Copyright Term Extension Act

The Copyright Term Extension Act ( Act on the extension of copyright protection ) 1998, also known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act , or the Mickey Mouse Protection Act , extended the term of protection of copyright in the United States by 20 years.

Before the law, the copyright in a work was protected up to 50 years after the author's death before it into the public domain ( Public Domain .) Passed After the law comes into force, copyright will be protected for 70 years after the author's death, while copyrights for works owned by a company will be protected for between 75 and 95 years. The law also applies to works published before January 1, 1978. Their term of protection is also extended by 20 years.

With this law the transfer of these older works, for which a shorter copyright protection existed according to the old rules, was effectively “frozen” into the public domain. Thus, under these new rules, no works published after 1923 and whose protection had not yet expired in 1998 were transferred to the public domain before 2019. Unlike European copyright renewal legislation, the Copyright Term Extension Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired.

The law extended the term of protection for works that were already protected by copyright and in this sense also applies retrospectively. It extends the term of protection not only for works that were published after its entry into force, but also for those that were already published. A special section applies to works that were created before January 1, 1978, but which until recently were neither published nor registered as protected by copyright. If this is the case, they can be protected until 2047. The law came into effect on October 27, 1998.

background

Extension of US copyright

According to the Berne Convention , the signatory states are obliged to ensure copyright protection for at least the life of the author plus 50 years. However, you can also grant a longer term of protection. Accordingly, between 1993 and 1996 , the European Union ensured that copyright protection was guaranteed for up to 70 years after the author's death (see Term of Protection Directive ). The United States did not join the Berne Convention until 1988, but it had provided the minimum protection period required by the Berne Convention through the Copyright Act of 1976 .

Before the Copyright Protection Act of 1976, many copyrighted literary works, films, and fantasy characters moved into the public domain more quickly because they were protected for a maximum of 56 years after publication. Some of these copyrighted works have been quite profitable for rightsholders until they expired. These include several characters owned by the Walt Disney Company . With the passage of the Copyright Protection Act of 1976, early cartoon characters from short films, such as Mickey Mouse as Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy , were prevented from entering the public domain before 2000 at the earliest, as they were now granted copyright protection for 75 years. (Mickey Mouse is also available as trademarks [ trademark] protected). In several countries, including Russia , where the Bern Convention was not retroactively implemented, Mickey Mouse and all other works created before 1970 are in the public domain.

After the United States joined the Berne Accord, several copyright owners successfully lobbied the US Congress to seek a renewed extension of copyright protection. Their aim was to achieve a protection period that was just as long as in Europe. The legislative initiative was named after the late Congressman Sonny Bono , who had held this position as a song composer and filmmaker even before he entered politics.

Both chambers of the US Congress passed the law as Public Law 105-298 by means of a voice vote , a vote that is decided by whether a loud yes or no is shouted and it is impossible to determine afterwards how the individual is MPs have voted. US President Bill Clinton signed the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act 1998 on October 21 of the same year.

As a consequence of the law, no copyrighted works in the United States that were still protected on January 1, 1978, went into the public domain before January 1, 2019.

Political climate

In addition to Disney, whose intensive lobbying work also earned the law the name "Mickey Mouse Protection Act", Sonny Bono's widow and successor as Congressman Mary Bono and the community of heirs of George Gershwin supported the bill. Mary Bono noted in a speech to the House of Representatives that "Sonny wanted the copyright protection to last forever," but after "being informed by her staff that such a change would be against the Constitution ," said Congress Consider Jack Valenti's suggestion that a copyright term "forever minus one day" should be considered.

Senate report 104-315

The Senate Report 104-315 was the official reason for the adoption of copyright protection Extension Act and was originally linked the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995 , Section 483 wrote:

“The purpose of the law is to provide appropriate copyright protection for American works in foreign nations, as well as to reap the future economic benefits of a foreign trade surplus in the use of copyrighted goods. The law accomplishes these goals by extending the current US copyright term for an additional 20 years. Such an extension will provide further significant trade benefits by significantly aligning US copyright law with that of the European Union, while ensuring fair compensation for American authors who earn full money from the use of the works they create to benefit. Furthermore, by stimulating the creation of new works and providing expanded economic incentives to preserve existing works, such an extension will in the long term improve the scope, vitality and access to the public domain. "

- Senate report 104-315

The report's authors believed that extending copyright protection would help the United States gain more protection for its works in other countries. They also assumed that rightsholders would be given an incentive to digitize and preserve their works because they had the exclusive rights to them. The report also included dissenting minority views from Herb Kohl and Hank Brown , who believed that extending the term of protection would mean a financial gift to the current owners of the copyrighted works at the expense of the public's use of the material.

support

Advocates of the Copyright Term Extension Act argue that the law is necessary, on the one hand, because human life expectancy has increased dramatically since the US Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1790, and on the other hand, would create a difference in length of copyright protection between the United States and the European Union have a negative impact on international operations in the entertainment industry .

