgrim, posted October 19,

2009 at dive into mark. Technically, it’s not about

public domain— but the GNU Free Documentation

License has similar effects. It’s a form of “ copyleft”

that allows for republication and derivation but

requires that the new work carry the same terms.

The situation: Pilgrim wrote a book Dive Into

Python, published by Apress. The book has always

been freely available online in several forms and as

a priced print paperback ( and, now, not at all free

Kindle ebook). Somebody else published their own

version of the book and got it on Amazon.

This apparently caused a small firestorm within

Apress, the exact details of which I am not privy

to, but which ( I am told) became a somewhat

larger firestorm after the Apress executives

realized they had no legal recourse, and asked my

opinion on the matter.

His opinion, in brief: He deliberately used a Free

Software/ Free Culture license, so there’s no real

issue here.

Still, there’s a qualitative difference between letting

people download your own work from your own site,

and watching other people try to profit from it. But it

is precisely this difference that strikes at the heart of

the Free Software/ Free Culture ethos. Part of

choosing a Free license for your own work is

accepting that people may use it in ways you

disapprove of. There are no “ field of use” restrictions,

and there are no “ commercial use” restrictions either.

In fact, those are two of the fundamental tenets of

the “ Free” in Free Software. If “ others profiting from

my work” is something you seek to avoid, then Free

Software is not for you. Opt for a Creative Commons

“ Non‐ Commercial” license, or a “ personal use only”

freeware license, or a traditional End User License

Agreement. Free Software doesn’t have “ end users.”

That’s kind of the point.

You’ll find Price’s response to Apress interesting.

As to the “ anonymous soul” who published

another edition of the same book? “ I am grateful…”

and he explains why:

Grateful, because it afforded me the opportunity to

remind myself why I chose a Free license in the first

place. My Zen teacher once told me that, when

people try to do you harm, you should thank them

for giving you the opportunity to forgive them. In

this case it’s even simpler, because there’s nothing

to forgive, just explain. She’s redistributing the

work that I explicitly made redistributable. She’s

kind of the point.

The comments are also interesting— including the

“ unfortunate side of this story:” At Apress’s

request, Amazon took the “ mystery publisher’s

edition” off its market.

This may be a useful lesson for those using

CC0 ( explicitly placing work in the public domain)

or most other CC licenses— and for fair use issues

as well: People will use your material in ways you

may not entirely like, and you need to be able to

deal with that. Pilgrim does this admirably.

A Defense of the Public Domain:

A Scholarly Essay

Laura N. Gassaway wrote this article, which

appeared in the Fall 2009 Law Library Journal in

revised form. The link takes you to an abstract,

where there’s a Download button for the 39‐ page

( double‐ spaced) PDF itself. Here’s the abstract:

Much has been written for librarians about

copyright law. Despite the importance of the public

domain, it has attracted much less scholarly

attention than has copyright law generally, and yet

a healthy and robust public domain is crucial to our

society. It provides the building blocks for authors,

composers, artists and movie makers who can

borrow from public domain works without seeking

permission of copyright owners. Unfortunately, the

public domain is under attack from expanding the

term of copyright, to making it more difficult for

works to enter the public domain in the United

States. Some librarians have asked if vigorous

application of fair use cannot substitute for the

shrinking public domain. It cannot. Fair use is a

defense to copyright infringement and is very fact

determinate. A court's finding of fair use applies

only to the two parties to the litigation while the

public domain is available to everyone from

individual users of works, to artists and authors and

to publishers and producers. It is crucial that the

public domain be energetically defended. Today, it

Cites & Insights August 2011 9

is not clear whether an author can even place his or

her work in the public domain since copyright

attaches automatically. A statutory method must be

developed for authors to place their works in the

public domain.

I would like to assure you that I’ve read this in

great detail, fully understand every point Gassaway

is making, and can offer comments on areas as

appropriate. That would, unfortunately, be a pack

of lies. I’ve skimmed the article. Gassaway is a

respected copyright scholar; I’m not likely to

critique her assertions. The article’s definitely

worth reading. I do wonder about her seeming

assertion that CC0 does not, in fact, place works in

the public domain— but here again, where

someone with her expertise is involved, “ do

wonder” is as far as I’m likely to go.

Shedding light on images in the public domain

This post by John Mark Ockerbloom appeared

February 8, 2010 at Everybody’s Libraries. Ocker‐bloom

notes cases in which he gets requests for

licenses to reproduce images ( in the University of

Pennsylvania Libraries) from books published

more than a century ago.

In those cases, I respond that the image is in the

public domain ( and our digitization, which adds no

originality, is also in the public domain), so no

license is necessary or appropriate.

Usually that response receives a thankful reply,

sometimes with signs of surprise that an image can

be reused without permission. But sometimes I’ll get

back a more alarmed reply. “ My publisher says I need

a license for every image in my book, or I can’t use it,”

it might say, followed by a plea for help in tracking

down some long‐ defunct 19th century publisher.

There’s quite a bit more to this post— leading up to

Ockerbloom’s announcement of scans for all active

copyright renewals for artwork. ( That link is to a

page that includes links for year‐ by‐ year scans and

original copyright registrations and some

summaries and indexes.) Ockerbloom notes that

less than 1% of images with copyright registered in

1923 were renewed in 1951, when they came up for

renewal. With these new tools, it’s plausible to

expand the range of images demonstrably in the

public domain.

So we have a rich treasure trove of images in the

public domain that’s been largely buried under

presumptions and uncertainties about copyright.

By finding and sharing information about their

copyrights, we can protect and enjoy these images

in the commons of the public domain, where they

can be viewed freely, included in new works, and

reused in any way we can imagine. If you find this

prospect intriguing, I hope you’ll help bring these

images to light.

No real comment other than “ good stuff.”

The search for the oldest copyrighted work in

the U. S. goes on…

Mary Minow’s April 8, 2010 post at LibraryLaw Blog

is fascinating reading. Some 11 days earlier, Minow

had posted speculations as to what copyright‐protected

work was oldest and what work will have

the longest protection. At the time, she offered a

line of reasoning that concluded that John Adams’

diary from 1753 met both criteria. The second post

discusses some issues as to whether that diary really

is under copyright— and her best guess at this point

is that it is not: that it’s in the public domain. It’s an

interesting and fairly complex discussion that you

need to read in the original.

