Copyright Term Extension Act

The Copyright Term Extension Act (Act on the extension of copyright protection ) of 1998, also known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act or the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, the term of protection of copyright in the United States increased by 20 years.

Before the law of copyright was protected in a work up to 50 years after the author's death before it ( Public Domain ) passed into the public domain. After the entry into force of the law of copyright is protected until 70 years after the author's death, while the copyright for works in the ownership of a company between 75 and 95 years are protected. The Act has effect even for works that were published before January 1, 1978. Also, the protection period is extended by 20 years.

With this law, the override these older works, for which there was a shorter copyright protection under the old rules was "frozen" in the public domain effectively. Thus, under these new rules did not works that were published after 1923, and their protection in 1998 was not yet expired, pass over before 2019 in the Public Domain. In contrast to the European legislation on copyright extension of the Copyright Term Extension Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired.

The law extended the term of protection for works that were already copyrighted, and applies retroactively in this sense. It extended the term of protection not only for works that were published after its entry into force, but also for those who've been published. For works that were created before 1 January 1978, but until recently have not been published yet as protected by copyright registered in a special section applies. Under the conditions they may be protected through 2047. The Act entered into force on 27 October 1998.

• 3.1 Summary of the rules of copyright protection
• 3.2 Documents of the U.S. Government
• 3.3 arguments of the opponents

Background

The Berne Convention signatory states are obligated to provide copyright protection for at least the duration of life of the author plus 50 years. However, you can also grant a longer term of protection. Accordingly, the European Union made ​​between 1993 and 1996 that copyright protection is guaranteed for 70 years after the author's death (see term of protection Directive). The United States did not join the Berne Convention until 1988, but they had taken care of by the Copyright Act of 1976 ( Copyright Protection Act of 1976) for the required by the Berne Convention minimum term of protection.

Before the Copyright Protection Act of 1976, many copyrighted works of literature, movies, and fantasy figures quickly went over into the public domain, as they were only protected for a maximum of 56 years after publication. Some of these copyrighted works were until their expiry quite profitable for the owners. Among them were several characters are owned by the Walt Disney Company. With the passage of the Copyright Protection Act of 1976 prevents early cartoon characters from short films, such as Mickey Mouse as Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy pass before the earliest in 2000 in the Public Domain because they copyright protection of 75 years has now been granted. It is important to note that Mickey Mouse also as trademarks ( trademarks ) is protected. In several countries, including Russia, for example, where the Berne Convention was not introduced with retroactive effect, there are Mickey Mouse and all the other works created before 1970 in the Public Domain.

After the accession of the United States to the Berne Convention operated several owners of copyright successfully to achieve lobbying in the U.S. Congress a further extension of copyright protection. Their goal was to achieve an equally long period of protection as in Europe. The legislative initiative was named after the late Congressman Sonny Bono, who had already represented in its time as a song composer and filmmaker, this position even before he entered politics.

Both chambers of the U.S. Congress adopted the law as Public Law 105-298 by a voice vote, a vote with the voice, which is decided by whether louder yes or no is called and it is impossible here in retrospect to determine how the individual MPs have voted. U.S. President Bill Clinton signed the " Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act 1998 ' on 21 October of the same year.

As a consequence of the law are under current law in the United States, any copyrighted works whose protection on 1 January 1978 still existed, pass over before 1 January 2019 the Public Domain.

Political climate

In addition to Disney, whose intense lobbying the law the name " Mickey Mouse Protection Act " brought, supported Sonny Bono's widow and successor as Congressman Mary Bono and the community of heirs of George Gershwin the bill. Mary Bono noted in a speech to the House of Representatives that " Sonny wanted the copyright protection forever should last ," but after she " was informed by their employees about the fact that such an amendment to the Constitution would be violated, " should Congress Jack Valenti's drag suggestion into consideration, the " For forever, minus a day," provides a copyright term of protection.

Senate Report 104-315

The Senate Report 104-315 was the official reason for the adoption of copyright extension law, and was originally written in the context of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995, Section 483:

"The purpose of the Act is to provide for a suitable copyright protection for American works in foreign nations, and to pocket the economic advantages of foreign trade surplus in the use of copyrighted goods in the future. The Act achieves these goals by extending the current U.S. copyright protection period by a further 20 years. Such an extension will provide further significant trade benefits by the U.S. copyright to the places it in a significant way the European Union in line while ensuring fair compensation for American authors who deserve full in the use of their created works to benefit. Furthermore, such an extension by stimulating the creation of new works and delivers enhanced economic incentives already to preserve existing works, improve the scope, vitality and access to the Public Domain in the long term. "

The authors of the report believed that the extension of copyright protection would help the United States to ensure greater protection of their works in other countries. In addition, they assumed that the rights holders would be given an incentive to digitize their works and to obtain because they had the exclusive rights to it. The report also included dissenting minority opinions of Herb Kohl and Hank Brown, who believed that the extension of the term of protection would mean a financial gift to the present owner of the copyrighted works to the detriment of the public use of the material.