Another reason given was that some works would only be created under the condition of unlimited copyright protection, which would not be created under the application of temporary copyright protection. They also allege that Congress has the power to determine any term, unlimited or indefinite, of copyright protection because that provision in the United States Constitution, "To Promote Scientific Advancement and the Useful Arts," does not constitute a significant limitation on the powers of Congress .

The only effective condition that remains is the immediately following sentence “can a temporary copyright be created”. However, it would never have been determined to what extent the time allowed should be limited. In the literal sense of the word, a limit of one million years would be a valid “time limit” in the sense of the constitutional text.

Opposition

Opponents of the Copyright Term Extension Act consider the law to be little more than a gift to rights collecting societies and have tried, so far unsuccessfully, to have it declared unconstitutional and thus null and void.

They claim the law is "unnecessarily unsuitable" for achieving the constitution's purpose of "promoting the advancement of science and the useful arts." They argue that most copyrighted works are already making most of their profits just a few years after publication and are then withdrawn from the market by collecting societies. So extending copyright protection would provide little economic incentive, except for the owners of long-lived franchises (e.g. Disney characters) who are very good in business anyway.

They also see two consecutive extensions of the term of protection (through the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 ) as the beginning of an “ inclined plane ” on the road to perpetual copyright protection that is provided by the United States Constitution The requirement for a time limit contained therein can run empty. They argue that the Copyright Protection Act of 1790 only provided for a term of protection of 28 years (today: 75 years and more) and that life expectancy has not tripled since then. Excluding child mortality rates, average life expectancy has increased by about 10 years since then.

They refer to the comparable term of protection of patents, which is 20 years and was not extended in parallel. This is nevertheless suitable to profitably recoup the investments made during this time.

It is also pointed out that a “harmonization” of copyrights with the law applicable in other countries can cause a “frog-hopping effect”: two sides repeatedly extend the term of protection for copyrights in order to keep up with the other.

The argument that "new works are not created" is also challenged. Obviously, the United States Constitution assumed that new works would always be created, so this was not included as a purpose for copyright protection. The eligible purposes were limited to "the progress of the sciences and the useful arts".

It is also noted as a strong argument that certain works are not created under unlimited copyright protection because a possible author of a further development of a work has neither the money, the time nor the possibility to locate the rights holder and to acquire a license. It may also be that this right holder as the owner is not willing to allow the original work to be further developed at any price. Hence, it can be argued that abundant, continually replenished common property is necessary for continued artistic creation.

For example, Walt Disney used the public domain stories of the Brothers Grimm to create his characters . The Jungle Book was made into a film by Disney just seven years after the book's copyright expired. This might not have been possible if these stories had still been copyrighted. More recent works of popular culture that may not be copyrighted are the novels Frankenstein and Dracula . Both were created in the 19th century.

Most of the scriptures of the major religions are in the public domain so that they can be altered, adapted, translated, paraphrased, and otherwise made available to suit contemporary audiences. If the Roman Catholic Church had a perpetual copyright to the writings of Paul of Tarsus , it could have refused a license for translation. It should also have prohibited other churches from using it.

They also refer to the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution , which limits the powers Congress can derive from an agreement.

Constitutional Complaint ( Eldred v Ashcroft )

Publishers and librarians, among others, sued Ashcroft in the Eldred case for an injunction against the effectiveness of the Copyright Term Extension Act . On October 9, 2002, the arguments of the Supreme Court were heard in an oral hearing . On January 15, 2003, the Supreme Court declared in a 7-2 vote that the Copyright Term Extension Act was constitutional.

Plaintiffs in the Eldred case have since started shifting their efforts to the US Congress. They want to pass a law called the Public Domain Enhancement Act , which would make the Copyright Term Enhancement Act only applicable to works that are registered with the Library of Congress .

Other activists practice civil disobedience by publicly breaking the law.

Web links

Individual evidence

↑ In: Senate Report 104-315 - COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT OF 1996 - I. Purpose

[1] In: Senate Report 104-315 - COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT OF 1996 - I. Purpose