Why should data be released under the CC0

waiver…

That’s the title of a December 9, 2010 post by John

Dupuis at Confessions of a Science Librarian, and

the ellipsis is followed by “... Instead of a different

Creative Commons license, such as CC‐ BY? Or just

with normal copyright restrictions?”

Set aside Laura Gassaway’s suggestion that

CC0 doesn’t actually waive copyright. It’s still an

interesting discussion— and, in some ways, an odd

one, given that data as “ a set of facts” is not

protectable by copyright in the U. S. ( of course,

Dupuis is in Canada). Indeed, one online resource

quoted concerns exactly that situation: Some

jurisdictions allow copyright over database design

and structure, offering an odd form of protection

for facts that aren’t themselves copyrightable.

Dupuis also links to items that point out why

you should not use something like CC‐ BY for data

itself: It just gets in the way of creating new datasets.

Public Domain Day 2011:

Will the tide be turned?

Let’s close with this generally hopeful post by

John Mark Ockerbloom on January 2, 2011 at

Everybody’s Libraries. Public Domain Day is the

day on which a year’s worth of copyrights

expires— when a nation’s laws allow for any

expirations at all. In some nations, including

Cites & Insights August 2011 10

Canada, that’s still life+ 50… although in a few

others, such as Mexico, it’s now extended even

beyond the ridiculous life+ 70.

Go read the post. I like winding up on a

positive note. One of these days I’ll figure out how

I can legally do what I’d just as soon do: Follow

Ockerbloom’s lead and dedicate my own writing to

the public domain after it’s been published for 14

years. Does anybody want to republish, say, MARC

for Library Use or Technical Standards: An

Introduction for Librarians or my other books up

to and including Desktop Publishing for Librarians

and The Online Catalog Book? If so, tell me how I

can explicitly waive copyright and I’ll be happy to.

( That offer does not hold for Future Libraries,

which has a coauthor and may still be in print. I’ve

regained the rights to all of my earlier books, all of

which are out of print.)

And, without a full discussion, I must mention

Hathi Trust’s work to identify items that are in the

public domain. This Library Journal story provides

a good starting point.

Offtopic Perspective

Mystery Collection, Part 4

Discs 19‐ 24 of this 60‐ disc, 250‐ movie

megacollection.

Disc 19

Sucker Money, 1933, b& w. Dorothy Davenport &

Melville Shyer ( dirs.), Mischa Auer, Phyllis

Barrington, Earl McCarthy, Mona Lisa. 0: 59.

The opening titles call this an exposé of phony

psychics— but it’s really a remarkably slow‐moving

B movie. Newspaper editor sees an

interesting help‐ wanted ad, tells reporter to go

undercover on what might be a human‐ interest

story. The job turns out to be one of the actors in a

swami’s theatricals, as the swami works to con

marks out of big money, then move on.

We get danger, hypnotism, lots of nonsense, a

swami who’s fond of killing as many associates as

possible and an eventual happy ending. In the

process, we also get some absurd acting and one of

the most lethargic suspense flicks I’ve ever seen.

Very charitably, $ 0.75.

The Chase, 1946, b& w. Arthur Ripley ( dir.), Robert

Cummings, Michele Morgan, Steve Cochran, Peter

Lorre. 1: 26 [ 1: 22]

Down‐ on‐ his‐ luck navy vet, standing outside a

café unable to afford a meal, finds a lost wallet at

his feet. Has a meal— then, seeing the card for the

wallet’s owner, returns it to a posh Miami house

where two suspicious servants eventually lead him

to the owner. The owner’s a tough guy, a successful

criminal, who’s impressed with the vet’s honesty

and takes him on as a chauffeur ( firing his existing

chauffeur). On the first drive, the thug shows off

his trick car: He can flip a switch and take over

control of the accelerator from the back seat, in

this case running it up to 110MPH and seemingly

racing to cross the tracks ahead of an oncoming

train— before suddenly stopping.

The thug’s wife ( although I guess successful

criminals who dress nicely are mobsters, not

thugs) is desperate to leave him, enlists the

chauffeur to take her to Havana… and she’s killed

there, with the murder pinned on the chauffeur.

There’s a complex chase… and we find out that it’s

all a hallucination/ dream. Or at least part of it is.

The vet takes a whole bunch of pills and calls his

Navy doctor.

There’s even more plot after that and a happy

ending of sorts. It’s an interesting piece of noir,

with Lorre doing a good job as the thug’s sidekick

and Cummings good in a non‐ comedy role.

Unfortunately, the print’s frequently bad enough

to be nearly unwatchable in night scenes, the

missing four minutes could be significant, the

romance makes little sense and the ending’s a

little too easy. On balance, I’ll give it $ 1.25.

Woman in the Shadows ( orig. Woman in the Dark),

1934, b& w. Phil Rosen ( dir.), Fay Wray, Ralph

Bellamy, Melvyn Douglas, Roscoe Ates, Ruth

Gillette, Joe King, Granville Bates. 1: 09.

As we begin, a man’s getting out of prison— with

the warden saying he probably shouldn’t have

been there anyway and he needs to watch his

temper. The parolee ( Bellamy) gives back the

money the prison provides on release— and adds

some of his own, for whatever good purposes the

warden finds. The man, who hit somebody in a

fight and was in prison for three years for

manslaughter because the other person died, is

going back home to live in his deceased father’s

cottage and stay out of trouble.

The story seems mostly to be about attitudes. The

sheriff thinks any ex‐ con is a criminal and to be

avoided, with the ex‐ con’s word meaning nothing.

The sheriff and police think that a single woman

( Wray) who’s beautiful and tried to make a living

as a singer must be a prostitute— and her word

means nothing. And, of course, a degenerate

wealthy young man ( Douglas) is the Pride of the

Cites & Insights August 2011 11

Community, and his word is worth everything. A

lawyer starts out by pawing his client and booking

her into an adjacent room at a motel. Oh, and

police are generally both incompetent and fully

willing to violate anybody’s rights.

The heart of the story comes in the last seven

minutes, which makes for some odd pacing. It

ends happily, I guess. Great cast, some good

performances, decent print, but I found the whole

somewhat unsatisfactory. ( By the way, the longest

IMDB review is flat‐ out wrong, with its “ shady

gangster and on the run moll.”) On balance, $ 1.25.

