 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2012-01-21 13:23
The full text of the recent US Supreme Court decision on foreign copyrights and the restoration of their copyright status.
Quote:
In a suit by orchestra conductors, musicians, publishers, and others who formerly enjoyed free access to literary and artistic works removed from the public domain by section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the Tenth Circuit's reversal of a grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs is affirmed, as: 1) section 514 does not exceed Congress’s authority under the Copyright Clause; and 2) the First Amendment does not inhibit the restoration of foreign works to copyright protection by section 514.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=10-545
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2012-01-21 13:57
Forget my ignorance here, but does this mean that one can, for example, remove Mozart works from the public domain?
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2012-01-21 14:11
Sylvain wrote:
> Forget my ignorance here, but does this mean that one can, for
> example, remove Mozart works from the public domain?
Probably in theory but not in practice. Mozart's works would have to be placed back into copyright and WIPO (at least) would have to accept a copyright term that extended that far and was retroactive.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2012-01-21 14:42
The Copyright Clause of the Constitution empowers Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
For many years, legislation set the length at 28 years, with a single renewal. However, when Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse was about to expire, Sonny Bono (then a Congressman) convinced Congress to extend the term to 90 years.
In Eldred v. Ashcroft, the plaintiffs argued that the Sonny Bono Copyright Act exceeded the power of Congress because 90 years was not a "limited time" and was far longer than the lifetime of any author. However, the Supreme Court held that under the Copyright Clause, Congress had nearly unlimited power to extend the length of copyrights.
In Golan v. Holder, the Supreme Court held that Congress had the power to revive copyrights that had expired, where there they would not have expired if the Sonny Bono Act had been in effect at the expiration date.
Under the Eldred decision, Congress could in theory extend the copyright term back to Mozart's time, but if it happened the Supreme Court would probably (finally) decide that the term was no longer a limited time.
In my opinion, Golan (and Eldred, for that matter) should have gone the other way, but I'm not on the Supreme Court.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
