copyright extension - Vaughan Williams

Alexander Klett writes:
>
> It seems VERY important to me, however, that there be a harmonized term
> of protection anywhere in the world if possible. I realize that the U.S.
> have introduced the p.m.a. method for defining copyright duration as
> far as works created in or after 1978 are concerned which solves some
> of the problems. But the Vaughan Williams example shows that there
> are some very important cases (the vast majority of works were created
> before 1978 anyway) in which there is still copyright protection in
> Europe long after it has ceased in the U.S. This is what makes me
> unhappy.

     The disharmony works both ways. For example, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died around 1929-1930, so all of his works are in the public domain everywhere in Europe, including his own country, although his works from the 1920's are still under copyright in the U.S. (And, as I understand it, the copyrights are enforced.) If the extension bill passes, this disharmony will continue for an additional 20 years.

     I regret that disharmony in term makes you so unhappy, but I personally cannot see why the matter of term harmonization is so important, especially when other major issues like works for hire, moral rights, and fair use remain unharmonized. Moreover, why must harmonization go in the direction of the longer term? Why doesn't Europe harmonize with the United States, both on the specific question of term and on the more basic question of including a PUBLIC benefit in the copyright rationale?

     In any event, there is no way to make you happy with respect to harmonization of terms, except as to post-1978 works by individual authors. All works published prior to 1978 have a 75-year term, as do post-1978 works for hire, in the U.S. Both terms will go to 95 years with the extensions. Neither term harmonizes with the European terms--either with European work-for-hire terms, to the extent that European countries recognize them, or with the life + terms recognized in Europe, whether what comes after the "+" is 50 or 70.

     It's time to stop talking about "harmonization" in connection with this extension scam. The extension bills will NOT achieve harmonization even with respect to terms, let alone other aspects. "Harmonization" is just a nice sounding word behind which the special interests supporting the U.S. extension bill are hiding. Their true purpose is simply a wealth transfer that will continue the royalty streams for 20 more years, during which they will have time to keep working on their ultimate dream of perpetual copyright. Unfortunately, the loss to the public is not just the actual dollars transferred to these corporations or copyright transferees (few, if any, authors left in this crowd after so many years!). It is also the incalculable cultural loss in the form of works that never get created because of the increasing transaction costs (with time) involved in locating and negotiating with so many copyright owners (especially with respect to works of high historical, scholarly, or educational value but little if any economic value).

Dennis S. Karjala
Professor of Law
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona 85287
602-965-4010
602-965-2427 (fax)
dennis.karjala[_at_]asu.edu Received on Fri Apr 26 1996 - 17:23:36 GMT