The Scar ( orig. Hollow Triumph), 1948, b& w. Steve

Sekely ( dir.), Paul Henreid, Joan Bennett, Eduard

Franz, Leslie Brooks. 1: 23.

Here’s the setup for this noir mystery: A bright guy

named Muller— medical education, all that, but a

habitual criminal— gets out of prison with a job

reference and the expectation by the warden that

he’ll be back. He immediately contacts his

crooked colleagues and insists on setting up a

casino heist. It doesn’t go quite as planned.

Although Muller and one accomplice get away

with $ 200 grand ( or something like that), four

others are captured and finger him. The casino

owner’s known as someone who never gives up

when he’s crossed.

Muller goes to LA and takes the job, such as it

is… and, delivering a parcel, is recognized. But he’s

recognized as someone else, the psychiatrist Dr.

Bartok, and when the person ( a dentist in the

same building) sees him full‐ face, he sees the one

difference: Bartok, otherwise an exact double, has

a large scar on his face. Muller also encounters

Bartok’s secretary, who obviously had something

going with Bartok.

After Muller encounters a couple of the casino

owner’s hoods, he decides to become Bartok. He

romances the secretary and gets some of Bartok’s

voice records; he also takes a picture of Bartok so

he can create his own scar. Except that the photo

store screwed up doing the enlargement— flipping

the photo.

Ah, but nobody notices— including the secretary,

patients, the dentist and Bartok’s girlfriend.

( Muller’s killed Bartok to assume his identity,

naturally.) And so it goes, right up until the

climax, which is a slight twist and has to do with

Bartok’s own considerable failings.

An odd story but an interesting one, well played by

Henreid as both Muller and Bartok and by Bennett

as the secretary, with a strong supporting cast and

excellent, subtle lighting and photography. ( For

what it’s worth, a 28‐ year‐ old Jack Webb is in the

movie— for about two minutes in a tiny uncredited

part as one of the hoods.) I wouldn’t call it great,

but it’s quite good and the print’s consistently very

good. Worth $ 1.50.

Disc 20

The Mystery of Mr. Wong, 1939, b& w. William

Nigh ( dir.), Boris Karloff, Grant Withers, Dorothy

Tree, Craig Reynolds, Ivan Lebedeff, Holmes

Herbert, Morgan Wallace, Lotus Long, Chester

Gan. 1: 08 [ 1: 10]

Since I previously discussed the oddity of Boris

Karloff playing the highly cultured, highly

educated Mr. Wong, I won’t repeat that discussion.

He’s first‐ rate in the role, and the other Chinese‐

American roles in this picture all seem to be played

by actual Chinese‐ American actors.

A collector of Asian art comes into possession of

The Eye of the Daughter of the Moon, an

enormous sapphire that should be in the Nanking

Museum but disappeared during the looting of

Nanking. Naturally, the stone carries a curse. The

collector, who is tough on his wife ( who’s in love

with her secretary) and whose first wife was a

suicide, throws a party, specifically inviting Mr.

Wong, one of the two greatest criminologists on

the West Coast. ( The other one’s also there. San

Francisco was a hotbed of criminologists!)

At the party, the wife begins a parlor game that’s

essentially charades with a different name, with

three little playlets. In the second one— a

mystery— the husband plays the wife’s lover,

surprised and shot by the secretary playing her

husband. He’s using blanks, but somehow the

husband winds up dead. At this point, I was a

little troubled: I was sure I hadn’t seen the movie

before, but that scene felt awfully familiar. Turns

out that the answer to the charade was a 1931

mystery on Disc 10 of this set, Murder at Midnight,

which does indeed use the same device— and this

is a much better film.

I won’t attempt to describe the rest of the plot. I

found it thoroughly engrossing and well played,

from Karloff on down. The print’s generally very

good. Even discounting a little for using a

Caucasian in the lead role, this gets at least $ 1.50.

Strange Illusion, 1945, b& w. Edgar G. Ulmer ( dir.),

Jimmy Lydon, Warren William, Sally Eilers, Regis

Toomey, Charles Arnt, George Reed, Jayne Hazard,

Mary McLeod. 1: 27 [ 1: 25]

We open in a misty space, which is clearly part of a

dream/ nightmare sequence. The young man

who’s caught in the nightmare wakes up, and the

movie begins. The nightmare involves his mother,

Cites & Insights August 2011 12

his sister and a strange shrouded man‐ shape who

claims to be ( but clearly is not) his father, and

includes a train wreck ( his father died in a train

accident) at which point the mystery man says

“ Just what I was waiting for.”

The young man, who is on a fishing trip with his

professor friend, goes home because he feels the

need to do so— to a clearly‐ wealthy household,

where his young mother is now involved with

another man. She’s charmed by the man, as is her

daughter ( the young man’s sister). He’s decidedly

not charmed… and concludes that the nightmare is

his dead father’s way of warning him about the

strange man. ( This is abetted by his receipt of a

letter from his father, one of several that the family

trust is sending him periodically, telling him it’s his

responsibility to watch out for his mother.)

The rest of the film involves a sanitarium, a

psychiatrist who’s in cahoots with the new suitor

( who is, of course, the man who killed her

husband in the “ accident”) and lots more. It’s

paced pretty well, although the young man seems

far too willing to trust in situations he should

know could trap him. Things all work out in the

end… and we wind up in a dream that’s not a

nightmare. Not great, not bad; let’s say $ 1.25.

The Strange Love of Martha Ivers, 1946, b& w. Lewis

Milestone ( dir.), Barbara Stanwyck, Van Heflin,

Lizabeth Scott, Kirk Douglas, Judith Anderson. 1: 56.

Great cast, interesting plot, first‐ rate print, and a

generally fine picture. The real mystery here: How

did this movie fall into the public domain?

In any case, it did, and it’s a winner. The first scene

is set in 1928, in Iverstown— a factory town, where

the Ivers plant is the mainstay. Down at the

railroad tracks, a young boy whistles his way into a

boxcar where a young girl is waiting with her cat.

She wants to run away with him— but the cops

catch the both of them, since she’s the niece of

Ms. Ivers. Who is a mean, vindictive, not nice

woman who hates cats ( among other failings).

The mansion also holds, in addition to regular

servants, a man who’s tutoring the girl— and his

son, about her age, who the tutor thinks should go

to Harvard if only he had the money.

