From: DJ Vollkasko (DJ_Vollkasko_at_gmx.net)
Date: Mon Apr 26 2004 - 03:43:26 PDT
>Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a copyright supposed to only last 50 years?
To my knowledge, the copyright in Australia and possibly Canada (how about
the rest of the Commonwealth?) is 50 years. But 50 years after what?
Publication date? The day the author sold his soul (i.e. all his rights)
over to the publisher (as is the rule under anglo-saxon conpyright law)?
The day the author died?
In the US I understand the copyright lasts 70 years. That's why Project
Gutenberg of Australia has much newer stuff on offer than Project Gutenberg
itself, and is quite worth a visit. While it may be illegal in e.g. the US
to offer these PGoA-items, it may be perfectly legal to obtain them from
AUstralia and use them under the regulation covering "fair use". But I may
be horribly wrong in this, so don't think I'm recommending anything to you.
Check for the legal situation in the country you pull stuff from, and even
more so check the law in your country of residence. It pays to know those
things a bit (esp. the "fair use" part ;=} ).
>I think I remember reading this as one of the investment risks to
purchasing Disney shares
>because the IP rights on characters such as Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck
were now exposed.
Since Disney has been mentioned I'd like to point out that certain huge
entertainment conglomerates are right now actively working on getting the
publisher's license to exploit exclusively (aka copyright - the exclusive
right to distribute copies) extended from 70 to 90 years, as they don't
feel so well about having Mickey and Donald soon work for others for free.
Also there's been some US legislators trying to extend any copyright sold
by the original creator to a company to last basically forever minus a day
or two (anything created and exploited would be protected until Judgement
Day minus one - is that what's nowadays called "faith-based legislature",
like some Bush admin's official brilliant recommendation to read the Bible
against PMS?). -- Anyhow, there's been some nice pieces in the media about
Republican ideas concerning intellectual property, some of that stuff was
very entertaining (I faintly remember phrases like "eternal" or "forever",
which would of course violate any faith-based idea of the future (see End
of the World, etc.), so they had to rig the concept of eternal exploitation
into the theological concept of a non-eternal material world. Sounded to me
like praying with your fingers crossed, but then what do I know.
In European continental countries which have been touched by Napoleonic
legislation (and warfare) about two hundred years ago, a lot of regulations
are more or less same - they all drive on the right side, use the metric
system and marry at the city hall and register there (actually, in some
countries these things have been partially disbanded as being French and
laws of former occupation forces and whatever, but were reenacted decades
later because they actually were pretty progressive, such as registration
at the city hall and being married by the mayor, with a church wedding
optional and being a personal affair).
Accordingly, most European continental countries have not only a copyright
that nicely protects the interests of the publisher/distributor ($$$), but
in Napoleonic-flavored legislation, the protection justly starts with the
creator (unlike in Anglo-Saxon law, to my best knowledge). The creator has
rights which can *NOT* be signed away and sold (makes you wish Prince,
George Michael and all the other artists who had legal trouble with their
labels had signed their contracts in "Rummy's Old Europe"(tm), that would
have saved them much grief). A creator can sell exploitation rights to
publishers (rather like licensing) and usually these deals will are not
much different than in the US and be exclusive, but s/he will always retain
certain rights (= actually still *own* the intellectual property, which may
not be altered against the creator's intention and will; the creator
usually will receive monies from continuous editions; etc.).
(-- It is all a bit like patents, as it rewards the efforts put into the
works, but the protection is much longer and greater than with patents, as
the legislation recognizes (a) a very great interest of the society to very
soon have any technical inventions in the public domain (see "progress"),
and (b) the inventor's vastly greater chances to recoup any expenses and
efforts with material items and technical processes, compared to e.g. a
painter or sculpteur, a poet or journalist. This is also reflected in the
fact that to have something patented, you must not have it publicated
anywhere before applying for the patent, and that the inventor has to apply
for protection of his invention and even pay money for this protection
granted by patent laws. Creators of intellectual property do not have to
apply anywhere, or even state their claim. They create, and it is
protected. This points at the society's interest to not bother artists with
fees and bureaucracy.)
These creator-centered rights of continental Europe usually last 70 years
*AFTER* the death of the original creator, and with collaborations, after
the death of the last collaborator. This allows even generations after the
author died to profit from the intellectual property created by the ancestor.
Such handling may seem absurd until one realises the lawmaker's
intention: In most cases, creators/artists spend considerable time to learn
and develop the skills needed to produce the item such protected, and the
production itself may well take additional years of labour, during which
they will most usually not be available to produce income to properly
support themselves and their families adequately or pursue the professional
careers pursued by their peers. But as their final work is perceived to be
an addition to the society's cultural estate and progress, there is a
strong interest to have such works produced, even though it may mean
hardships to the artists/creators - the recognized rights of the creator do
aim at amending these hardships for the author and this offspring, which
may result in extremely long protection of some titles (say, an author
writes a book when she is twenty, lives to be ninety, and then her children
and grandchildren profit another seventy years - the title won't become
public domain until after 140 years after its publication - but then it
will, and will remain so forever).
In the case of no family member existing, the rights of the creator will
extinguish and the work will fall into public domain upon his death. AFAIK
these rights can not be inherited outside of the family. If there are
family members inheriting, they may waive the rights inherited and set the
work "free", and if they should die early and themselves have no children,
the work may pass into public domain before the "death + 70 years" span has
run out.
There's been more legalese copyright stuff sometime last fall in this list,
check the archives, there's much interesting stuff. (Maybe somebody might
for once and for all compile a intellectual property-FAQ that relates to
our questions of software, patents, designs, books... Would be a handy
reference, having that at the Wiki! Any legal folks/law students takers?)
Respectfully,
DJV.
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles: http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 26 2004 - 07:00:03 PDT