[Foundation-l] PD in Canada, but not the US

[Wily D]

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> geni wrote:
>> 2008/5/25 Padraic <user.padraic at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Based on our amateur legal analysis at [[Commons:Deletion requests/Library
>>> and Archives Canada non-PD images]], there is a potentially large class of
>>> images which are PD in Canada, but not the US: those works whose copyright
>>> was initially held by corporations (or the Crown), which expire 50 years
>>> after publication, but only after 95 years in the US due to the URAA.
>>>
>>
>> In the case of crown copyright can the government legaly enforce any
>> claim or would they run into a domestic lawsuit if they tried?
>>
> Domestic lawsuit over what?  After 50 years it's in the public domain.
> While the issue has previously been raised about public domain being
> overridden by crown privilege this seems contrary to the Canadian court
> tendency to diminish the influence of crown privilege.

Err, presumeably the Queen of Canada could try to sue Wikimedia or the
uploaders in an American court.  These images are clearly PD in Canada
(and some, at least, are explicitly acknowledged as such) but may not
be PD in the States.

>> Secondly are you sure the US wouldn't consider crown copyright expired
>> the equivalent of released into the public domain?

Err, this is very ambigious, but it's also not clear whether the
images in question, when produced by Crown Corporations, would fall
under Crown Copyright, or whether they're PD through a clause in
Canadian Copyright law that puts photographs into the public domain 50
years after they're taken if their first own is a corporation.

> One of the problems here is the continuing uncertainty over the US
> non-recognition of the rule of the shorter term.  Canada does
> specifically recognize the shorter term except as it relates to works
> from the United States or Mexico.
>
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________

WilyD