Re: Copyright of laws

On Thu, 17 Nov 1994, jamie wodetzki wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Nov 1994, Terry Carroll wrote:
> >
> > However, it is up to each nation to determine if such works are
> > copyrighted, even if they originate in another nation. In the U.S., for
> > example, the view is that no law is copyrighted, whether it's a lowly
> > municipal regulation, or a statute of another nation.
>
>
> This strikes me as odd. Are you sure about this?

Pretty sure. The excerpt I posted from the Copyright Office Compendium II indicates that that is its view, in any event.

> I can agree that it's OK for the US Govt to decide that it won't assert
> copyright of its own laws, and I even wish other Govt's would follow their
> lead. However, if what you say is true, then the US Govt is saying to
> other Nations, we'll protect all authors from your country, but we won't
> protect the copyright of the Govt of your country. Where does the
> Whitehouse (or Congress, I should say) get off saying to another Nation,
> "we'll decide which of your copyrights we protect" ? Where is the basis
> in Berne for this?

Article 2, section 4: "It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the protection to be granted to official texts of a legislative, administrative and legal nature, and to official translations of such texts."

Art 2, s. 4 aside, remember that Congress is not saying "we'll decide which of _your_ copyrights we protect." Berne is not about honoring another country's copyright system -- Berne is about extending one's own copyright system to works of other countries.

Berne requires national treatment, i.e., it requires a nation to treat works of another member nation according to its own rules of copyright, rather than the foreign nation's. So Congress is in fact saying, "we'll decide which of _our_ copyrights we protect," which is well within its rights.

--
Terry Carroll                    | 
Santa Clara, CA                  |      Quayle/Bono in '96. 
carrollt[_at_]netcom.com              |