[pd-discuss] GATT copyright restoration rules misinterpreted by hathitrust? (and public domain remaining locked...)

[Peter B. Hirtle]

It is not necessarily true that all of Ettore Stampini's works are in the public domain in the U.S., even though they may be in the public domain in their source country.  On 1 January 1996, the US "restored" copyright in those works.  According to 17 USC 104A(a)(1)(b), each work received in the US " the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted in the United States if the work never entered the public domain in the United States."  That means that works of Stampini's published after 1922 would get a 95 year copyright term, regardless of when he died, since US works get a 95 year term.  That is how an Italian work can be in the public domain in Italy but still be protected in the U.S.  Conversely, you can have Italian works that are still protected by copyright in Italy, but if they were published before 1923, they are in the public domain in the U.S.

Unfortunately when it comes to US copyright law, "wisdom" is never at issue.  Merry Christmas!

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pd-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:pd-discuss-
> bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of fred.harris
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:50 AM
> To: pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: [pd-discuss] GATT copyright restoration rules misinterpreted by
> hathitrust? (and public domain remaining locked...)
> 
> Peter B. Hirtle said
> 
> > Copyright was only restored in works that were not in the public
> > domain in their home country as of 1 January 1996 (or the date of
> > adherence to the Berne Convention or WTO, if later).
> [...]
> but, (correct me if I'm wrong). I think this  point produces confusion that is
> what copyright cartel wanted - ) this does not mean that works IN COPYRIGHT
> will be FOREVER IN COPYRIGHT.  A work that was  IN COPYRIGHT IN ITS
> SOURCE COUNTRY in 1996, once its copyright will expire
>   IN ITS SOURCE COUNTRY, will be in public domain also in USA
> 
> Let's make an example:
> 
> the works by *Stampini, Ettore (1855-1930)*
> 
> entered in public domain in Italy in 2000 [source country] (1930+70)=2000
> 
> from this date, Ettore Stampini's works are in PUBLIC DOMAIN WORLDWIDE,
> since in  SOURCE COUNTRY, copyright expired (following the right
> interpretation of GATT) [I'm especially referring to circular 38b by Copyright
> Office)
> - http://www.copyright.gov/gatt.html
> 
> but, the confusion produced by superficial GATT READINGS, produced this
> reply by Hathitrust for this book
> 
> *Le Georgiche di Virgilio, commentate da Ettore Stampini*
> - http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008235250
> 
> "DUE TO THE GATT TREATY, THIS VOLUME IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IN ITALY
> AND OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD, BUT NOT IN THE UNITED STATES. WE HAVE
> BEEN WORKING ON CONFIGURING OUR TECHNICAL SYSTEMS TO
> ACCOMMODATE THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, BUT SOME WORK IS REMAINING. I AM
> TOLD THAT WE SHOULD HAVE EVERYTHING IN PLACE IN LATE JANUARY OR
> EARLY FEBRUARY. AT THAT POINT, THIS VOLUME WILL BECOME AVAILABLE."
> 
> the statement *THIS VOLUME IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IN ITALY AND OTHER
> PARTS OF THE WORLD, BUT NOT IN THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> is wrong for me
> 
> since GATT rules cannot to be intended in this way, otherwise, we make GATT
> able to impose PERPETUAL COPYRIGHT ON WORKS WHOSE COPYRIGHT
> EXPIRED IN ITS SOURCE COUNTRY. that would be an absurdity and a thing out
> of scope of treatise (but probably in minds of copyright cartel)
> 
> For every author, every year, after the 1996, to decide if he/she/it is in public
> domain in USA, GATT says that we must look at copyright status in source
> country, and we will have two different cases
> 
> 1 - in his source country, author is in copyright? He remains in copyright also
> in USA
> 
> 2 - in his source country, author is out of copyright, so, is in public domain,
> and failing one of the requirements (that need to all satisfied) for copyright
> restoration, this author is in public domain also in USA
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, I repeat, but documentation about  GATT, and especially the
> Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the URAA (circular 38b)
> - http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38b.pdf
> 
> seem to me pretty clear, otherwise, we transform a law with its fundamentals
> and logic in a MONSTRUM IURIDICUM, that keeps away
> *forever* USA people from public domain works even if they are in PUBLIC
> DOMAIN
> 
> it is logical that copyright status needs to verified every year, as times goes by
> and cannot to be FIXED once and for all, since, as times goes by, a work enters
> in public domain
> 
> excuse me, for to be so verbose (shame to me if I'm wrong), Mr. Hirtle, you
> are surely wiser than me on this side
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pd-discuss mailing list
> pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/pd-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/pd-discuss