Between a storm that puts out the electric lights

and other things, the aunt is climbing the stairs to

confront the young girl when the cat comes down

the stairs and meows— and the aunt starts beating

the cat with her cane. In what I’d consider

perfectly reasonable reaction to such a horrific

act, the girl comes down, grabs the cane, hits the

aunt… who rolls to the bottom of the stairs, dead.

The girl comes up with an alternative explanation

(“ there was a big man on the stairs”) and the tutor,

who was about to lose his job ( the aunt was going

to send the niece away to school), goes along with

it— as does his son, who saw the whole thing.

Jump forward to 1946, as a guy ( Van Heflin) in a car

manages to run it into a post as he’s staring back at

the new billboard for Iverstown. As it happens, this

is the other kid— the one who wanted to help the

girl escape, then fled on his own. And, he finds out,

the tutor’s son, Walter, is now the niece’s wife and

the District Attorney ( and has become an

alcoholic) By the way, the niece ( Stanwyck) and

only heir has made the company ten times as large

and basically owns the town.

That’s just for starters. The mood is noir, the plot’s

intricate and reasonable, the acting’s first‐ rate, the

climax— well, I guess it’s a reasonable ending.

Unusual to see Kirk Douglas ( Walter) in such a

sad sack role, but he does it well— it was his first

movie. I give this one a solid $ 2.00.

Man Who Cheated Himself, 1950, b& w. Felix E.

Feist ( dir.), Lee J. Cobb, Jane Wyatt, John Dall, Lisa

Howard. 1: 21 [ 1: 20]

A rich woman’s divorcing her husband— and he’s

purchased a gun and hid it from her, jimmied the

lock on the outside entry to his room, then leaves

for a trip to Seattle ( but, while he burned the box

the gun and ammo came in, the firing test receipt

fell on the floor). She finds the receipt and,

eventually, the gun… and makes sure her police‐detective

lover’s there to see it. Hubby sneaks in

the jimmied door, presumably to get the hidden

gun and kill her ( having established that he’s at

the airport as an alibi). She shoots him instead,

with the cop watching.

So far, we have something that feels almost like

self‐ defense… but the upstanding lieutenant, who’s

also training his younger brother as a homicide

detective, doesn’t see it that way: He decides to

use the husband’s alibi against him.

Things get odder from there in this mystery set

entirely in San Francisco. Even for 1950, it’s a little

hard to believe that traffic on the Golden Gate

Bridge would be so light at 11 p. m. that the cop

could drive part way across, stop, and toss a gun

over the side of the bridge without anyone

noticing— and, later, that the husband’s supposed

three hours spent at the airport before getting

shot would be suspicious because he wasn’t eating

or drinking at the one and only dining or drinking

place at SFO. Really? ( I’ve spent three hours at

SFO without being in a dining or drinking

establishment. Is that so suspicious?)

More plausible, in some ways: the mook who saw

the cop drop off the body ( but doesn’t recognize

Cites & Insights August 2011 13

the cop) described the car as a green coupe, and

it’s really blue… and he’s colorblind but doesn’t

realize it. Lots of men are colorblind, but very few

are blue‐ green colorblind.

Still: it’s an interesting noir mystery, as the

younger brother realizes that his older brother’s

apparently guilty of something ( just what is never

quite clear). Cobb ( the older brother), Wyatt ( the

rich socialite) and Dall ( the younger brother) are

all very good, as is the younger brother’s new wife

( Howard). Unfortunately, the sound’s distorted at

times and at least one scene— a conversation

between the two brothers that might have been

significant— is garbled because of missing

footage. On balance, I’ll give it $ 1.50.

Disc 21

Cause for Alarm!, 1951, b& w. Tay Garnett ( dir.),

Loretta Young, Barry Sullivan, Bruce Cowling,

Irving Bacon. 1: 15.

Part near‐ real‐ time mystery, part melodrama, and

more effective than I’d expect. Woman’s husband

has some unstated but wholly debilitating heart

disease— but he’s convinced that she and their

doctor ( who his wife was acquainted with before

marriage) are trying to kill him. He sets up a frame

( e. g., spilling most of his heart medicine so he can

claim overdose), then writes a letter detailing it all

to the DA… which she mails ( not knowing it’s the

DA, and of course she’s innocent). Then,

increasingly crazed, he decides to shoot her— but

has a fatal heart attack in the process.

Most of the movie has to do with whether or not

she can retrieve the letter, since she’s convinced

that ( although innocent) she’ll fry if it gets to the

DA. I won’t mention the ending. There’s a fair

amount of tension, and the lovely Loretta Young is

quite effective and Barry Sullivan is convincingly

nuts— and Irving Bacon may be the world’s

greatest whining postman. Not a great movie, but

not bad at all. $ 1.25.

Woman on the Run, 1950, b& w. Norman Foster

( dir.), Ann Sheridan, Dennis O’Keefe, Robert

Keith, Ross Elliott. 1: 17.

This one’s noir, San Francisco… and surprisingly

effective. A man’s out walking the dog at night on

one of SF’s many stair/ street combinations. He

sees a car above him pull to the side, hears a shot,

sees a body come out of a door, hears another

shot… and finds that somebody’s shooting at him.

Cops arrive, identify the victim as a witness for a

forthcoming trial of a mobster, spot two bullet

holes indicating that the shooter must have aimed

at the witness’s shadow and note that he saw the

shooter directly under a street lamp.

Meanwhile, as they’re dealing with something else

( and getting his semi‐ estranged wife from their

nearby apartment), he decides he doesn’t want to

get involved and disappears. That sets things in

motion. The wife wants to find the husband—

more so when she discovers that he really does

still love her and has a heart condition requiring

prescription medicine. The cops want to find both

of them, since the husband’s the only real witness

against the shooter. And a reporter teams up with

the wife to get a big story… or is he a reporter?

Very well done, with excellent dialogue, a fair

amount of tension and good use of SF

atmospherics. Sheridan ( the wife) and O’Keefe

( the “ reporter”) are both effective, as are most

secondary players. Not quite a classic, but pretty

close: I’ll give it $ 1.75.

A Life at Stake, 1954, b& w. Paul Guilfoyle ( dir.),

Angela Lansbury, Keith Andes, Douglass

Dumbrille, Claudia Barrett. 1: 18 [ 1: 14]

A guy’s a little down on his luck: He was a

successful house designer/ builder, but his partner

gambled away the firm’s funds— including $ 35,000

of life savings that friends invested in the

company. So the guy keeps a framed $ 1,000 bill as

an odd pledge to make things right. He’s visited by

a lawyer who represents a couple interested in

backing him in restarting the firm, to the tune of

$ 500,000.

