Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
The problem with the US and Berne is the US doesn't follow Berne anyways. Look at all the items that would be P.D. under Berne that is still under copyright in the US (and they want more!).
|
Actually, the US has increasingly come into compliance with Berne, most notably with the Uruguay Round Agreements in 1994 and some updates in '97.
For example, the US government actually refused to abide by one aspect of Berne: Certain works should have been offered public domain, but because the US did not properly adhere to Berne, some works were protected in the nation of origin, but were in the public domain in the US. In 2011, the SCOTUS ruled that the US had an obligation to abide by the treaty, and those works would be removed from the public domain and protected again by copyright, until such protections expire in the nation of origin.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RSE
The 1923 cutoff in the US is strictly artificial, and has nothing to do with Berne. It's the extensions that are so disgusting, and they're nowhere in Berne.
|
Berne only specifies a minimum period; as far as I know, it does not require a maximum as well.
Each nation is allowed to implement copyright in its own way, as long as a) it honors the protections and durations of the other signatory nations, and b) it adheres to the minimum of life + 50.
Extensions are routine, and have been added many times over the course of history. The constitutionality of the extensions was thoroughly reviewed in
Eldred v Ashcroft.