Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
You might have standing, but it's not because you "own" any part of PD works.
"Public domain" means that there is no longer any protection on that particular bit of intellectual property. No one owns or controls it any more. "Anyone has free access to the public domain, but no one, after the copyright term has expired, acquires ownership rights in the once-protected works." (Golan v Holder, p28)
I don't believe there is a statute of limitation applicable here either.
However, if you had an organization that distributes PD works, you can say "my organization is affected by putting works into PD." Thus potentially anyone whose use or distribution of PD could have brought the case, it just happened to be this particular group of conductors and educators. It's better for the case, since they can point to tangible negative effects of the URAA copyright reinstatements.
|
I've been very busy, just had a change to look at the point you raised. If you look at the footnote on page 28 (Footnote 33) it butresses my claim. I quote it verbatum here.
"Congress recurrently adjusts copyright law to protectcategories of works once outside the law’s compass. For example, Congress broke new ground when it extended copyright protection to foreign works in 1891, Act of Mar.3, §13, 26 Stat. 1110; to dramatic works in 1856, Act ofAug. 18, 11 Stat. 138; to photographs and photographic negatives in 1865, Act of Mar. 3, §1, 13 Stat. 540; to motion pictures in 1912, Act of Aug. 24, 37 Stat. 488; to fixed sound recordings in 1972, Act of Oct. 15, 1971, 85 Stat. 391; and to architectural works in 1990, Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act, 104 Stat. 5133. And on several occasions, as recounted above, Congress protected works previously in the public domain, hence freely usable by the public. See supra, at 15–19.
If Congress could grant protection to these works without hazarding heightened First Amendment scrutiny, then what free speech principle disarms it from protecting works prematurely cast into the public domain for reasons antithetical to the Berne Convention? 33 ——————
33 It was the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause—not the First Amendment—that Congress apparently perceived to be a potential check on its authority to protect works then freely available to the public. See URAA Joint Hearing 3 (statement of Rep. Hughes); id., at 121 (app. to statement of Lehman, Commerce Dept.); id., at 141 (statement of Shapiro, USTR); id., at 145 (statement of Christopher Schroeder, DOJ). The reliance-party protections supplied by §514, see supra,at 10–11, were meant to address such concerns. See URAA Joint Hearing 148–149 (prepared statement of Schroeder)."
Apparently in this decision, there is standing for a Taking Clause challenge, else they would not have included the footnote...
All Taking Clause challanges have a Statue of Limitation for filing the claim. It's either 5 or 7 years, I forget which...(After which you can't sue for the loss.)