Re: [gutvol-d] Copyright to 1909
From the UK Act:
Duration of copyright Section 12: Duration of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works 12.-(1) The following provisions have effect with respect to the duration of copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. (2) Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, subject as follows. SCHEDULE 1 Copyright: transitional provisions and savings 3. The new copyright provisions apply in relation to things existing at commencement as they apply in relation to things coming into existence after commencement, subject to any express provision to the contrary. 5.-(1) Copyright subsists in an existing work after commencement only if copyright subsisted in it immediately before commencement. Duration of copyright in existing works 12.-(1) The following provisions have effect with respect to the duration of copyright in existing works. The question which provision applies to a work shall be determined by reference to the facts immediately before commencement; and expressions used in this paragraph which were defined for the purposes of the 1956 Act have the same meaning as in that Act. (2) Copyright in the following descriptions of work continues to subsist until the date on which it would have expired under the 1956 Act- (a) literary, dramatic or musical works in relation to which the period of 50 years mentioned in the proviso to section 2(3) of the 1956 Act (duration of copyright in works made available to the public after the death of the author) has begun to run; Unless I'm missing something, reading all these sections together, esp. s. 5(1) of the Schedule, spell non-retroactivity of the stupid, stupid, stupid 20-year extension to life+70. If the life+50 term had already run out, the life+70 term does NOT apply.
Wallace J.McLean <ag737@freenet.carleton.ca> writes
From the UK Act:
The relevant legislation, which you are quoting, IS NOT an Act (primary legislation) it is a Statutory Instrument (SI) (secondary legislation) specifically it is: Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 3297 The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995
Unless I'm missing something, reading all these sections together, esp. s. 5(1) of the Schedule, spell non-retroactivity of the stupid, stupid, stupid 20-year extension to life+70. If the life+50 term had already run out, the life+70 term does NOT apply.
How when reading the SI did you miss this? Extended and revived copyright 17. In the following provisions of this Part— "extended copyright" means any copyright which subsists by virtue of the new provisions after the date on which it would have expired under the 1988 provisions; and "revived copyright" means any copyright which subsists by virtue of the new provisions after having expired under the 1988 provisions or any earlier enactment relating to copyright. Which rather clearly demonstrates that revived copyright exists. The term is also used in several other parts of the SI, for example dealing with the ownership of revived copyright. -- Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/ Brett Paul Dunbar To email me, use reply-to address
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:11:07 -0400, "Wallace J.McLean" <ag737@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote: | | | | |>From the UK Act: | | |Duration of copyright | |Section 12: Duration of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical or |artistic works | |12.-(1) The following provisions have effect with respect to the |duration of copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic |work. | |(2) Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the |end of the calendar year in which the author dies, subject as follows. | | | |SCHEDULE 1 | |Copyright: transitional provisions and savings | | |3. The new copyright provisions apply in relation to things existing |at commencement as they apply in relation to things coming into |existence after commencement, subject to any express provision to the |contrary. | |5.-(1) Copyright subsists in an existing work after commencement only |if copyright subsisted in it immediately before commencement. | | |Duration of copyright in existing works | |12.-(1) The following provisions have effect with respect to the |duration of copyright in existing works. | |The question which provision applies to a work shall be determined by |reference to the facts immediately before commencement; and |expressions used in this paragraph which were defined for the purposes |of the 1956 Act have the same meaning as in that Act. | |(2) Copyright in the following descriptions of work continues to |subsist until the date on which it would have expired under the 1956 |Act- | |(a) literary, dramatic or musical works in relation to which the |period of 50 years mentioned in the proviso to section 2(3) of the |1956 Act (duration of copyright in works made available to the public |after the death of the author) has begun to run; | | | |Unless I'm missing something, reading all these sections together, |esp. s. 5(1) of the Schedule, spell non-retroactivity of the stupid, |stupid, stupid 20-year extension to life+70. If the life+50 term had |already run out, the life+70 term does NOT apply. The UK parliament absolutely *hates* retrospective laws, and almost never passes them, so this is what I would expect. -- Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> "Intelligent Design?" my knees say *not*. "Intelligent Design?" my back says *not*. More like "Incompetent design". Sig (C) Copyright Public Domain
Dave Fawthrop wrote:
| |Unless I'm missing something, reading all these sections together, |esp. s. 5(1) of the Schedule, spell non-retroactivity of the stupid, |stupid, stupid 20-year extension to life+70. If the life+50 term had |already run out, the life+70 term does NOT apply.
The UK parliament absolutely *hates* retrospective laws, and almost never passes them, so this is what I would expect.
The retroactivity stems from EU treaties, and was never made explicit in the law. Since parliament considered the issue non-controversial, it just passed the law without much discussion. The law is not retroactive in the sense that it criminalizes past behaviour, even though it stole works from the public domain. Same happened in Holland. Shame, shame, shame, and lets lobby to reverse this law. If only enough EU lawmakers realize how bad this is, it could be reversed. Jeroen.
participants (4)
-
Brett Paul Dunbar -
Dave Fawthrop -
Jeroen Hellingman (Mailing List Account) -
Wallace J.McLean