Supreme Court rules Congress can re-copyright public domain works
33 replies, posted
[quote]Congress may take books, musical compositions and other works out of the public domain, where they can be freely used and adapted, and grant them copyright status again, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
In a 6-2 ruling, the court ruled that just because material enters the public domain, it is not “territory that works may never exit.” (PDF)
The top court was ruling on a petition by a group of orchestra conductors, educators, performers, publishers and film archivists who urged the justices to reverse an appellate court that ruled against the group, which has relied on artistic works in the public domain for their livelihoods.
They claimed that re-copyrighting public works would breach the speech rights of those who are now using those works without needing a license. There are millions of decades-old works at issue. Some of the well-known ones include H.G. Wells’ Things to Come; Fritz Lang’s Metropolis and the musical compositions of Igor Fyodorovich Stravinsky.
The court, however, was sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ argument. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Ginsburg said “some restriction on expression is the inherent and intended effect of every grant of copyright.” But the top court, with Justice Elena Kagan recused, said Congress’ move to re-copyright the works to comport with an international treaty was more important.
For a variety of reasons, the works at issue, which are foreign and produced decades ago, became part of the public domain in the United States but were still copyrighted overseas. In 1994, Congress adopted legislation to move the works back into copyright, so U.S. policy would comport with an international copyright treaty known as the Berne Convention.
In dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito said the legislation goes against the theory of copyright and “does not encourage anyone to produce a single new work.” Copyright, they noted, was part of the Constitution to promote the arts and sciences.
The legislation, Breyer wrote, “bestows monetary rewards only on owners of old works in the American public domain. At the same time, the statute inhibits the dissemination of those works, foreign works published abroad after 1923, of which there are many millions, including films, works of art, innumerable photographs, and, of course, books — books that (in the absence of the statute) would assume their rightful places in computer-accessible databases, spreading knowledge throughout the world.”
Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University and a plaintiff’s lawyer in the case, called the decision “unfortunate” and said it “suggests Congress is not required to pay particularly close attention to the interests of the public when it passes copyright laws.”
The majority, however, rebuffed charges that a decision in favor of Congress’ move would amount to affording lawmakers the right to legislate perpetual copyright terms.
“In aligning the United States with other nations bound by the Berne Convention, and thereby according equitable treatment to once disfavored foreign authors, Congress can hardly be charged with a design to move stealthily toward a regime of perpetual copyrights,” Ginsburg wrote.
It’s not the first time the Supreme Court has approved the extension of copyrights. The last time was in 2002, when it upheld Congress’ move to extend copyright from the life of an author plus 50 years after death to 70 years after death.
The lead plaintiff in the case, Lawrence Golan, told the high court that it will not longer be able to perform Prokofiev’s Classical Symphony and Peter and the Wolf, or Shostakovich’s Symphony 14, Cello Concerto because of licensing fees.[/quote]
[url]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/supreme-court-rules-congress-can-re-copyright-public-domain-works.ars[/url]
This is stupid. Really stupid. Can we just get back to the 50 years thing again?
....What international treaty is this and can I bitchslap whoever came up with it?
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;34306962]This is stupid. Really stupid. Can we just get back to the 50 years thing again?[/QUOTE]
why even bother with 50 years
30 years from creation
more than enough to stimulate development
Alright what the fuck is wrong with them?
So...
Why are they doing this?
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;34307076]So...
Why are they doing this?[/QUOTE]
So if SOPA passes they bust you for having public domain stuff by making it copyrighted again, I assume.
Ok so basically
I can write a book, make it public domain, and they can say "no you can't decide that, it's copyrighted" even though I have every single right possible on the book? What kind of fucking bullshit is that?
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;34307076]So...
Why are they doing this?[/QUOTE]
Money.
Loads of money.
Holy fuck I have the urge to go to congress, slap the shit out of each and every one of their dumbasses, and grab them by the shoulders, shaking them, saying "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU" and spill all of their drinks and walk away feeling accomplished with myself.
