Re: U.K. Copyright Duration

On 01/22/99, Thomas Gallagher <thomas.gallagher[_at_]st-cross.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
> >
> > 1. When did the U.K. adopt "life + 70" years?
>
> On 29th October 1993 the European Commission adopted a directive to
> harmonise Member State laws on the duration of protection for copyright
> and related rights. (Council Directive 93/98, Official Journal (OJ)
> 1993 L290/9) This was introduced into UK law in The Duration of
> Copyright and Rights in Performance Regulations 1995. (Statutory
> Instrument 1995, No.3297)
>
> > 2. Was "life + 70" retroactively applied to works that were still
> > under copyright? Did it revive copyrights in works already in
> > the public domain?
>
> Yes and Yes. Works in which copyright had previously expired, but
> which, on July 1, 1995, were still in copyright in another EEA state,
> have their copyright revived for any remaining period of the extended
> term. Ownership is conferred in general on the owner at the date of
> expiry.
>
> I have a dim memory of a case (1997) involving a new, significantly
> different, edition of James Joyce's "Ulysses" that had taken years of
> preparation on the part of the editor. Suddenly "Ulysses" was protected
> under copyright again and the owners would not allow the new version to
> be published.
>
> Although there is a statutory licensing provision ("for a reasonable
> royalty") I think this case centred on the fact that the author's moral
> rights had been violated since the new editor had introduced punctuation
> to Joyce's free-flowing text. Sorry, I can't remember the name of the
> case.
>
> > 3. When did the U.K. previously adopt "life + 50"? Was it
> > retroactively applied to works still under copyright? Did it
> > revive copyright in works already in the public domain?
>
> Life + 50 was adopted in the 1911 Copyright Act. Have no details to hand.

I am not a lawyer, but have a question about the legal aspects of what is said here... in the United States, it is my understanding that no law can be ex post facto, which I think is latin meaning after the fact...so if something goes into the public domain, it cannot be put back out of the public domain in the U.S. - you lawyers and law profs out there - is this true or not? If it suddenly RESTORES rights is that not ex post facto and thus has no validity in the law?

Earl Horsefield 303 Pine Cuba MO 65453-1618 573-885-7373 ehorsefield[_at_]cuba-mo-net.com
ehorsefield[_at_]usgs.gov = work 573-308-3755 = work Received on Mon Jan 25 1999 - 16:41:40 GMT