Talk:Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

Comment in 2005

This page needs to be cleaned up. It has mixed tenses and more serious grammatical issues that obscure the nature of the court case and its verdict.

Additionally, is the name of the film in question not known?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanyk (talk • contribs) 22:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment in 2006

In addition to the free use of Shostakovitch, I believe Wagner has been used and not compensated. - Charlie Prewett mannermode.com—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.138.63 (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Background needed

It would be great if someone with knowledge of this case could provide some more details of how it came about. Did Shostakovich himself file the suit? If so, was it his idea or that of the Soviet authorities? How did he know about the film? I don't think the main Shostakovich article touches on this. Thanks. Perodicticus (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Public domain

It wouldn't be in the public domain now (published after 1922, composer still alive or now still less than 51 years dead so neither PDUS nor PDCA hence not PDEU either). Why was it in the public domain then? Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hoping that an editor can explain this in the article. Davidships (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Saw the message at WT:LAW. Not a copyright lawyer, but here's my understanding: the Soviet composers' works were originally published in the USSR, so they would have been public domain in the US since the USSR had no copyright relations with the US and the registration formalities weren't completed. As a result of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994, however, the copyrights were restored (see [1]), so these works now are copyrighted and will be until the full 95 years have elapsed (explanation). Does that help? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The plaintiffs also conceded that the works were in the public domain for the purposes of the litigation. Their strategy was to assert moral rights. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Voorts for the hard work (and I feel honoured to been a trigger for that). Good luck at GAN. Davidships (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Came here to ask this same question. While the answer given here sounds plausible, surely it should have been vetted and added to the article before making this an "article of the day" on the front page, no? -lethe ^{talk + contribs} 13:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, sorry. I found this sentence in the article, which I missed on first reading:

>At oral argument and in their motion, the composers conceded that the compositions at issue were in the public domain in the United States because the Soviet Union and the United States had not entered into a copyright agreement.

complete with sources. So I retract my complaint. -lethe ^{talk + contribs} 13:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lethe No worries. It also went through FAC review just last month. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet talk 04:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that four Russian composers called the makers of the 1948 Cold War film The Iron Curtain "American reactionaries" for using their music without their permission? Source: Daniel J. Leab, "The Iron Curtain (1948): Hollywood's First Cold War Movie", p. 174. "The composers found their protest limited, as one writer later put it, 'to an angry letter to the Editor of Ivestia.' They charged that 'American reactionaries have decided to supplement anti-Soviet forgeries on which their film is based by stealing our works.'"
  • ALT1: ... that the first United States court case to recognize moral rights in authorship involved the use of music by four Soviet composers in the 1948 Cold War film The Iron Curtain? Source: Mira T. Sundara Rajan, Moral Rights: Principles, Practice and New Technology, p. 142. "Shostakovich was the first recognition of the moral rights principle in U.S. law; it saw an open-ended exploration of the idea of moral rights."
  • ALT2: ... that a New York court refused to prohibit distribution of the 1948 Cold War film The Iron Curtain, while a French court banned it? Source: Peter Baldwin, The Copyright Wars: Three Centuries of Trans-Atlantic Battle, p. 1. "When Shostakovich sued in the United States, he failed. ... But in France a court ascertained 'moral damage.' The film was banned and the composers were awarded damages."
  • ALT3: ... that a Soviet-affiliated arts agent in the United States attempted to stop release of the 1948 Cold War film The Iron Curtain before four Soviet composers filed a lawsuit against the film's distributor? Source: Kiril Tomoff, "Shostakovich and The Iron Curtain: Intellectual Property and Transimperial Integration", Virtuosi Abroad: Soviet Music and Imperial Competition During the Early Cold War, 1945–1958, pp. 25-27.
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: QPQ not required.

5x expanded by Voorts (talk). Self-nominated at 23:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Currently reading this article and will return with a review shortly. One minor issue for now: strictly speaking, the composers in question were not Soviet, but Soviet. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for catching that. I'm also withdrawing the first option per a discussion on the article talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• @CurryTime7-24: changed Russian to Soviet throughout. I think I prefer ALT2 over ALT1 at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article was expanded over 5x and nominated within the required period. Earwig detects "violation possible", but closer reading confirms that this is only because of material quoted properly within this article. My preference is for either ALT 1 or ALT2. Final approval pending correction of the former's demonym to Soviet. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Ready to go! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The phrase should be "four Soviet composers" as Khachaturian was not Russian.