He meets with the wife, a young and hot Angela

Lansbury ( 29 at the time), who explains the deal:

She sold real estate for several years before getting

married, so she’ll handle the real estate side while

he handles the building side— and her husband

will bankroll the whole thing. She also gives him

every reason to believe that she’s a fringe benefit.

One little problem: The husband quite reasonably

insists on key‐ man insurance for the builder, to

the tune of $ 250,000 ( which he talks down to

$ 175,000)… and the builder’s become a little

suspicious of their motives. He also meets the

wife’s younger sister, a 21‐ year‐ old charmer who

makes her older sister seem like a conniving bitch.

Things progress from there. Are the couple trying

to kill him to collect the insurance money— or is

he paranoid? When he finds out that the family’s

money is mostly from a life insurance policy on

the woman’s first husband… well, that doesn’t

help. I won’t give away the ending.

Nicely plotted and really quite well done and well

acted. Good print, and I don’t sense much

missing. $ 1.50.

Hell’s House, 1932, b& w, Howard Higgin ( dir.),

Bette Davis, Pat O’Brien, Junior Durkin. 1: 12.

Cites & Insights August 2011 14

Previously viewed, in 50 Movie Hollywood

Legends. What I said then:

Rural kid sees his mother get run over by a car

( driver gets out, looks at victim, drives away;

kid makes no move to remember license plate

or, apparently, call authorities). Next scene: Kid

shows up at urban home of aunt & uncle, who

have a boarder who acts like a hotshot— and

the uncle’s out of work. Next scene: Kid asks

hotshot if he knows of a job; hotshot, who’s

actually a bootlegger, hires kid to take phone

calls but never say who he works for or where

he lives. Next scene— this movie moves fast—

cops show up, kid won’t talk, kid gets sent to

reformatory for three years.

Then there’s a bunch of reformatory stuff, with

a side plot of newspaper reporter trying to blow

the lid off the terrible conditions there but not

getting cooperation. Kid’s best buddy, another

kid with a heart condition, tries to smuggle

letter out for kid, gets caught, won’t snitch, goes

to solitary, where the ticker gets worse. Kid

knows this, busts out ( in the outgoing

garbage), pleads with hotshot bootlegger to

help. Despite hotshot’s not actually knowing

anybody, he manages to get in to see the

reporter, kid tells story— and, as the cops

arrive, the bootlegger finally develops a heart

and signs a confession. After which, of course,

the reformatory gets cleaned up ( the kid

doesn’t go back). Oh, his friend dies.

Pat O’Brien’s the hotshot. Bette Davis is his

girlfriend, who suspects he’s a blowhard.

All a little too formulaic— and maybe it doesn’t

matter in this case. While the print’s so‐ so

visually, the soundtrack is so scratchy that I

almost gave up on it several times. I can’t imagine

most sane people would ever listen all the way

through. Given that, it can’t earn more than $ 0.50.

Disc 22

The order of movies on the disc is not the same as

the order on the sleeve. My comments appear in

the actual order on the disc.

Four Deuces, 1976, color. William H. Bushnell

( dir.), Jack Palance, Carol Lynley, Warren

Berlinger, Adam Roarke. 1: 27 [ 1: 24].

Previously reviewed ( May 2008). Back then, the

sleeve called it “ a tongue‐ in‐ cheek crime

melodrama”; while that’s no longer true on the

sleeve, the movie’s clearly intended that way.

Here’s what I said in 2008; I didn’t watch it a

second time:

… It has a fine cast, with Jack Palance, Warren

Berlinger and Carol Lynley ( among others). It’s

done comic‐ book style, with big color captions

popping up on some scene changes. The print’s

pretty good, sound is fine, good Roaring 20s

music, reasonably well filmed.

Maybe that’s enough. It’s a lively story with loads

of action, double crossing, explosions, gunsels,

maidens in distress… No heroes, really, but a

variety of villains in what’s basically an old‐fashioned

prohibition‐ era gang‐ vs.‐ gang war,

with each gang having a speakeasy as

headquarters. Somehow I couldn’t get into it.

Sure, you could say it’s all comic‐ book violence,

but it seemed as though the only ways to move

the plot forward were machine guns and arson. I

don’t know about tongue‐ in‐ cheek, but I found

it offputting. You might think it’s great good fun.

I didn’t, and wind up with ( charitably) $ 1.00.

The Limping Man, 1953, b& w. Cy Endfield and

Charles De la Tour ( dir.), Lloyd Bridges, Moira

Lister, Alan Wheatley, Leslie Philips, Helene

Cordet. 1: 16.

The movie begins on an airplane with Lloyd

Bridges returning to his seat, asking the person

next to him what happened to the magazine he

was reading, being told that the person behind

him borrowed it, and then settling in for the

remaining hour of a flight to London.

Once he gets off in London, things get strange: A

person right behind him in line is shot by a sniper;

the police ask questions; he can’t reach the woman

who was supposed to meet him… and we spiral

into an odd and complex mystery involving illicit

goods, two musical numbers, a dead man who

may not be, mixed motives and an ending that…

Well, I guess the scriptwriters had trouble with

the ending. I won’t give away what they finally did,

but fans of Bob Newhart or certain movies set in

and above Kansas might guess. Let’s say it’s a real

comedown from the rest of the film that cheapens

the whole business. ( The feature review at IMDB

calls it a “ moronic ending,” and I think that’s

about right. That and a damaged print reduce an

otherwise serviceable ( if perhaps overly complex)

semi‐ noir mystery to $ 1.00.

Trapped, 1949, b& w. Richard Fleischer ( dir.), Lloyd

Bridges, Barbara Payton, John Hoyt, James Todd. 1: 18.

Lloyd Bridges once more— this time as a forger

who’s in prison when his masterpiece $ 20 bills start

showing up on the street. With staged escapes, lots

of ambiguity and a fair amount of double‐ crossing,

it’s a nice little adventure/ mystery. ( This time, Hoyt

plays a hero— a government agent— and Bridges is

a villain.)

