American law of extension of the term of the royalties

The American Loi of extension of the term of the royalty ( Copyright Term Extension Act ) is a law voted in 1998 by the American congress concerning the extension by 20 years to the the United States of the royalties. This law is also known under the name of Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of the name of the politician (former singer) at the origin of the law and pejoratively under the name of Mickey Mouse Protection Act because of the important support, provided by the Walt Disney Company, in favor of this law. The law is referred since October 27th, 1998 under Public Law 105-298 .

This law is the second of the kind. In 1976, the Copyright Act off 1976 had prolonged the term of the royalties to 50 years after the death of an author and to 75 years for works in collective name of company. The Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act prolongs the rights to 70 years after death of an author and to 95 years for the companies. This law modifies also the royalties of works former to January 1st 1978 by adding 20 years in their term.

This law causes to freeze the dates of entry in the Public domain of works in the United States. Thus, none works created after January 1st 1923, and which would have had to enter the public domain in 1998, will be it before 2019. It is not retroactive at all for works already in the public domain, but this is in the sense that all the works produced since 1923 (based on the date of publication) are protected 20 years more.

Curiously, the two laws received a strong support on behalf of Walt Disney Company which, at the time of the two laws, was likely to lose its rights on the character of Mickey Mouse and thus could protect all works from the company founded in 1923.

History

Under the terms of the Convention of Bern for the protection of literary works and artistic, the states signatories must be provided with a law of protection of the royalties with a minimum term 50 years after death of the author, but they are authorized to put pursuant to the law of protection with longer expiries. To make following the directing harmonization of the terms of protection of the royalty of 1993, the Member States of the European Union mainly adopted laws with a 70 years term after death. The the United States became signatories of the convention of Bern only in 1988 but they had already the minimal conditions required thanks to the law on the royalties of 1976.

Before this law of 1976, many literary, cinematographic protected works or characters of fiction would have to pass to the public domain because of 56 years the maximum term of publication. Some of these protected works remained still advantageous for the holders of their rights like the characters of the Walt Disney Company. Thanks to this first law which prolonged the term up to 75 years after their exits, the first short films of Animation of Mickey Mouse such as Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy were protected until the year 2000. Many companies, like Disney with Mickey Mouse and other characters, had protected their creations as a registered trademarks. In several states (as Russia where the convention of Bern was adopted only tardily and is not retroactive) Mickey Mouse and all the other protected works created before 1970 fell into the public domain.

After the accession of the United States to the Convention of Bern, a certain number of holders of royalties made pressure successfully on the American congress to obtain an extension of the term of the royalties in order to have a law of protection comparable with those of some European countries. The law was named according to the member of Parliament deceased Sony Bono (deceased in an accident of ski nine months before the promulgation of the law) which had favorably supported the holders as a type-setter and a realizer before his entry in policy.

The two rooms of the congress adopted the law under the reference Public Law 105-298 by oral Vote, which makes impossible to determine which voted for or against. The Loi (American) Sony Bono of extension of the term of the royalties of 1998 ( Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act off 1998 ) was ratified by Bill Clinton the October 21st 1998.

The consequence of this law is that none protected works by the royalty will be able to pass to the public domain before January 1st 2019 for oldest created in 1923.

Political climate

In addition to Disney (whose important efforts of lobbying inspired the nickname of " The Mickey Mouse Act" Protection;), the Californian member of the congress Mary Bono (widowed of Sony Bono and its successor with the congress) and the heirs to the type-setter George Gershwin supported the law. