The decision that they reached was this: Items that had reached Public Domain status in the US under pre-Berne convention ratification rules, but had not reached public domain status outside of the US can be removed from the public domain. This is bad enough, but something that probably had to happen with the wording of the Berne Convention ratification. The damning part is this:
In accord with the judgment of the Tenth Circuit, we conclude that §514 does not transgress constitutional limitations on Congress’ authority. Neither the Copyright and Patent Clause nor the First Amendment, we hold, makes the public domain, in any and all cases, a territory that works may never exit.
That's right - they majority opinion (Alito and Breyer dissenting, Sotomayor recused herself) says that content once in the public domain can be removed from such.
Welcome everyone to the era of the truly never ending copyright.
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev
could you explain this a little more to an idiot like me?
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
Click the link to the holding of the Supreme Court, it outlines it fairly clearly. Basically, the US Copyright law had never protected works of foreign origin except under certain specific circumstances. Therefore, many works by foreign authors (in this case, scores for music) had been, in the US, public domain. The Berne Convention on intellectual property mandates that all signatory countries protect works of foreign authors within a certain set of bounds, and thus a subset of those US-public domain works were now copyrighted. A bunch of symphony conductors and performers sued, judgments were issued, and the SCOTUS has now held that it's not a violation of the Copyright Clause for works to re-enter copyrighted status from the public domain, if laws or treaties demand such.
The concept of Public Domain is that when copyright expires, it's free to use by anyone. In this respect the Public Domain is where all works eventually would end up. This ruling says that items can be pulled out of the public domain. The case in question dealt with artists who used works who's copyright in the US had expired be put back under copyright. In the individual case that was before the court I can see why they made the decision. The problem as I see it is that they've just opened the door for works that had fallen into the public domain under older rules to be pulled back out of the public domain. For example, some of E. E. "Doc" Smith's works are public domain as they passed into the public domain before the current death+70 years rule. Because there are others that have not, there is a rights holder who could argue that they have the rights to all of his work, and that non of it is in the public domain. Under the previous rules they couldn't do this but now they can.
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev
Terralthra wrote:Click the link to the holding of the Supreme Court, it outlines it fairly clearly. Basically, the US Copyright law had never protected works of foreign origin except under certain specific circumstances. Therefore, many works by foreign authors (in this case, scores for music) had been, in the US, public domain. The Berne Convention on intellectual property mandates that all signatory countries protect works of foreign authors within a certain set of bounds, and thus a subset of those US-public domain works were now copyrighted. A bunch of symphony conductors and performers sued, judgments were issued, and the SCOTUS has now held that it's not a violation of the Copyright Clause for works to re-enter copyrighted status from the public domain, if laws or treaties demand such.
Does this conversely mean that all other countries outside of the US can ignore US copyright laws even if they signed the Benre Convention?
Flagg wrote:This just enforces treaties being law of the land. I don't see an issue here.
It also creates a precedent to retroactively change things within the US itself regardless of treaties. Ip post facto
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Terralthra wrote:Click the link to the holding of the Supreme Court, it outlines it fairly clearly. Basically, the US Copyright law had never protected works of foreign origin except under certain specific circumstances. Therefore, many works by foreign authors (in this case, scores for music) had been, in the US, public domain. The Berne Convention on intellectual property mandates that all signatory countries protect works of foreign authors within a certain set of bounds, and thus a subset of those US-public domain works were now copyrighted. A bunch of symphony conductors and performers sued, judgments were issued, and the SCOTUS has now held that it's not a violation of the Copyright Clause for works to re-enter copyrighted status from the public domain, if laws or treaties demand such.
Does this conversely mean that all other countries outside of the US can ignore US copyright laws even if they signed the Benre Convention?
No. The Supreme Court is essentially saying that the US must obey the Berne Convention, to which it signed, even though that requires certain works - which were public domain under US law (because they were foreign works not protected by US copyright at all) - now exit the public domain and be protected by copyright. This is enforcing a treaty, not ignoring it.
Destructionator XIII wrote:If something leaves the public domain, it is saying any future copying of it is prohibited, not that the copying you did while it was in the public domain state is prohibited.
Which is kinda not the point. The point here is that this ruling essentially makes sure Copyright may never run out as long as anybody can make money off it. Which is really counterproductive.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
If I understand what everyone's getting at, the problem isn't so much "yes, the Berne Convention is enforceable law." What's upsetting is the implied precedent that any class of public-domain works could be put back under copyright, more or less retroactively. So that, say, a book which entered the public domain in 2000 could suddenly become copyrightable in 2015... and someone could acquire and enforce a claim to the copyright?
Now that, I agree is a really bad precedent in copyright law- the obvious problem being that someone can release content into the public domain, arrange to have it brought back under copyright, and then demand fees for any further reproduction of a product created in good faith based on (what was at the time) public domain content.
