Slartibartfast Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 http://m.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-57361345-52/supreme-court-to-public-domain-lets-fence-you-in/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritaserum Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 http://m.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-57361345-52/supreme-court-to-public-domain-lets-fence-you-in/ :001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 :svengo: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I'm on some serious cold medicine here and having a hard time finding the point of this decision. What are they trying to accomplish? And what will this mean for us? Should I go download the Baldwin Project, Gutenberg, Bartleby, and AmblesideOnline before it is everlastingly too late? Should I get my hands on a hard copy of the Federalist Papers? When and where would anyone start with re-copyrighting PD stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 That seems crazy. Copyrights were never intended to last forever. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forty-two Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 My very rough understanding of this is that there are works which are still under copyright in their country of origin, but have been in the public domain in the U.S., and Congress would like to sign/uphold/something a treaty concerning this - so that we'd respect other country's copyrights as they would likewise respect ours. I'm actually in sympathy with this goal - I just don't understand what other potential applications there may be and if this is opening up a can of worms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 So who gets to hold copyright on Shakespeare's collected works? Who's permission do we have to get to publish a new copy of Hamlet? Who do we pay royalties to? (Yes, I'm pretty sure that Shakespeare isn't on the list but...) This could escalate into a pile of ridiculous nonsense. Imagine the fights in court between the potential heirs to a "literary" or other artistic fortune. I'm a little concerned that this is putting a treaty above the Constitution. Another legal entanglement from what I understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuntieM Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 And just who will collect the royalties? I'm guessing not the original authors... Sounds like a hair-brained revenue scheme to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Could someone explain this: The legislation, Breyer wrote, "bestows monetary rewards only on owners of old works in the American public domain. to me? I was under the assumption that works in the public domain have no owners. So who are these "owners" they are speaking of? Are they referring to American literature here, or only foreign works? I think this legislation is dangerous, if it's as broadly written as it sounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forty-two Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 And just who will collect the royalties? I'm guessing not the original authors... Sounds like a hair-brained revenue scheme to me. At least in this specific instance I'd guess it would be the copyright holder in the country of origin for the work(s) in questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forty-two Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Could someone explain this: to me? I was under the assumption that works in the public domain have no owners. So who are these "owners" they are speaking of? Are they referring to American literature here, or only foreign works? I think this legislation is dangerous, if it's as broadly written as it sounds. Only foreign works that are still under copyright in their country of origin, I think. At least with this law/treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Only foreign works that are still under copyright in their country of origin, I think. At least with this law/treaty. I truly hope so. Hopefully they don't leave it intentionally broad in order to allow Congress to make millions off of Walden or whatever a few years down the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Something shady is going on here. According to wiki: The Berne Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyrighted for at least 50 years after the author's death How can a work of H.G. Wells be in contention? He died in 1946; it has been well over fifty years since his death. Therefore, the Berne Convention has been satisfied, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forty-two Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Something shady is going on here. According to wiki: How can a work of H.G. Wells be in contention? He died in 1946; it has been well over fifty years since his death. Therefore, the Berne Convention has been satisfied, no? It does say "at least", so that leaves it open to be copyrighted longer than 50 years after the creator's death; it just can't be *less* than 50 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 It does say "at least", so that leaves it open to be copyrighted longer than 50 years after the creator's death; it just can't be *less* than 50 years. So, if a random island nation decides to make film copyrights last forever, then Hollywood will just move there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forty-two Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 So, if a random island nation decides to make film copyrights last forever, then Hollywood will just move there? Might :glare:. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.