US Court: Congress can't put public domain back into copyright

[Greg Anos]

Well, Mr. Bond, I wonder if MR has a server farm in Kansas?

I mention that, as there was a big database of valid copyrights made available about a year ago. (I've had a corrupted boot pack since then, so I've lost my link.) I remember searching Eric Frank Russell, and finding many of his works not on it. (I don't doubt other non-US writer's works may be the same way. They could be uploaded in Kansas....(Diamonds optional.)

[Nate the great]

No, actually. This lawsuit was about the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which was a ratification of a treaty signed by President Clinton. The treaty primarily covered the restoration of foreign copyrights, not domestic ones.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

No, actually. This lawsuit was about the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which was a ratification of a treaty signed by President Clinton. The treaty primarily covered the restoration of foreign copyrights, not domestic ones.

Nate, I'm confused. I thought that this was about a law restoring copyright protection to foreign books that had not been renewed in the US under US copyright law of the times. If the Kansas circuit court has ruled that you can't put things back into copyright that had fallen out of it, that means those items put back into copyright have fallen back out of it in the area of the court's jurisdiction. Yes? No? If so, whatever fell out of the restored copyright is in the public domain there. Yes? No? And if it is in the public domain in Kansas, it could be made available on the internet in Kansas? Yes? No?

[Nate the great]

Sorry, I thought Mr. Russell was an American author.

[HarryT]

No, Eric Frank Russell was British.

[Greg Anos]

And a fine science-fiction writer. He died in 1975, which put his life + 50 date at 2026 and life + 70 date at 2046. About 2/3 of his writings were not renewed according to the Big database released about a year ago. He basically stopped writing new S/F in 1959...

I wonder if this will be appealed. It has major Supreme Court questions. (Example, can a court overturn a treaty? Even part of it? That's a major legal question.)

[Nate the great]

Any of his work that was published in the US before elsewhere wasn't affected by this law.

BTW, this came up among the moderators a while back. Here is what I eventually figured out.

http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1995/60fr50414.html
My understanding of which copyright restored:

a) first published in an "eligible country" (WTO member or Berne Convention signatory),

b) at least one author was a citizen or legal resident of an eligible country,

c) the work is still in copyright in the original country,

d) the work was published in the US more than 30 days after the original publication.

[Greg Anos]

All I know is that Project Gutenberg US won't touch foreign authors who first published in the US and their copyright in the US had failed to be renewed. The response I got was that the copyright situtation was too hazy and they didn't want to take on the risk. I assume the retoration of copyright we're taking about was the reason. I never thought about scanning and uploading for MR, figuring that PG knew more about it than I did.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thanks, Paul. So, if I understand that correctly, once a work has been in the public domain once, it can thereafter be freely used without the permission of the copyright holder, but the copyright holder is entitled to ask for a royalty payment once the copyright has been revived. I suppose that is perhaps the "least of possible evils" in such a situation, undesirable though it is.

A thought has struck me. A royalty is, almost invariably, a percentage of the gross or net price. I wonder if you could win the argument that therefore you're entitled to distribute any of the works that were once out of copyright in the UK, provided you don't change anything, since any percentage of zero is zero.

Hmm... no, apparently not. You have to tell the copyright holder what you're doing, and come to an agreement about royalties. If no agreement about royalties can be reached, you can still go ahead, but then the Copyright Tribunal will set a reasonable royalty or other remuneration.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I assume you are saying this because it was a District Court? If so, doesn't that set a president that the other districts basically follow?

BOb

There is no president of the court system. I suspect you meant precedence.

Dale

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

There is no president of the court system. I suspect you meant precedence.

Dale

Yes... my fingers sometimes don't type what I am thinking and have a mind of their own.

BOb

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

[SNIP]
(Example, can a court overturn a treaty? Even part of it? That's a major legal question.)

Yes, indeed, the courts can rule that terms of a treaty are unconstitutional. Remember that the US Constitution (as interpreted by the Supremes) is the highest law of the land; treaties cannot supersede the Constitution. Treaties (after ratification) fall below that, in a grey zone that may (or may not, depending on which court precedent you believe*) overlap with Federal statute.

As long as the Treaty provisions in question fall within the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, the treaty provisions certainly pre-empt State and Local laws (but see Supreme court decisions on "enumerated powers" since FDR and the New Deal -- the treaty may pre-empt even when it is beyond the powers of the Federal Gov't).

Xenophon

* Answering the question of whether treaty provisions pre-empt Federal statute or vice versa requires checking on the then-current (or now-current) set of decisions by the Supreme Court. They've gone both ways on the question over the years.