The EU and Copyright

[collect]

On the "Jimbo Wales talk page" there appears to be a discussion implying that actually adopting stringent copyright rules would "doom Wikipedia".

Would actually obeying laws about intellectual property actually doom Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... r_campaign

[Poetlister]

It's safe to assume that Wikipedians will blithely ignore any law they don't like unless and until someone takes legal action. There is no shortage of cases of ignoring British or European copyright and saying "nyah, nyah, can't touch us, the servers are in Florida".

[Ming]

Anything about international copyright functions under the historical reality that US rules were always different and almost invariably more permissive than European rules, plus the prohibition against ex post facto law in the constitution has always meant that anything that loses protection loses it forever. Intellectual property is far more slippery and hard to argue as anything much beyond a moral obligation. Ming has been hearing Graaf and other WP-haters go on about this for years, but even considering the huge enforcement problem that WP presents, the lack of serious litigation tends to speak louder than anything.

[Poetlister]

One of the problems is that US law requires people to renew copyright. Some editors on Wikisource spend a lot of effort digging out cases where people, especially those outside the US, neglected to do so and hence their works are PD. International law does not require such an act of renewal.

[collect]

One of the problems is that US law requires people to renew copyright. Some editors on Wikisource spend a lot of effort digging out cases where people, especially those outside the US, neglected to do so and hence their works are PD. International law does not require such an act of renewal.

US law no longer has "copyright renewal", and hasn't for some years.

[Poetlister]

One of the problems is that US law requires people to renew copyright. Some editors on Wikisource spend a lot of effort digging out cases where people, especially those outside the US, neglected to do so and hence their works are PD. International law does not require such an act of renewal.

US law no longer has "copyright renewal", and hasn't for some years.

Glad to hear it. But of course that has no retrospective effect.

[Randy from Boise]

One of the problems is that US law requires people to renew copyright.

Incorrect.

Copyright is automatic and has a term based on the life of the content-creator.

RfB

[Poetlister]

One of the problems is that US law requires people to renew copyright.

Incorrect.

Copyright is automatic and has a term based on the life of the content-creator.

RfB

Twaddle. All stuff published after 1923 is in copyright in US law, regardless of when the author died, subject to the former laws (now, I'm glad to hear, abolished) about renewal. Thus most poems by W H Davies (died 1940) are still in copyright in the USA although they have been out of copyright in most countries since 2011.

[Newyorkbrad]

One of the problems is that US law requires people to renew copyright.

Incorrect.

Copyright is automatic and has a term based on the life of the content-creator.

RfB

Twaddle. All stuff published after 1923 is in copyright in US law, regardless of when the author died, subject to the former laws (now, I'm glad to hear, abolished) about renewal. Thus most poems by W H Davies (died 1940) are still in copyright in the USA although they have been out of copyright in most countries since 2011.

Let’s clarify this. The copyright renewal requirement was abolished in the US in 1992, with respect to any works first published in 1964 or later. However, works first published before 1964 had to have their copyrights renewed in the 28th year after registration, failure to renew put the work into the public domain, and the 1992 law did not apply retroactively to bring those works back into copyright.

[lonza leggiera]

One of the problems is that US law requires people to renew copyright.

Incorrect.

Copyright is automatic and has a term based on the life of the content-creator.

RfB

Twaddle. All stuff published after 1923 is in copyright in US law, regardless of when the author died, subject to the former laws (now, I'm glad to hear, abolished) about renewal. Thus most poems by W H Davies (died 1940) are still in copyright in the USA although they have been out of copyright in most countries since 2011.

Let’s clarify this. The copyright renewal requirement was abolished in the US in 1992, with respect to any works first published in 1964 or later. However, works first published before 1964 had to have their copyrights renewed in the 28th year after registration, failure to renew put the work into the public domain, and the 1992 law did not apply retroactively to bring those works back into copyright.

