On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Karjala, Dennis wrote:
>
> 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,
I am not sure about that. Directive 93/98/EEC harmonised the term at life +70 in all EU countries and said that protection is granted for that period of time in all EU member states if on July 1, 1995 there is still protection of the author's works in just ONE member state. This way works which had entered the public domain in the UK already were suddenly protected again because of a longer term in Germany, Austria or Spain. I do NOT say that I consider this to be good or bad - I am just stating facts ! Now, even despite this directive works by English authors would generally have been protected only for life +50 in Germany because of the German Copyright Act and the Berne Convention which says that an author's works will be protected abroad for the same term of protection granted in his home country. BUT: There came the European Court of Justice with the "Phil Collins"-case in October 1993 and said that these provisions in the German act violate Art. 7 EEC (now Art. 6 EC) and that all works by authors from other member states need to be protected in Germany for the same term as works by German authors (i.e. life + 70). This created enormous confusion (and the judgment was criticised by most people - including myself) but according to most people here it means that Conan Doyles' works are now protected for life +70 in Europe. If he died in 1929 his works will be in the public domain anywhere in the EU on 1/1/2000.
> 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.
It is true that there is still a difference of five years which would rise to 25 for works created just before the author died.
> 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.
It is important for us in Europe. You have a different view on the other side of the pond and I can understand that to a certain extent. I dislike your reasoning though. You say: Let's not harmonize terms because so many other things aren't harmonized. This is like: Let's not start solving one problem because millions of other problems remain unsolved anyway.
If you look at what is going in the EU as far as harmonization in all different fields of the law is concerned you notice that a lot has been achieved and a lot still has to be done, but the guys in Brussels are working on it and doing a good job most of the time.
> Moreover, why must harmonization go in the direction of the longer term?
I DID NOT say that. I tried to point out that I strongly favor harmonization at no matter which 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?
I, personally, would not exclude this possibility.
> 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.
Yes, you are right.
> 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.
I do talk about harmonization, although not in connection with the specific bills but in general. And I view it from outside. The bills which are currently discussed don't achieve harmonization, true. This will have to be achieved through WIPO, probably.
> "Harmonization" is just a nice sounding word behind which the special
> interests supporting the U.S. extension bill are hiding.
I use it differently - knowing what has been achieved in Europe. I am truly for harmonization - be it at life +50, +60 or +70.
Alex
"Attempto !"
alexander.klett[_at_]student.uni-tuebingen.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:20 GMT