Cites & Insights August 2011 15

The major drawback I saw was the opening six

minutes and closing two minutes, essentially an

advertorial for the Treasury Department. It’s all

very stirring and informative, but once you get to

the plot it’s clear that no Treasury person will ever

be less than wholly moral and clean, and I think

that weakens the movie somewhat. Even so, it’s a

well‐ done film with great atmosphere, good writing

and some nice little twists, easily worth $ 1.50.

The Pay Off, 1930, b& w. Lowell Sherman ( dir.),

Lowell Sherman, Marian Nixon, Hugh Trevor,

William Janney. 1: 05 [ 1: 10]

Here’s an odd one that, despite its 1: 10 length, feels

more like a vignette than a movie. We open on a

city park around midnight, with two cops walking

the beat and a young couple asleep on a park

bench. One cop wakes the couple, who start

discussing their plans to marry the next day on

the $ 230 the young man’s saved from his job as an

assistant to an apartment super. A bad guy

overhears the $ 230 mentioned, robs them, and

sets the plot in motion— because the young man’s

been to one particular apartment where some

folks play high‐ stakes poker. As things progress,

the couple tries to hold up the folks in the

apartment and recognize that one of them is the

robber, but they only want their $ 230 back.

Naturally, the bad guys turn the tables on the

good guys, but…

Well, the robber’s a young punk who is part of a

gang run by another guest ( Lowell Sherman,

director and lead), a mastermind who specifically

tries to avoid gunplay and is quite suave. The

mastermind views the young couple as an

opportunity, takes them back to his apartment,

treats them well… and, eventually, the young punk

manages to involve them in a jewel theft where

the punk shoots the jeweler. Later, the

mastermind shoots the punk in self‐ defense— but

his former girlfriend ( or moll), now attached to

the punk, decides that he’s Guilty and should be

Shot. This leads us to the gang’s meeting room

inside the nightclub that the mastermind set

up… and, as he’s trying to make his case, the cops

arrive ( with everybody but the young couple

fleeing the scene).

And yet, this doesn’t feel like much. It all comes

down to a DA claiming he can fry the young man

because he was, somehow, involved in the jewel

theft/ murder as an accessory and whether the

mastermind will ‘ fess up, condemning himself to

save them. Can there be any question? All very

heartwarming, all very improbable. All in all, I

can’t give this more than $ 1.00.

Disc 23

The Great Flamarian, 1945, b& w. Anthony Mann

( dir.), Erich von Stroheim, Mary Beth Hughes, Dan

Duryea, Steve Barclay. 1: 18.

We begin in a theater in Mexico City ( 1936), where

an odd act with a guy swirling a cloth is ending and

one with a clown is beginning. Suddenly, shots ring

out… The woman in a husband‐ and‐ wife team is

dead, the husband’s the obvious suspect, but we’ve

seen somebody climbing up into the rafters and

hiding. We soon find that the woman was strangled,

not shot— but the husband’s still the obvious suspect

because, you know, he’s the husband. It doesn’t help

that the wife apparently had eyes ( and whatever) for

others within the troupe.

As the police leave and the clown closes down the

theater, we hear a thump, as the guy in the rafters

falls to the stage, almost but not quite dead— he

was the recipient of the shots. He tells the clown

that he’ll be dead by the time the police arrive and

tells his tale: The rest of the movie, told as

flashback. The guy ( von Stroheim) is The Great

Flamarian, a remarkable trick‐ shot artist with a

little act built on him catching his ( stage) wife with

her ( stage) lover. The woman ( Mary Beth Hughes)

is a gold‐ digger out for herself. Her husband at the

time ( and lover in the act), Dan Duryea, is

increasingly a drunk but knows she was a petty

crook until they got married.

We have a tale of conniving, an innocent man who

lives only for his work, and the results you’d

expect— death and betrayal. It’s quite a story, and

although it’s short of greatness, it’s good noir, well

acted and done well enough to get $ 1.75.

Parole, Inc., 1948, b& w. Alfred Zeider ( dir.),

Michael O’Shea, Turban Bey, Evelyn Ankers,

Virginia Lee, Charles Bradstreet, Lyle Talbot. 1: 11.

Based on the opening title, this is propaganda for

tough parole laws and boards, with the implication

that parole boards are commonly releasing

dangerous criminals. The actual film is sort of a

potboiler, with a federal agent going undercover to

prove that one state’s parole board is being bribed

to let people out. Good cast, but to me, the whole

thing felt a little forced— and, frankly, I don’t

believe a real undercover agent in this situation

would tell the three men setting him up for the

sting what his cover name was going to be, since

he’d have no way of being sure one of them wasn’t

corrupted and it’s information they don’t need.

Good cast, mixed acting. Overall, OK, but it didn’t

quite ring true for me. And, of course, there’s no

real mystery, since the movie’s all flashbacks while

Cites & Insights August 2011 16

the injured agent’s dictating his report from a

hospital bed— where if things had really gone bad,

he wouldn’t be dictating any report $ 1.00.

Baby Face Morgan, 1942, b& w. Arthur Dreifuss

( dir.), Richard Cromwell, Mary Carlisle, Robert

Armstrong, Chick Chandler, Warren Hymer. 1: 03

[ 0: 59]

We open with telegrams being delivered to cheap

grifters in four different areas— and, separately, a

cute scene with a soda jerk/ waiter and his

somewhat more worldly cousin and the cousin’s

girlfriend ( a remarkably vapid girl who’s never

heard from again). Then the plots converge: The

telegrams are bringing the grifters back to re‐ form

the mob that had once ruled Central City with a

protection racket, back before their boss, Big Mike

Morgan, was killed. One smart guy’s decided to

rebuild the racket, using Big Mike’s son as a front

( without his knowledge). First, though, he wants to

check out the son— who turns out to be the soda

jerk and who, thanks to an overheard and wildly

misinterpreted phone conversation ( his boss’s

initials are DA, he dropped off some pineapples—

which the mobsters assumed to be grenades— at

the sheriff’s office, and he picked up bill payments

from some customers), is assumed to be a hardass

criminal and immediately nicknamed Baby Face

Morgan ( he does indeed have a baby face),

although he doesn’t know that.

That’s the start of what could be film noir but is, in

fact, a nicely done little comedy— as the son &

cousin, set up as heads of the shell Acme Protection

Agency, get bored doing nothing ( they have no idea

what’s actually going on) and start selling insurance

to local business owners, beginning with one cute

young woman ( a trucking company owner) who’s

resisting the racketeers. The racketeers blow up one

of her trucks; the Acme Protection Agency

immediately writes a check to cover it— that check,

unknown to them, being funded by the protection

money— and we’re off. Rabbits play a role as well.