Are you sure you have that year right? According to Chapter 3 of the US Copyright Act, as published here, the important date seems to me to be January 1st, 1978. As I read that document, the duration of copyright for works not "Made for Hire" is life of author plus 70 years if the work was created, or not published until, on or after that date (except that, in the latter case, if the work was published on or before December 31st, 2002, its copyright cannot expire before December 31st, 2047). For works published before January 1st, 1978, and still subject to copyright on that date, the duration of copyrght would appear to me to be 95 years from the date that the original copyright was secured.

[Kumioko]

So how is the copyright protected from reproduction in another country? I assume that not all countries recognize our copyright laws.

[Newyorkbrad]

One of the problems is that US law requires people to renew copyright.

Incorrect.

Copyright is automatic and has a term based on the life of the content-creator.

RfB

Twaddle. All stuff published after 1923 is in copyright in US law, regardless of when the author died, subject to the former laws (now, I'm glad to hear, abolished) about renewal. Thus most poems by W H Davies (died 1940) are still in copyright in the USA although they have been out of copyright in most countries since 2011.

Let’s clarify this. The copyright renewal requirement was abolished in the US in 1992, with respect to any works first published in 1964 or later. However, works first published before 1964 had to have their copyrights renewed in the 28th year after registration, failure to renew put the work into the public domain, and the 1992 law did not apply retroactively to bring those works back into copyright.

Are you sure you have that year right? According to Chapter 3 of the US Copyright Act, as published here, the important date seems to me to be January 1st, 1978. As I read that document, the duration of copyright for works not "Made for Hire" is life of author plus 70 years if the work was created, or not published until, on or after that date (except that, in the latter case, if the work was published on or before December 31st, 2002, its copyright cannot expire before December 31st, 2047). For works published before January 1st, 1978, and still subject to copyright on that date, the duration of copyrght would appear to me to be 95 years from the date that the original copyright was secured.

All of that is correct, but the Copyright Act of 1976 (the major copyright overhaul that took effect on January 1, 1978) did not restore copyright to any works that had already lost it. If the US copyright on a pre-1964 published work was not renewed, it lost US copyright protection 28 years after the copyright was issued. From that point on, the work was public domain in the US, just the same as if the work had never been copyrighted at all. As I noted above, in 1992 the renewal requirement was abolished, but only going-forward for works published beginning in 1964.

All of this is about US copyright law only. Other countries' laws vary widely, both historically and today.

[BURob13]

Anything about international copyright functions under the historical reality that US rules were always different and almost invariably more permissive than European rules, plus the prohibition against ex post facto law in the constitution has always meant that anything that loses protection loses it forever. Intellectual property is far more slippery and hard to argue as anything much beyond a moral obligation. Ming has been hearing Graaf and other WP-haters go on about this for years, but even considering the huge enforcement problem that WP presents, the lack of serious litigation tends to speak louder than anything.

The Supreme Court upheld the URAA and specifically the part about restoring copyrights in Golan v. Holder, so the claim that copyright cannot be restored in the United States is incorrect.

[Kumioko]

Anything about international copyright functions under the historical reality that US rules were always different and almost invariably more permissive than European rules, plus the prohibition against ex post facto law in the constitution has always meant that anything that loses protection loses it forever. Intellectual property is far more slippery and hard to argue as anything much beyond a moral obligation. Ming has been hearing Graaf and other WP-haters go on about this for years, but even considering the huge enforcement problem that WP presents, the lack of serious litigation tends to speak louder than anything.

The Supreme Court upheld the URAA and specifically the part about restoring copyrights in Golan v. Holder, so the claim that copyright cannot be restored in the United States is incorrect.

It probably depends a lot on what court you are in too. Decisions in California for example often have strange and surprising results.

[Newyorkbrad]

Anything about international copyright functions under the historical reality that US rules were always different and almost invariably more permissive than European rules, plus the prohibition against ex post facto law in the constitution has always meant that anything that loses protection loses it forever. Intellectual property is far more slippery and hard to argue as anything much beyond a moral obligation. Ming has been hearing Graaf and other WP-haters go on about this for years, but even considering the huge enforcement problem that WP presents, the lack of serious litigation tends to speak louder than anything.

The Supreme Court upheld the URAA and specifically the part about restoring copyrights in Golan v. Holder, so the claim that copyright cannot be restored in the United States is incorrect.