I feel sorry for Americans :(
Everybody just move to Denmark.
[QUOTE=Jasun;34307159]I feel sorry for Americans :(
Everybody just move to Denmark.[/QUOTE]
The taxes :(
[QUOTE=Jasun;34307159]I feel sorry for Americans :(
Everybody just move to Denmark.[/QUOTE]
Except Denmark was a signatory of the Berne convention, and this ruling was basically the Supreme Court saying the US had to [I]agree[/I] to said Convention.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;34307240]Except Denmark was a signatory of the Berne convention, and this ruling was basically the Supreme Court saying the US had to [I]agree[/I] to said Convention.[/QUOTE]
The fuck?
Wait a minute.
Why do we have to?
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;34307143]Holy fuck I have the urge to go to congress, slap the shit out of each and every one of their dumbasses, and grab them by the shoulders, shaking them, saying "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU" and spill all of their drinks and walk away feeling accomplished with myself.[/QUOTE]
But then the terrorists have won.
It makes sense if you don't think about it.
[QUOTE=Swilly;34307442]The fuck?
Wait a minute.
Why do we have to?[/QUOTE]
Exactly this.
What are they going to do if we dont honor it?
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;34307101]Ok so basically
I can write a book, make it public domain, and they can say "no you can't decide that, it's copyrighted" even though I have every single right possible on the book? What kind of fucking bullshit is that?[/QUOTE]
Actually no you can't do that. You own the book so you own the copyright. Making it public domain doesn't strip you of the ownership.
This rule is only for stuff that have expired copyrights.
Hey, my US brothers, lets pull a China and COMPLETELY igno-Oh wait we already do that. NEVERMIND!
[QUOTE=Swilly;34307442]The fuck?
Wait a minute.
Why do we have to?[/QUOTE]
(Since Wikipedia explains this bit better then I can)
[quote]The Berne Convention was developed at the instigation of Victor Hugo of the Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale. Thus it was influenced by the French "right of the author" (droit d'auteur), which contrasts with the Anglo-Saxon concept of "copyright" which only dealt with economic concerns. Under the Convention, copyrights for creative works are automatically in force upon their creation without being asserted or declared. An author need not "register" or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the Convention. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work and to any derivative works, unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them or until the copyright expires. Foreign authors are given the same rights and privileges to copyrighted material as domestic authors in any country that signed the Convention.[/quote]
It's a 100+ year old Convention that essentially "internationalizes" copyright laws, so a foreign copyright is just as legitimate as a domestic one in terms of legality.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;34307101]Ok so basically
I can write a book, make it public domain, and they can say "no you can't decide that, it's copyrighted" even though I have every single right possible on the book? What kind of fucking bullshit is that?[/QUOTE]
Motherfucker, you're going to take royalties and like it.
I cant wait untill countries start allowing companies to ignore copyright claims originating from the USA/ american companies
[QUOTE=viperfan7;34307609]I cant wait untill countries start allowing companies to ignore copyright claims originating from the USA/ american companies[/QUOTE]
Except the part where this was a 100+ year old French convention and the US initially didn't want to join it.
Oh just fuck off law society industry
Brb moving to canada.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;34307468]Actually no you can't do that. You own the book so you own the copyright. Making it public domain doesn't strip you of the ownership.
This rule is only for stuff that have expired copyrights.[/QUOTE]
Right, thanks.
As far as I can tell this seemed to already be going on in Europe, so there isn't any reason to go crazy over it. I don't think anything crazy like Mozart or Chopin's works becoming copyrighted material will happen.
Voted dumb not because your post is dumb but because the idea is dumb as fuck
I never understood people wanting to make money off of public domain shit. If the person is dead they dont need to make a fucking profit.
People are misinterpreting this. It's not like congress is suddenly going to copyright Shakespeare and somehow make money from it. It applies to stuff like in the article where something is copyrighted in one country and not in another. Then congress can re-copyright it and make it in line with the rest of the world.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.