SCOTUS and Congress make moves to Copy-right Public Domain Works.

[Photonic]

What. The. Flying. Fuck.

Supreme Court Says Congress May Re-Copyright Public Domain Works | Threat Level | Wired.com

 

[occupied]

Immortality no longer lies in the creation of art but in the legal ownership of it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The decision seems to address only foreign works produced during the 1920s, attempting to line-up international and American copyright policy.

 

[Photonic]

The decision seems to address only foreign works produced during the 1920s, attempting to line-up international and American copyright policy.

Should they not then do that going forward, and leave public domain works as they are?

 

[editec]

(a) The text of the Copyright Clause does not exclude applicationof copyright protection to works in the public domain. [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]Eldred [/FONT][/FONT]is largely dispositive of petitioners’ claim that the Clause’s confinementof a copyright’s lifespan to a "limited Tim[e]" prevents the removal ofworks from the public domain. In [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]Eldred, [/FONT][/FONT]the Court upheld the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), which extended, by 20 years, the terms of existing copyrights. The text of the Copyright Clause, theCourt observed, contains no "command that a time prescription, onceset, becomes forever ‘fixed’ or ‘inalterable,’ "

It ought to, though and here's why...

Because if it doesn't, then people can find themselves in violation of copyright laws EX POST FACTO.

And that does violate a principle of FAIRNESS that we ought to be able to expect in our laws.

 

[freedombecki]

(a) The text of the Copyright Clause does not exclude applicationof copyright protection to works in the public domain. [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]Eldred [/FONT][/FONT]is largely dispositive of petitioners’ claim that the Clause’s confinementof a copyright’s lifespan to a "limited Tim[e]" prevents the removal ofworks from the public domain. In [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]Eldred, [/FONT][/FONT]the Court upheld the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), which extended, by 20 years, the terms of existing copyrights. The text of the Copyright Clause, theCourt observed, contains no "command that a time prescription, onceset, becomes forever ‘fixed’ or ‘inalterable,’ "

It ought to, though and here's why...

Because if it doesn't, then people can find themselves in violation of copyright laws EX POST FACTO.

And that does violate a principle of FAIRNESS that we ought to be able to expect in our laws.

It's complex, but I'd hope the original artist of a work would benefit from his or her work for a lifetime if his or her financial situation is marginal or the artist became disabled from producing more work and needed the income. In general, a person who has dedicated his or her life to an art is more likely to be obscure than one who is able to capitalize, profit, and move on due to a knack for management, or one who is able to capitalize on the poorer artists' work after the copyright expires 17 years later. Art requires a focus and a discipline, but that trait does not always leave the artist capable in financial management, so he dies with a brush or baton in his hand, too poor to afford a decent burial like Mozart or Van Gogh or Poe.

 

[California Girl]

(a) The text of the Copyright Clause does not exclude applicationof copyright protection to works in the public domain. [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]Eldred [/FONT][/FONT]is largely dispositive of petitioners’ claim that the Clause’s confinementof a copyright’s lifespan to a "limited Tim[e]" prevents the removal ofworks from the public domain. In [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]Eldred, [/FONT][/FONT]the Court upheld the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), which extended, by 20 years, the terms of existing copyrights. The text of the Copyright Clause, theCourt observed, contains no "command that a time prescription, onceset, becomes forever ‘fixed’ or ‘inalterable,’ "

It ought to, though and here's why...

Because if it doesn't, then people can find themselves in violation of copyright laws EX POST FACTO.

And that does violate a principle of FAIRNESS that we ought to be able to expect in our laws.

It's complex, but I'd hope the original artist of a work would benefit from his or her work for a lifetime if his or her financial situation is marginal or the artist became disabled from producing more work and needed the income. In general, a person who has dedicated his or her life to an art is more likely to be obscure than one who is able to capitalize, profit, and move on due to a knack for management, or one who is able to capitalize on the poorer artists' work after the copyright expires 17 years later. Art requires a focus and a discipline, but that trait does not always leave the artist capable in financial management, so he dies with a brush or baton in his hand, too poor to afford a decent burial like Mozart or Van Gogh or Poe.

WTF? "benefit from his or her work for a lifetime IF his or her financial situation is marginal....."

IF?

It's theirs. For their lifetime... and for those who inherit. No one owns someone else's work.