I didn't say that copyright cannot be restored by statute in the United States. I said that the 1976 Act did not restore any copyrights that had lapsed due to non-renewal (or for any other reason). As you point out, the 1994 Uruguay Round Act did restore some lapsed US copyrights on foreign works that were still protected in their country of origin.

[BURob13]

I was responding only to Ming's claim about international copyright being unable to be restored due to Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

And no court in California can overturn a Supreme Court ruling.

[No Ledge]

I found this book in my local library, but alas I didn't even make it past chapter one before my renewals expired and now I'm obligated to return it.

I find this an incredibly complex topic, much moreso than I realized. It overviews the battles over copyright and the longest chapter is about "current controversies". In contrast the brief chapter on "copyright in the International Arena" seems almost an afterthought. If the experts and lawyers can't even agree on this stuff I don't know what hope there is for the average Wikipedia editor to understand it.

So it's understandable that editors disagree on the meaning and interpretation of "fair use". A certain editor comes to mind whose catchphrase is "Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006" and who treats anyone like dirt who disagrees with his interpretation of fair use.

Traditional encyclopedias surely employed legal experts to help their professional writers and editors comply with the laws. Wikipedia's volunteer editors get no such assistance from the WMF and are left to their own amateur paralegal devices; keeping their fingers crossed that nobody will sue them, and if they do, that their personal liability insurance will cover it.

[Kumioko]

I was responding only to Ming's claim about international copyright being unable to be restored due to Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

And no court in California can overturn a Supreme Court ruling.

Well of course the Supreme court would take precedence over California but most cases never go to the Supreme Court and I'm just using Cali as an example, it could be Florida, New York, Maryland or whatever. Sometimes judges make strange determinations. All I am saying is that Law isn't black and white, it's mostly gray and a lot of the outcome falls on who is arguing it and who the judge is.

It's not about what's right and wrong as they say, it's about what the law allows.

[Randy from Boise]

One of the problems is that US law requires people to renew copyright.

Incorrect.

Copyright is automatic and has a term based on the life of the content-creator.

RfB

Twaddle. All stuff published after 1923 is in copyright in US law, regardless of when the author died, subject to the former laws (now, I'm glad to hear, abolished) about renewal. Thus most poems by W H Davies (died 1940) are still in copyright in the USA although they have been out of copyright in most countries since 2011.

Bull.
True on the stuff published 1923 or earlier. Then the next group of stuff must have copyright appearing in first publication, or it is copyright free, OR if it was copyrighted in first publication, it had to be renewed at the 25 year mark, or it's copyright free. Then comes the material for which copyright is automatic and renewal is not necessary, which is a "Life - Plus" system...

RfB

All of that is correct, but the Copyright Act of 1976 (the major copyright overhaul that took effect on January 1, 1978) did not restore copyright to any works that had already lost it. If the US copyright on a pre-1964 published work was not renewed, it lost US copyright protection 28 years after the copyright was issued. From that point on, the work was public domain in the US, just the same as if the work had never been copyrighted at all. As I noted above, in 1992 the renewal requirement was abolished, but only going-forward for works published beginning in 1964.

All of this is about US copyright law only. Other countries' laws vary widely, both historically and today.

[BURob13]

I was responding only to Ming's claim about international copyright being unable to be restored due to Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

And no court in California can overturn a Supreme Court ruling.

Well of course the Supreme court would take precedence over California but most cases never go to the Supreme Court and I'm just using Cali as an example, it could be Florida, New York, Maryland or whatever. Sometimes judges make strange determinations. All I am saying is that Law isn't black and white, it's mostly gray and a lot of the outcome falls on who is arguing it and who the judge is.

It's not about what's right and wrong as they say, it's about what the law allows.

The case I cited previously was a Supreme Court case, and it's pretty decisive on the issue that renewals of copyright on things already in the public domain are permitted under the Constitution. Copyright is full of plenty of gray areas, of course, but the legality of the URAA isn't one of them.

