--- On Mon, 4/6/09, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
From: Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Court: Congress can't put public domain back into copyright To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 11:09 AM On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, This is of sufficient merit that I do it this way. Thanks, GerardM
Aan u verzonden door GerardM via Google Reader: Court:
Congress can't
put public domain back into copyright via Ars Technica
door
nate@arstechnica.com
(Nate Anderson) op 6-4-09
In 1994, Congress jammed a batch of foreign books and
movies back into
the copyright closet. They had previously fallen into
the public domain
for a variety of technical reasons (the author hadn't
renewed the
rights with the US Copyright Office, the authors of
older works hadn't
included a copyright notice, etc.) and companies and
individuals had
already started reusing the newly public works. Did
Congress have the
right to put a stop to this activity by shoving the
works back into
copyright? On Friday, a federal court said no. "Traditional contours of copyright" 1994's Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) brought US
intellectual
property law in line with that of other countries.
Section 514 of URAA
better aligned US copyright law with the international
Berne
Convention, one of the earliest international
intellectual property
treaties. Though Berne had first been signed back in
1886, the US
hadn't joined up until a century later, in 1988. Click here to read the rest of this article
Dingen die u vanaf hier kunt doen:
- Abonneren op Ars Technica met Google Reader
- Aan de slag met Google Reader om eenvoudig al uw
favoriete sites bij
te houden _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The URL, for those wanting the rest of the story: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/court-congress-cant-put-publ...
While this is definitely encouraging news, we might want to hold off on changing our evaluation of URAA restorations. The tenth circuit doesn't include Florida. I don't know exactly what the next level of appeals would be, but we might want to wait for a ruling that covers WMF servers before we act on it. I hope these restorations continue to be struck down in the courts. It will be much simpler to determine copyright if they go away.
Birgitte SB
2009/4/6 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
While this is definitely encouraging news, we might want to hold off on changing our evaluation of URAA restorations. The tenth circuit doesn't include Florida. I don't know exactly what the next level of appeals would be, but we might want to wait for a ruling that covers WMF servers before we act on it. I hope these restorations continue to be struck down in the courts. It will be much simpler to determine copyright if they go away.
Somewhat tangentially, do we still need to worry about Florida? I was under the impression we'd moved wholesale, servers and all, to California, so we were in the ninth circuit jurisdiction...
The 10th circuit (or the US District Court for Colorado, which actually made the decision on remand from the 10th circuit) does not cover the ninth circuit either.
AFAICT Eldred v. Ashcroft remains the latest SCOTUS case on the matter.
If you read Larry Lessigs blog he talks about the decision as well.
-Dan On Apr 6, 2009, at 1:39 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/4/6 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
While this is definitely encouraging news, we might want to hold off on changing our evaluation of URAA restorations. The tenth circuit doesn't include Florida. I don't know exactly what the next level of appeals would be, but we might want to wait for a ruling that covers WMF servers before we act on it. I hope these restorations continue to be struck down in the courts. It will be much simpler to determine copyright if they go away.
Somewhat tangentially, do we still need to worry about Florida? I was under the impression we'd moved wholesale, servers and all, to California, so we were in the ninth circuit jurisdiction...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
The 10th circuit (or the US District Court for Colorado, which actually made the decision on remand from the 10th circuit) does not cover the ninth circuit either.
AFAICT Eldred v. Ashcroft remains the latest SCOTUS case on the matter.
If you read Larry Lessigs blog he talks about the decision as well.
I wouldn't attach too much weight to the fact that the servers are in Florida. Copyright remains essentially a federal matter, except in a few situations regarding state common law applied to sound recordings, which are mostly not relevant to our interests. Anyone bringing a claim against WMF is more likely to do so in the district that serves his convenience anyway.
The Eldred v. Ashcroft case is easily distinguished. It was about extending the term of copyright before the previous term had expired. Golan is about works that had already gone into the public domain, and seeks to establish the principle that once something has gone into the public domain it can't be taken back out.
Ec
Agreed. The case doesn't have to be decided by the Supreme Court to affect copyright jurisprudence throughout the United States. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (which a substantial portion of our Commons policy is based on) was a decision by the District Court for the Southern District of New York, for example. Granted, several federal courts have followed that ruling since then.
Ryan Kaldari
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
The 10th circuit (or the US District Court for Colorado, which actually made the decision on remand from the 10th circuit) does not cover the ninth circuit either.
AFAICT Eldred v. Ashcroft remains the latest SCOTUS case on the matter.
If you read Larry Lessigs blog he talks about the decision as well.
I wouldn't attach too much weight to the fact that the servers are in Florida. Copyright remains essentially a federal matter, except in a few situations regarding state common law applied to sound recordings, which are mostly not relevant to our interests. Anyone bringing a claim against WMF is more likely to do so in the district that serves his convenience anyway.
The Eldred v. Ashcroft case is easily distinguished. It was about extending the term of copyright before the previous term had expired. Golan is about works that had already gone into the public domain, and seeks to establish the principle that once something has gone into the public domain it can't be taken back out.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org