Support

Advocate of Copyright Term Extension Act argue that the law is necessary, on the one hand, because human life expectancy has increased dramatically since the passage of the Copyright Act of 1790 by the U.S. Congress, on the other hand would make a difference in the duration of copyright protection between the United States and the European Union have a negative impact on the international companies in the entertainment industry.

Another reason was mentioned that some works would be created only under the condition of unlimited copyright protection that would not be created under the application of a temporary copyright protection. They also claim that Congress has the power to set an arbitrary temporary or perpetual copyright protection period since the passage in question " To promote scientific progress and the useful arts " in the Constitution of the United States, is not a significant limitation of the powers of Congress.

This remains the only effective condition the immediately succeeding sentence " can be a time-limited copyright to be created ." It would have been never found, the extent to which the time allowed should be limited. Thus, in the literal sense would even be a limit of one million years a valid " time limit" within the meaning of the constitutional text.

Opposition

Opponents of the Copyright Term Extension Act to keep the law for little more than a gift to the rights collecting societies and have, so far unsuccessfully, tried to make declare it as unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

They claim that the law was " unnecessarily inappropriate" to reach out "to promote the progress of science and useful arts " the purpose contained in the Constitution. They argue that most copyright works already provide the bulk of their profits in just a few years after publication and are then taken by the collecting societies from the market. It would thus given by the extension of copyright protection, only a small economic incentive, except for the owners of long-lived franchises (such as Disney characters ), which are very good in business anyway.

Next consider two consecutive extensions of the term of protection ( by the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998) as the beginning of a " slippery slope " on the way to an unlimited copyright protection, which in the Constitution of the United States can run dry requirement for a temporal limitation included. They argue to the fact that the Copyright Protection Act of 1790 only a period of protection of 28 years (now 75 years or more) foresaw, and since then has not tripled life expectancy. If you let the child mortality rate outside ago, the average life expectancy has increased ever since about 10 years.

They refer to the comparable period of protection of patents is 20 years and was extended not parallel. This is still suitable to profitably recoup in this period, the investments made.

It is also pointed out that a "harmonization" of copyright with the law in force in other countries, a " Froschhüpfeffekt " may include: extend two sides repeated the term of protection of copyright, to keep up with the other.

It is also questioned the argument that " new works would not be created ." Obviously, the Constitution of the United States assumed that more new works to be created, so this was not included as a purpose for copyright protection. It limited the eligible purposes to " the progress of science and useful arts ".

As a strong argument is also noted that certain works are not created under an unlimited copyright protection, because a possible author of a further development of a work neither the money, the time, nor has the possibility to locate clear the rights holders and to purchase a license. It may also be that these rights owner is not willing to price as the owner then allow a further development of the original work. It can therefore be argued that a rich, continually padded public ownership is necessary for continuing artistic creation.

For example, Walt Disney served at the creation of his characters in the located in the Public Domain stories of the Brothers Grimm. The Jungle Book was only seven years after the copyright had expired in the book, a film by Disney. This might not have been possible if these stories would have been still protected by copyright. Recent works of popular culture, for which a copyright may not be attached, are the novels Frankenstein and Dracula. Both were created in the 19th century.

The most sacred scriptures of the major religions are in the public domain so that they modified, adapted, translated, paraphrased and otherwise may be made available to meet contemporary listeners. If the Roman Catholic Church had a perpetual copyright on the writings of Paul of Tarsus, he is entitled to refuse a license for translation. They also had other churches may prohibit the use.

They also point to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which limits the powers that may result from an agreement Congress. They deny the argument of the advocate in terms of increased life expectancy.

Constitutional complaint ( Eldred v. Ashcroft )

Publishers and librarians, among others, defendants in the case Eldred v. Ashcroft, to reach an injunction against the effectiveness of the Copyright Term Extension Act. On 9 October 2002, the arguments of the Supreme Court ( Supreme Court of the United States ) were heard in oral proceedings. On 15 January 2003, the Supreme Court announced a decision by 7 votes to 2 that the Copyright Term Extension Act was constitutional.

The plaintiffs in the Eldred case have since begun to shift their efforts to the U.S. Congress. You want to bring a law called Public Domain Enhancement Act ( Act to Strengthen the Public Domain ) on the way, so the Copyright Term Enhancement Act would only apply to those works which are registered with the Library of Congress.

Other activists practice in civil disobedience by openly breaking the law.