[Ming]

Anything about international copyright functions under the historical reality that US rules were always different and almost invariably more permissive than European rules, plus the prohibition against ex post facto law in the constitution has always meant that anything that loses protection loses it forever. Intellectual property is far more slippery and hard to argue as anything much beyond a moral obligation. Ming has been hearing Graaf and other WP-haters go on about this for years, but even considering the huge enforcement problem that WP presents, the lack of serious litigation tends to speak louder than anything.

The Supreme Court upheld the URAA and specifically the part about restoring copyrights in Golan v. Holder, so the claim that copyright cannot be restored in the United States is incorrect.

So Ming sees, and therefore there actually no longer is a "public domain" as long as there is someone around who could assert rights over a work if it were put back under legal protection. It isn't surprising that one can find a lot of criticism of this decision:

In upholding the law, the Golan majority explicitly endorsed the position that the public has no legal rights to the public domain.

[lonza leggiera]

… [snip]…

Are you sure … [snip]…

All of that is correct, but the Copyright Act of 1976 (the major copyright overhaul that took effect on January 1, 1978) did not restore copyright to any works that had already lost it. If the US copyright on a pre-1964 published work was not renewed, it lost US copyright protection 28 years after the copyright was issued. From that point on, the work was public domain in the US, just the same as if the work had never been copyrighted at all. As I noted above, in 1992 the renewal requirement was abolished, but only going-forward for works published beginning in 1964.

All of this is about US copyright law only. Other countries' laws vary widely, both historically and today.

Thank you for the clarification.

[Poetlister]

So it's understandable that editors disagree on the meaning and interpretation of "fair use".

Yes, and fair use on Wikipedia is not a concept in international copyright law, only US law.

[Newyorkbrad]

Anything about international copyright functions under the historical reality that US rules were always different and almost invariably more permissive than European rules, plus the prohibition against ex post facto law in the constitution has always meant that anything that loses protection loses it forever. Intellectual property is far more slippery and hard to argue as anything much beyond a moral obligation. Ming has been hearing Graaf and other WP-haters go on about this for years, but even considering the huge enforcement problem that WP presents, the lack of serious litigation tends to speak louder than anything.

The Supreme Court upheld the URAA and specifically the part about restoring copyrights in Golan v. Holder, so the claim that copyright cannot be restored in the United States is incorrect.

So Ming sees, and therefore there actually no longer is a "public domain" as long as there is someone around who could assert rights over a work if it were put back under legal protection. It isn't surprising that one can find a lot of criticism of this decision:

In upholding the law, the Golan majority explicitly endorsed the position that the public has no legal rights to the public domain.

The statute putting some foreign-originated, US-public-domain works back under copyright was unusual and controversial. It was passed, reluctantly, because doing so was required to comply with the US’s obligations under the major international copyright convention (the Berne Convention), which the US had recently joined. The new law contained special protection for “reliance parties” who had published these works while they were in the public domain, allowing them to continue doing so until they received a notice of reclamation and for a year thereafter. It is considered unlikely that similar legislation will be passed again, although there are no guarantees.

(Historically, US-International copyright relations had been a mess, governed by a hodgepodge of individual treaties and protectionist requirements and arcane formalities that were difficult to comply with — “The Lord of the Rings” lapsing into the PD because of a Manufacturing Clause violation may be the best-known example, at least among nerds. The derogation from the practice of not restoring lapsed copyrights was seen, rightly or wrongly, as worth it to move away from that system. I’ve studied this extensively with my Sherlockian hat on, as Arthur Conan Doyle was one of the immediate beneficiaries of the Chace Act of 1891, which implemented the first US/UK copyright treaty. But I digress.)

[Anroth]

Short answer: Wikipedia would be mostly fine as it's use of copyright material is usually covered by the US fair use exemptions. As the WMF and by extension Wikipedia are based in the US they can (and do) routinely ignore international laws - which is in line with how the US operates anyway. Plus the new law specifically exempts online encyclopedias.

Commons would have a number of problems, not insurmountable ones, but it would require a radical change in their policies. Of crucial note is that EU law applies to EU citizens, so any EU editor who violated copyright, even if the material is stored in the US, would be personally liable, and the WMF is not able to prevent their identities (as far as they are able) being passed along to the relevant authorities.