The close is a little improbable, but it’s an

interesting blend of noir and comedy. Despite its

short length, I’ll give it $ 1.25.

The Woman Condemned, 1934, b& w. Dorothy

Davenport ( dir.— credited as “ Mrs. Wallace Reid”

in the film itself), Claudia Dell, Lola Lane, Richard

Hemingway, Jason Robards ( Sr.), Paul Ellis,

Douglas Congrove, Mischa Auer. 1: 06 [ 1: 01]

I’m not sure what to make of this one— part noir

mystery, part romantic comedy, part farce ( I guess),

and for most of its length, a short movie that seems

very slow, as though it was written as a 15‐ minute

sketch and expanded to a one‐ hour movie.

The plot involves a woman singer who takes a

“ vacation,” tells her boss & would‐ be fiancée that

she doesn’t know when she’ll be back, and tells her

maid to tell everyone she doesn’t know where she

is. There’s a phone conversation with a mysterious

and evil‐ looking man who points out that, while

something is expensive, she wants to be free to live

her life— and he doesn’t take checks. ( A contract

murder?) There’s a female detective from out of

town, hired by the boss to find out what’s going

on— a detective with truly lousy skills at being

unnoticed. And there’s a wisenheimer reporter ( or

something) who hangs around night court and,

thanks to an even more wisenheimer judge, winds

up married to this detective he’s never met before.

Oh, and identical twins are crucial to the plot.

That’s just the start of a complex plot. There is an

actual murder, which if this is intended as a

comedy makes it a bit less amusing. Everything gets

resolved, more or less, in a final eight minutes that

almost makes up for the lethargic pace of the rest of

the movie. All in all, though, it felt underdone and

confused. Charitably, $ 0.75.

Disc 24

Four of these are Studio One episodes from the

heyday of live b& w TV drama— thus, they’re

kinescopes ( filmed from the TV), presented

including Westinghouse’s ads. The live format and

limited resources of the time can result in

somewhat claustrophobic dramas, but it’s at least

interesting historically. In a way, viewing these

with contemporary equipment is unfair. They were

made to be viewed on screens probably no larger

than 15" diagonal ( thus 9" by 12"); viewing them on

the 4x3 portion of a 54" screen— which is to say an

area 27" by 36", or nine times the area— warps the

original staging expectations.

There Was a Crooked Man, 1950, b& w ( TV). Paul

Nickell ( dir.), Robert Sterling, Charles Korvin,

Virginia Gilmore, Richard Purdy, Robert Emhardt.

0: 56.

A small boarding house with eclectic— even

strange— tenants: One young man who avoids

everybody, an eccentric professor supposedly writing

a 12‐ volume history of education, a young woman

waiting for her husband to return, another young

woman in a similar situation ( both of them,

apparently, working in the rare book room of a

library), the woman whose house it is, who’s

Cites & Insights August 2011 17

expecting her husband to return after six years away,

and an upstairs boarder who’s room‐ bound thanks

to an accident but called on by all sorts of people.

And who winds up dead. Suspicion falls on the

professor, but there are reasons to believe it must

be somebody impersonating him: His beard and

hair were bushier when he was encountered just

after the crime, and he was wearing high‐ heeled

shoes, which he doesn’t normally do. Lots more

plot, including the arrival of one woman’s husband,

the truly eccentric husband of the owner ( who was

actually a few blocks away and claims to have long‐term

amnesia), and a conclusion that leaves a whole

bunch of questions unanswered. Some scenery

chewing, too much plot for the time, but not bad as

a mini‐ mystery. Note that the running time

includes two lengthy Westinghouse commercials

( one for a big screen TV— well, big for the time, I

guess); it’s probably around 52 minutes of actual

program. $ 0.75.

Two Sharp Knives, 1949, b& w ( TV). Franklin J.

Schaffner ( dir.), Stanley Ridges, Wynne Gibson,

Theodore Newton, Abe Vigoda. 0: 59.

A surprisingly ambitious live drama, with scenes set

in a ( patently phony) train, police station, railroad

station and cheap hotel— and an intriguing script

by Dashiell Hammett. A father and his daughter are

on their way to a small town to meet the mother,

who the daughter really doesn’t know at all— and,

when they arrive, the father’s detained because the

police just received a “ Wanted for Murder” message

with his photo on it. The father’s never heard of the

supposed victim and has no idea what’s going on…

The police chief’s daughter ( who’s engaged to a

police detective) takes the little girl home with her,

while the police chief, detective and suspect go to

the hotel where he expected to meet his wife— who

isn’t there and nobody’s heard of.

Next thing we know, the father’s apparently hung

himself in his cell— and the police have discovered

that the wanted message was a forgery and the

supposed victim doesn’t exist. Although the

coroner tells reporters that it was a suicide ( in part

because a conniving DA is gunning for the police

chief), he tells the police chief that it was clearly

murder ( oh, there’s politics at play too). The plot

continues from there, and it’s a tight plot for the 50‐

52 minutes of actual program. ( Ads this time are for

the Westinghouse Laundromat and Dryer, with the

pitch that your Westinghouse dealer will be happy

to wash and dry a load of your clothes to show how

great they are— and a prominent “ damp” setting on

the dryer, for those clothes needing ironing.) Note:

I mention Abe Vigoda because he became so well

known; as with all but three actors, his only credit

was a voice‐ over at the end of the episode. He was

28 at the time; this was one of his first two roles.)

Well done, well‐ acted; since it’s also well under an

hour, I’ll give it $ 1.00.

The Inner Circle, 1946, b& w. Philip Ford ( dir.),

Adele Mara, Warren Douglas, William Frawley,

Ricardo Cortez, Virginia Christine, Ken Niles, WIl

Wright. 0: 57.

This one’s not a Studio One kinescope— it’s a B

film, humorous, fast‐ moving, complicated and

thoroughly enjoyable. A private detective, Johnny

Strange, Action, Inc., starts to call in an ad for a

private secretary ( young, blonde, good‐ looking,

etc.), when the phone’s removed by… well, a young

woman ( Adele Mara, a stunner) who more than

meets his criteria and says she’s there for the job.