The first proposal is not really supported by the quotation. It doesn't say that they described them as "American reactionaries" because they used their music; rather that the American reactionaries who had made the film had additionally stolen their music. (As an aside, in the reference, the earlier part of the quoted sentence is curious as the composers' protest was hardly "limited...to an angry letter", since two national courts considered it and one agreed with them). It might be paraphrased "Four communist party members used communist party rhetoric during the Cold War", which doesn't sound like a DYK hook. Davidships (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Davidships I'm willing to strike the first one and agree "Russian" should be changed to "Soviet" throughout. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CurryTime7-24 (talk · contribs) 17:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• I will begin my review of this GA nomination later today(PDT). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Please read my additional remarks in "Overall assessment".
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead cannot be any longer than three paragraphs, according to WP:BETTER/GRAF1. See further remarks below.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, nominator has done excellent work in transforming this former stub into a well-written and sourced contender for GA. I only have a few concerns: The lead refers to the composers involved as having "poor relationships with the Soviet government". This is not quite true. Although all four had been censured in April 1948 by the USSR Union of Composers in its Anti-Formalist Resolution on Music, they had also been the most highly-awarded composers in the country, enjoying state privileges inaccessible to ordinary citizens (or most composers, for that matter). Moreover, all these composers were offered opportunities for political rehabilitation, which they all took and benefited from quickly. (For an example of a Soviet composer who truly had a poor relationship with authorities, see Alexander Mossolov, whom even Shostakovich, according to the scholarship of Marina Frolova-Walker.) Removed this language because I think getting into the weeds on this is beyond the scope of this article. The reference to Justice Koch in the lead should be amended to ensure the reader knows that the Supreme Court in question is not the US, but the state one. Fixed. Inconsistent use of musical work titles. For example, two of Shostakovich's symphonies are referred to as "Symphony No. 5" and "sixth symphony [sic]" in the same sentence. Either cardinal or ordinal naming is fine, but choose one and ensure that its usage is consistent throughout the article. Regardless of which naming format is preferred, the symphonies are always capitalized when referring to them directly. When writing about them in a general way, however, use lowercase. (Examples: "Shostakovich's Symphony No.5/Fifth Symphony is in four movements"; "The number of movements in Shostakovich's symphonies can vary widely"). Fixed. The quote from the introductory title card of The Iron Curtain needs to have [sic] next to the names of Khachaturian and Myaskovsky so the reader knows their misspellings are per the source. I don't think using sic is quite right here because the spellings are just different romanization schemes. "VOKS, a Soviet arts promotion organization...": VOKS was not just a Soviet arts promotion organization, it was the Soviet international cultural exchange and goodwill organization. Changed. False titles need to be dropped (e.g. Professor Mira T. Sundara Rajan...). Changed. "One radio columnist...": According to the citation in the source, this quote was excerpted from an "untitled, undated document detailing all radio blurbs acknowledging the film from May 11 to May 13" in the marketing dossier for The Iron Curtain. This passage should be rewritten so as to make its provenance clear to the reader, in order to avoid the appearance of WP:VAGUE or WP:WEASEL. Changed. Is the listing of the Soviet espionage in the United States article in "See also" really relevant here? Removed. Once the above points are addressed, I will follow up with any more issues if they should arise. In addition, I would also like to do some spot checks for some of the citations used. Thank you for expanding and nominating this article! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC) @CurryTime7-24: Done. Also, just to note, WP:BETTER/GRAF1 is not part of the GA guidelines, but you are correct that this lead needed some work per MOS:LEAD. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Re. misspellings of composer names: They are both misspelled. Хачатурян is usually transliterated as "Khachaturian" and sometimes "Khachaturyan", but "Kat" does not correspond with "Хач". "Khach", "Hach", "Chach", and "Xach" are possible, but not "Kat" (which would be "Кат"). "Miashovsky" is also wrong. There is no "ш" ("sh") in "Myaskovsky" ("Мясковский"). The "к" ("k") and "в" ("v") are also missing. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Added {{sic}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Mention of the New York Supreme Court should also be clarified in the article body. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • There's a paranthetical referring to it as the trial court in the background section. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• "Preslit, the Soviet Union's arts distribution agency in the United States which was associated with VOKS": Preslit was the literary publishing house of VOKS, not an associated organization. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Spoke too soon. Seems sources conflict as to what Preslit exactly did and what organization it may have been a part of. According to Viktoria Zora,[2] evidence suggests that it worked closely, but apart from VOKS. Your description is accurate, but maybe amend it to "arts distribution and copyright agency" per Zora, just to be sure. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

    Realized I forgot to ping you, @CurryTime7-24. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you for the ping! So far, this is looking good. Will ask for some spot checks in a day or two. Please bear with me as I'll be out of town until Monday (PDT), so my availability will be spotty for a bit. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

    Hi @CurryTime7-24. Just checking in. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks for the ping! Re-reading the article. Will reply in full shortly. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Spot checks

Thank you for your hard work on this article. At this point I will ask for spot checks to verify your sources and the accuracy of how they're being cited. May I please have the quoted source texts for the following?

• FN 6 cites "The film, distributed by Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, was 'Hollywood's first Cold War effort.'"