And D13, that's not a problem "in the professional software world," that's a problem with the professional software world. There's a bug in your legal infrastructure, and it's definitely a bug, not a feature.
EDIT: [looks through the opinion, bottom of page 2]
"Petitioners also urge that the Government's position would allow Congress to legislate perpetual copyright terms by instituting successive "limited" terms as prior terms expire. But as in Eldred, such hypothetical misbehavior is far afield from this case. In aligning the United States with other nations bound by Berne, Congress can hardly be charged with a design to move stealthily toward a perpetual copyright regime. Pp. 13-15."
Well, that's what they say- what do people think of that?
I'm falling along the lines that this isn't nearly as dire as people are making it out to be. The basic premise here seems to be extending copyright protections to works that should have already had protection but did not because there was no governing treaty to recognize foreign copyright when the works were created. This isn't a situation where a work was released by the creator to the public domain and subsequently pulled back, rather by all rights these works should never have been in the public domain to begin with.
"Petitioners also urge that the Government's position would allow Congress to legislate perpetual copyright terms by instituting successive "limited" terms as prior terms expire. But as in Eldred, such hypothetical misbehavior is far afield from this case. In aligning the United States with other nations bound by Berne, Congress can hardly be charged with a design to move stealthily toward a perpetual copyright regime. Pp. 13-15."
Well, that's what they say- what do people think of that?
I would tend to agree that worries over hypothetical misbehavior are unfounded based on this decision. There is nothing in it surporting a "perpetual copyright".
It would be more interesting to see a decision on these extended terms (such as the CTEA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_ ... ension_Act) that copyrights have been given in recent years. Right now death+70 for a creator, or up to 120 years for a corporation. Could congress potentially extend that even further? Unfortunately, the constitution is unusefully "vague" in that it mentions limited terms. Would the Supreme court step in and determine to what extent a "limited term" actually can go? Is it 100 years? 500 years?
Destructionator XIII wrote:If something leaves the public domain, it is saying any future copying of it is prohibited, not that the copying you did while it was in the public domain state is prohibited.
Which is kinda not the point. The point here is that this ruling essentially makes sure Copyright may never run out as long as anybody can make money off it. Which is really counterproductive.
Each of which, I might point out, specifically did not revive copyright for works which had already entered the public domain, and that was part of the Supreme Court's decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft537 U.S. 186, upholding the CTEA.
This case does not pull works whose copyrights in the US had expired back out of public domain, it adds copyright protection which had been absent under US law to foreign works, in compliance with the Berne convention, signed by the US in 1989. I might also point out that in the EU's copyright term extension act passed in 2009, works whose copyright had expired were pulled back out of the public domain if the work's copyright term would still be in effect. It also had the exact same effect as this case on works produced in member countries with shorter copyright terms than the directive, restoring them to copyrighted status in the EU.
D-13, how does something being out of copyright make it harder to make money on it? I mean, the movie industry has never been shy about taking public domain material and making new takes on it that make a lot of money. Similarly, classic literature, which is also in the public domain continues to sell quite well. How do you explain these companies making money based on things that have no copyright?
Commander of the MFS Darwinian Selection Method (sexual)
I think what's at issue is the extremely long-term copyright. You need copyright in the early days to make returns on a created work reliably- there are exceptions, but in general that's true.
But do you need to have copyright for seventy years? If the copyright is on a method (say, a testing protocol for medicine), it's going to be obsolete by then. If the copyright is on a work of art, then you'd think some time in those seventy years someone would be able to create new content as good as the old one. It wouldn't kill Disney if they had to come up with a new copyrighted mascot in place of Mickey Mouse. It might hurt them, it might stop them from being the giant they are today, but it wouldn't kill them if they've still got talent. And if they haven't got talent, why let them rest on their laurels for so long?
At some point, we get to the point where all copyright really does is favor immortals over mortals, because immortals can take advantage of things that stay in copyright for a hundred years, and mortals can't. I don't see the advantage to this.
Simon, you misread - copyright doesn't last for 70 years, at present, it lasts for the life of the author PLUS 70 years. The current system argues that you or I would not create a work of art if our grandchildren wouldn't be able to profit from them.
Works for hire (corporate-owned copyright) lasts for 95 years from publication/120 years from creation, whichever is earlier.
That's actually close to the original term of copyright in the US, Destructionator. The Copyright Act of 1970 set a 14 year term, renewable for another 14 years if the author was still alive at the end of the original term.
...You don't actually read the explanations of how this ruling works, do you?
Lovecraft and Smith are both American authors, kid. They lived in the United States. If you are in the US, then the Berne Convention doesn't say anything about their work, which is controlled under the US copyright regime.
The Supreme Court's new ruling does not affect them at all.
Commander of the MFS Darwinian Selection Method (sexual)