Re: All Rights Reserved

On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Earl Horsefield <ehorsefield[_at_]usgs.gov> wrote:
>
> When the word "Rights" is in a statement, does not that mean the
> statement only relates to whatever legal rights the writer is entitled
> to are thus reserved to that person for whatever duration is given in
> the contract to give them those "Rights"? I am not a lawyer but that
> sounds logical to me, and the statement would then not be incorrect or
> misleading unless you are prone to interpret the whole message in a
> certain way... that word "Rights" then becomes a delimiter of the legal
> rights enjoyed by the writer. You lawyers out there tell me - am I
> right? (to make a bad pun)...

I don't think it's helpful to attempt to analyze the language of the phrase "All rights reserved." Basically, it comes from a provision in the 1911 Buenos Aires Convention on Literary and Artistic Copyrights. This treaty was one of the earliest -- if not _the_ earliest -- multilateral copyright treaty to which the US was a party.

Under the terms of this treaty, a work copyrighted in the jurisdiction of one signatory would automatically be afforded copyright protection in the jurisdiction of each other signatory, without any need for any additional formalities such as registration, a country-specific copyright notice, etc. -- provided that published copies of the copyright claimant's work included a notice reserving these rights. Without such a reservation of rights, the work would otherwise have to depend on the vagaries of each jurisdiction's copyright laws as to whether its copyright would be recognized.

The standard notice to reserve these rights was simply "all rights reserved."

It would be a mistake to try to analyze the meaning of the words outside of their treaty context. The phrase merely means "I claim the benefits of the 1911 Buenos Aires Convention on Literary and Artistic Copyrights."

I should note that, since 1990, every nation that has signed the Buenos Aires Convention has also signed one of two multilateral treaties to which the US is a party: the Universal Copyright Convention and (especially) the Berne Convention. Each of these treaties allows for national treatment without the requirement to reserve rights; in fact, the Berne Convention prohibits a country from requiring such a reservation.

As such, works copyrighted in the U.S. are protected in all Buenos Aires jurisdictions under either the UCC or Berne, without need to rely on the provisions of Buenos Aires. In short, there is no longer any reason for a US national to claim the benefit of the Buenos Aires Convention. Thus, for all intents and purposes, for US works, the "all rights reserved" notice is graffiti without any legal effect.

It may still be effective as between other nations. For example, if, hypothetically, two countries are both signatories to Buenos Aires, and one is a signatory to the UCC but not Berne, and the other is a signatory to Berne and not the UCC, then, as between those countries, the only multilateral treaty in common would be Buenos Aires.[1] As between those countries, the notice would be required to claim protection in the other jurisdiction.

At present, the only countries who are signatories to both Buenos Aires and the UCC, but not to Berne, are the Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Nicaragua.[2] The only country that is a signatory to both Buenos Aires and Berne, but not to the UCC, is Honduras.

So, in sum, if you are either 1) obtaining copyright only in the Dominican Republic, Guatemala or Nicaragua, and want to ensure protection in Honduras; or 2) obtaining copyright only in Honduras, and want to ensure protection in the Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Nicaragua; then (ignoring my point in footnote 2) "All Rights Reserved" might be legally meaningful. Otherwise, it's just noise.

[1] Actually, this may be an oversimplification. I know only of multilateral copyright treaties to which the US is a party. There may be (although I doubt it) some additional multilateral treaties covering copyright that these countries may each be party to that don't involve the U.S. And, of course, there could be bilateral copyright treaties between them as well. But let's ignore those possibilities for the sake of argument.

[2] Actually, this isn't really true. The Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Nicaragua are each members of the World Trade Organization (WTO); i.e., they are signatories to the Uruguay Rounds of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), including that Agreement's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). TRIPS incorporates all the provisions of Berne except for the Article 6bis provisions on moral rights. So for purposes of this analysis, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Nicaragua are also bound by the provisions of Berne as if they were a party the convention itself. So there.

-- 
Terry Carroll       | "Report of the Committee On Governmental Affairs,
Santa Clara, CA     | United States Senate, To Accompany S. 1364, An Act To
carroll[_at_]tjc.com     | Eliminate Unnecessary and Wasteful Federal Reports."
Modell delendus est |  - Title of U.S. Senate Report 105-187, May 11, 1998