  • "In 1948, several Soviet composers, including Dmitri Shostakovich, objected to the use of their music in an American spy film, The Iron Curtain, that was distinctly anti-Communist. These soviet composers understandably feared the gulag for appearing in Holywood's first Cold War effort." voorts (talk/contributions) 22:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Quibble: maybe either remove the quotation marks from "Hollywood's first Cold War effort" in the article, keep the quotes and attribute the source, or reword that passage to avoid copying the source. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24: Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll be back later tonight (PDT), so please bear with me for just a few more hours. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your help improving the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Just checking in again, @CurryTime7-24. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• FN 17 cites the entire paragraph beginning with "That month, Helen Black—head of Preslit". (Citing a span of two pages is fine, but three may inadvertently give the impression of WP:SYNTH. I suggest citing specific pages where required in that paragraph.)

  •  Working voorts (talk/contributions) 22:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)  Done voorts (talk/contributions) 23:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• FN 11 cites "In May 1948, attorney Charles Recht—who had previously served as the Soviet Union's representative to the United States—filed suit against Fox on behalf of Shostakovich, Khachaturian, Prokofiev, and Myaskovsky, seeking both a temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting distribution of The Iron Curtain."

  •  Working voorts (talk/contributions) 22:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC) "It was in order to prevent the distribution and/or showing of The Iron Curtain in America that Shostakovich and several other Russian composers seized [i.e., sued in] the Court of New York." I also added cites to Tomoff 2015 and to the case itself. The case states that the motion was for an injunction pendente lite (i.e., temporarily) and permanently. Tomoff 2015 discusses Charles Recht; I believe there was originally a cite to Tomoff in that paragraph but things might have been moved around. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• FN 30 cites "According to law professor Justin Hughes, the privacy claim rested on a right to anonymity and the contention that use of the music constituted a public "distortion" of the composers' beliefs."

  • "On the surface, the plaintiff in each case [including the Shostakovich case, as well as a case involving Dr. Seuss discussed in the article,] claimed that the public use of his name against his will invaded his privacy. Interestingly, this is the reverse of the right to demand that one's name be used publicly with one's work. ... The privacy argument [in the cases] is only one of several distinct privacy arguments." (356)
  • "At first glance, the privacy argument in the Shostakovich and Geisel cases can be taken as an argument for anonymity. Shostakovich's position was that even if his music was used in the movie, he should be able to prevent use of his name. In essence, he presented a claim to stay out of public notice." (357)
  • "These cases presented more than a claim for anonymity and for remaining out of public view; those claims were counterparts of the substantive privacy we have been considering. ... Shostakovich ... opposed publication of a message that could be mistaken as [his]. ... Shostakovich opposed being identified with the substance of an anti-Soviet movie. ... The[is] concern[] do[es] not really fit a privacy argument since nothing private is being revealed. It is a matter of distortion. Such distortion can be attacked through defamation doctrine, but the first amendment might provide another means to protect this interest." (358) voorts (talk/contributions) 22:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• FN 41 cites "However, commenters have divided on whether the court properly answered 'the question of whether a composer's integrity can be impaired by a faithful rendition of his song in an objectionable context.'" —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  • "Shostakovich raises the question of whether a composer's integrity can be impaired by a faithful rendition of his song in an objectionable context." voorts (talk/contributions) 22:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24: Finished. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24. Just wanted to check in again and see if we can get this closed out. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll be in later tonight. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The current first sentence is utterly misleading, if not just wrong.

The current first sentence (2024-01-09) reads: "Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. is a landmark 1948 New York Supreme Court decision that was the first case in United States copyright law to recognize moral rights in authorship."

Please go read the decision. The decision was a win for the *defendant* (Twentieth Century-Fox), not for the author. The opinion did *not* recognize that the plantiff had moral rights in this specific instance. Nor did it recognize that such applicable rights even exist; the relevant language in the opinion only stipulates that if such applicable rights were to be recognized, then the plantiff might have a case.

The other issue is that the use of "New York Supreme Court" is very misleading; it should more correctly be called by its full name "Supreme Court, Civil Branch, New York County". The State of New York is unusual in that it calls its lowest level county courts "supreme"; all other U.S. states reserve the "supreme" appellation for its highest state appellate court. The use in this article of "Supreme Court" for the initial sentence of the article gives an entirely misleading cast to the import of this defeat for the theory of moral rights in musical compositions. 71.203.105.204 (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. To respond to your points:

1. Reliable sources (i.e., law review articles; see citations after the first sentence) have noted that the court recognized that moral rights may exist, and that it was the first court to do so in the US. We go by what reliable sources say about the opinion, not the opinion itself.
2. New York Supreme Court is not misleading; it's wikilinked in the first sentence and the first paragraph of the second sentence says it's the state's trial court. "Supreme Court, Civil Branch, New York County" (which, if you want to get technical, is not the full name of the Supreme Court; it's "Supreme Court of the State of New York") is unnecessary.

voorts (talk/contributions) 21:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)