5 ms·

Supreme Court Takes Up Scholars' Rights

41 points by grellas 15y ago

iqster 15y ago
Excellent article. The Mickey Mouse Protection Act always made me uneasy. What's to say they don't extend protection yet again? Perpetual copyrights are no less than tyranny in a media society. This article talks about an instance where works that had previously gone into public domain were brought out of it. Granted, this was done to bring US law in line with International Treaties. It still feels wrong though.
- Jun8 15y ago
  The interesting question is: should such decisions be made by the Congress or the judiciary (e.g Supreme Court) system? This would be one hell of a case for the Supreme Court. Note that in 2003 the SC held the extension of the copyrights passed by the Congress in 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_v._Holder#cite_note-CIT_Granted-12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_v._Holder#cite_note-CIT_G...). The SC Blog has interesting information about the case: http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/03/a-major-test-of-copyright-power/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/03/a-major-test-of-copyright-...
- protomyth 15y ago
  At this point, I wish (as a compromise) that they changed trademark law and stopped (or rolled back) the extension of copyrights. It would seem that Disney and Co. could live with no else being allowed to make "Mickey Mouse" (substitute character here) media but allowing the older works to pass into the public domain. It is not a great compromise, but it would probably allow older works to actually be available and preserved.
- adestefan 15y ago
  The real shame is that most of Disney's early works are based off of stories and characters that are public domain.
tibbon 15y ago
Wow, I didn't realize that they actually took some stuff that was in the public domain and put it back under copyright. Very very interesting.
- adestefan 15y ago
  Note that the retroactive copyright only applies to foreign works. The Berne Convention requires a country to apply the same copyright protections to foreign works as the country of origin. It began as an effort to standardize copyright terms throughout Europe in the late 19th century. The US didn't become a participant until 1989 which is why the retroactive law was passed.
  - TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
    US Constitution Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3 "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Will a legal scholar or similarly minded person please explain why this isn't an ex post facto (after the fact) law?
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - adestefan 15y ago
      You're looking for Calder v Bull where the Supreme Court decided that ex post facto only applies to criminal law and not civil law. It makes a distinction between a law that changes punishment and law for criminal proceedings or a law that is merely retroactive.
      - TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
        If I'm reading correctly from Wikipedia, that decision was somewhat ambiguous. It either indicated that the State legislature had the right to order a re-review of a will, overturning a previous judgement. SCOTUS seemed to me more concerned about rights of a state legislature. Also, the Constitution does make the distinction between civil and criminal. It says "Make no law", which is in the similar wording that the Bill of Rights, Amendment 1 states.

41 points by grellas 15y ago

Excellent article. The Mickey Mouse Protection Act always made me uneasy. What's to say they don't extend protection yet again? Perpetual copyrights are no less than tyranny in a media society. This article talks about an instance where works that had previously gone into public domain were brought out of it. Granted, this was done to bring US law in line with International Treaties. It still feels wrong though.

Jun8 15y ago
The interesting question is: should such decisions be made by the Congress or the judiciary (e.g Supreme Court) system? This would be one hell of a case for the Supreme Court. Note that in 2003 the SC held the extension of the copyrights passed by the Congress in 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_v._Holder#cite_note-CIT_Granted-12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_v._Holder#cite_note-CIT_G...). The SC Blog has interesting information about the case: http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/03/a-major-test-of-copyright-power/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/03/a-major-test-of-copyright-...
protomyth 15y ago
At this point, I wish (as a compromise) that they changed trademark law and stopped (or rolled back) the extension of copyrights. It would seem that Disney and Co. could live with no else being allowed to make "Mickey Mouse" (substitute character here) media but allowing the older works to pass into the public domain. It is not a great compromise, but it would probably allow older works to actually be available and preserved.
adestefan 15y ago
The real shame is that most of Disney's early works are based off of stories and characters that are public domain.

tibbon 15y ago

Wow, I didn't realize that they actually took some stuff that was in the public domain and put it back under copyright. Very very interesting.

adestefan 15y ago
Note that the retroactive copyright only applies to foreign works. The Berne Convention requires a country to apply the same copyright protections to foreign works as the country of origin. It began as an effort to standardize copyright terms throughout Europe in the late 19th century. The US didn't become a participant until 1989 which is why the retroactive law was passed.
- TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
  US Constitution Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3 "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Will a legal scholar or similarly minded person please explain why this isn't an ex post facto (after the fact) law?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - adestefan 15y ago
    You're looking for Calder v Bull where the Supreme Court decided that ex post facto only applies to criminal law and not civil law. It makes a distinction between a law that changes punishment and law for criminal proceedings or a law that is merely retroactive.
    - TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
      If I'm reading correctly from Wikipedia, that decision was somewhat ambiguous. It either indicated that the State legislature had the right to order a re-review of a will, overturning a previous judgement. SCOTUS seemed to me more concerned about rights of a state legislature. Also, the Constitution does make the distinction between civil and criminal. It says "Make no law", which is in the similar wording that the Bill of Rights, Amendment 1 states.