Before you know it, she’s calling to get his office

cleaned— and on his other line there’s a call, which

she answers ( the first call’s busy), by a new client

who informs the secretary that Johnny is to meet

her in front of a jeweler at 7: 30 that night.

This leads to a dead body, Strange being knocked

over the head, the gun placed in his hand and the

police showing up— and the secretary giving a

thoroughly false story to clear him. He wants to

know what’s actually going on, and that takes us

through a bunch of characters, the secretary’s

socialite sister ( who the secretary thinks might be

the real murderer)… and eventually a re‐ creation of

portions of the murder scene during a radio

broadcast ( the victim had a gossip radio show, with

a side of blackmail). All fast, with snappy dialogue,

the natural love interest between the private dick

and the beautiful secretary. William Frawley— yes,

that William Frawley ( later of I Love Lucy, The

Lucy‐ Desi Comedy Hour, and My Three Sons) does

a fine job as the police detective lieutenant

pursuing the case. Great stuff— light‐ hearted and

well‐ done. It’s only 57 minutes ( actually just over

56), so I can’t give it more than $ 1.25.

Things Happen At Night, 1947, b& w. Francis Searle

( dir.), Gordon Harker, Alfred Drayton, Robertson

Hare, Gwynneth Vaughan. 1: 19 [ 0: 56]

The biggest mystery here is why this odd little

farce is in the Mystery Collection rather than

being filler in a comedy megapack. The plot, such

as it is, involves a poltergeist who’s possessing the

daughter in a too‐ big house and causing all sorts

of mischief. An insurance investigator ( Gordon

Harker) arrives to evaluate a claim for a hole in a

rug ( caused by a burning cinder in a room where

the fireplace wasn’t used and had a grille that

Cites & Insights August 2011 18

wouldn’t have allowed the cinder to escape in any

case) and, somehow, becomes an overnight guest,

formal dress and all. A “ scientist” also arrives to

photograph the poltergeist (?).

Mostly the plot is an excuse for cheap special effects

and lots of Gordon Harker’s odd expressions, and

whether you’ll enjoy it depends on whether you

think Harker is side‐ splitting. Since I don’t, I mostly

found this to be a wasted hour. ( Harker was much

better in The Farmer’s Wife both because it was one

of Alfred Hitchcock’s rare comedies and because

there was a script, something that’s lacking here.)

Maybe the missing 23 minutes would make this

better, but the flick seemed overlong as it is. Add to

the missing script sometimes‐ sketchy video quality

( bleached at times) and some odd filming, and I’m

being extremely generous to give this $ 0.75.

Flowers from a Stranger, 1949, b& w ( TV). Paul

Nickell ( dir.), John Conte, Felicia Montealegre, Yul

Brynner, Robert Duke, Lois Nettleton. 0: 59.

The beautiful young wife of a psychiatrist has

trouble sleeping, mostly because she keeps

thinking about a tune that she can’t quite place—

and that may be evil. As a typical young

professional couple, they of course have a

housekeeper/ maid, and she’s having friends to

dinner— an odd number, and suggests her husband

invite someone. He thinks of an older colleague, a

famous psychiatrist who survived the concentration

camps and has one bad hand for it. The

psychiatrist, Yul Brynner with white hair ( 29 years

old at the time, but a credible elderly psychiatrist),

accepts the invitation.

In short order, we get several dozen white

carnations sent to the wife by an anonymous

sender— and she hates white carnations. When the

older doctor arrives he is, of course, wearing… a

white carnation. He’s charmed by her; she believes

he’s evil… and he refers to her by a name her

husband didn’t know, her stage name when she was

giving piano concerts in Europe as a child. Next

scene: A violent inmate escapes and, next thing you

know, she’s being subdued by the housekeeper. The

wife concludes that the inmate was brought there

by the old doctor to kill her and that the old doctor

pushed her mother off a train platform… and goes in

to New York to get evidence of a sort ( the old doctor

was briefly married to the wife’s mother, and he

decamped to the U. S. a few days before the death).

We get a climax in which the young woman,

apparently frail and easily breakable, suddenly turns

into a victim‐ turned‐ pursuer, breaking down the

older psychiatrist. I found this scene so wholly

unbelievable that it compromises what’s otherwise a

minor psychodrama. For some reason, I was more

aware on this little drama that doctors are portrayed

as all being smoking fiends: It was a different time!

Overall, I’m being generous with $ 0.75.

Plan For Escape, 1952, b& w ( TV). Paul Nickell

( dir.), Peggy Ann Garner, Frank Overton, Jean

Carson. 0: 59.

Another Studio One presentation, this time with

Betty Furness doing the ads ( one of them for a

Westinghouse sunlamp so you can get your tan in

winter, back when tanning was supposed to be as

healthy as smoking). The plot: A very young ( 21

years old) trophy wife of a gangster hates being a

bird in a gilded cage, wants out… and sees her

chance when her husband’s gunned down. But her

minder ( who’s in cahoots with the gangster who

shot her husband) is on her trail, since she could rat

on the killer. She winds up in a tiny town on the rail

line, befriended by a handsome young mail clerk

who’s deeply philosophical. Her problem with him:

He’s not Somebody, being more interested in living

a good life than in being a big financial success.

Lots of talk, then more plot leading to a shootout of

sorts. Will the girl‐ woman ever grow up? Perhaps…

This one’s fairly well done, but I still can’t give it

more than $ 0.75.

Summing up this segment, I see one real winner

( The Strange Love of Martha Ivers) and two that

come close ( Woman on the Run and The Great

Flamarian). Add five that are also worth

rewatching at $ 1.50, six fairly good ones at $ 1.25,

and another five adequate at $ 1.00, and we get a

total value of $ 25.50 ignoring the remaining seven

flicks. Not bad for one‐ tenth of a set!

Masthead

Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large, Volume 11, Number 7,

Whole # 142, ISSN 1534‐ 0937, a journal of libraries, policy,

technology and media, is written and produced by Walt

Crawford.

Comments should be sent to waltcrawford@ gmail. com.

Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large is copyright © 2011 by Walt

Crawford: Some rights reserved.

All original material in this work is licensed under the

Creative Commons Attribution‐ NonCommercial License.

To view a copy of this license, visit

http:// creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by‐ nc/ 1.0 or send a

letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way,

Stanford, California 94305, USA.

URL: citesandinsights. info/ civ11i7. pdf