We're talking about different concepts, copyrightability versus term. No one would dispute that the government produces copyrightable subject matter. It's just a different theory for arguing that a US government work has lost protection outside the US and wondering if anyone has tried it.
Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com On 5/29/2019 7:50 PM, Brendan Hickey wrote: > Typefaces are not subject to copyright protection in the US, while > they are in several jurisdictions, including Ireland. Is a typeface > created in the United States protected by copyright law in Ireland > when it's copied in Dublin? > > I'm not sure what purpose 5(2) would accomplish if not apply domestic > Irish law in this scenario. Is there another interpretation I'm missing? > > Brendan > > On Wed, May 29, 2019, 19:24 Pamela Chestek <pam...@chesteklegal.com > <mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com>> wrote: > > The Berne Convention also says in Article 7(8) that "unless the > legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term [of > protection] shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of > origin of the work." > https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=283698#P127_22000 > The country of origin is the United States and the term, for > government works, is zero years. So unless legislation in a > different country provides otherwise, the term in a different > country shall not exceed that of the US, that is, it shall not > exceed zero. > > No one seems to argue this. Maybe the argument is that since it > isn't protected by copyright in the US at all there is no term, > but I haven't seen any explanation one way or another. > > Pam > > Pamela S. Chestek > Chestek Legal > PO Box 2492 > Raleigh, NC 27602 > 919-800-8033 > pam...@chesteklegal.com <mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com> > www.chesteklegal.com <http://www.chesteklegal.com> > > On 5/29/2019 5:18 PM, Brendan Hickey wrote: >> Pam, >> >> I'm not sure that it would work this way. Per Article 5(2) of the >> Berne Convention: >> >> (2) The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be >> subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise *shall >> be independent of the existence of protection in the country of >> origin of the work.*Consequently, apart from the provisions of >> this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means >> of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be >> governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection >> is claimed. >> >> https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=283698#P109_16834 >> >> Brendan >> >> On Wed, May 29, 2019, 16:45 Pamela Chestek >> <pam...@chesteklegal.com <mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com>> wrote: >> >> Wouldn't the government's copyright interest outside of the >> US be limited by the Rule of the Shorter Term under the Berne >> Convention? And so where the term in the US is "zero," >> wouldn't it be zero in those countries that observe the Rule >> of the Shorter Term? >> >> Pam >> >> Pamela S. Chestek >> Chestek Legal >> PO Box 2492 >> Raleigh, NC 27602 >> 919-800-8033 >> pam...@chesteklegal.com <mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com> >> www.chesteklegal.com <http://www.chesteklegal.com> >> >> On 5/28/2019 9:34 PM, John Cowan wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 5:33 PM Christopher Sean Morrison >>> via License-discuss <license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>> <mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org>> wrote: >>> >>> Yes! Even to say it’s in the public domain is >>> misleading. It’s not a USC term. >>> >>> >>> It's true that "public domain" is not *defined* in 17 >>> U.S.C., but it is *used* there seven times. So turning to a >>> dictionary, we find this in the American Heritage >>> Dictionary, 5th edition: "The condition of not being >>> protected by a patent or copyright and therefore being >>> available to the public for use without charge", and this in >>> Merriam Webster Online: "[T]he realm embracing property >>> rights that belong to the community at large, are >>> unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to >>> appropriation by anyone[.]" So the term is well-defined. >>> >>> >>> Saying something from the Gov’t is “public domain” >>> typically just means it went through a public release >>> process and there's no intention to assert rights. >>> >>> >>> No, it means that there is no copyright owner. 17 U.S.C. >>> §105 says: "Copyright protection under this title is not >>> available for any work of the United States Government, but >>> the United States Government is not precluded from receiving >>> and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, >>> bequest, or otherwise." The term “work of the United States >>> Government” is defined as "[a] work prepared by an officer >>> or employee of the United States Government as part of that >>> person’s official duties" >>> >>> >>> While works of Gov’t employees typically don't have >>> copyright protection under Title 17 and could easily be >>> released "into the public domain”, >>> >>> >>> They *are* in the public domain (unless they were not part >>> of the author's official duties). >>> >>> >>> that doesn’t mean they have to release it, can release it, >>> >>> >>> If by "release" you mean "publish", you are of course >>> right. But if by "release" you mean "place in the public >>> domain", you are wrong, as shown above. >>> >>> or that there aren’t other mechanisms for releasing it >>> NOT “into the public domain.” >>> >>> >>> There are no such mechanisms. A copyrighted work can have >>> its copyright transferred, but a work that is not in >>> copyright (whether because the copyright has been expired or >>> forfeited, or was expressly waived by the owner, or never >>> existed in the first place) cannot be removed from the >>> public domain except by Act of Congress. This has happened >>> several times in the past, notably 1893 (restoring copyright >>> forfeited for lack of certain formalities if reregistered), >>> 1919, 1941 (for the benefit of foreign authors whose >>> copyrights expired during the war, when they could not renew >>> them), 1976 (extension to life+50), and 1989 (extension to >>> life+70), plus a number of private bills in the 19C for the >>> benefit of specific authors. >>> >>> Gov’t regularly distributes software that otherwise has >>> *no* Title 17 protections to foreign and domestic >>> recipients, under contractual terms. >>> >>> >>> So they may, but if the recipients transfer the software to >>> third parties, the recipients are in breach but the third >>> parties are not, for lack of privity and because there is no >>> in rem right in the nature of copyright. Much the same is >>> true of classified materials (as opposed to the U.K. where >>> receiving and further disseminating such materials is >>> separately criminalized. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> License-discuss mailing list >>> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>> <mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org> >>> >>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> License-discuss mailing list >> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >> <mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org> >> >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> License-discuss mailing list >> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >> <mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org> >> >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > <mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org> > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
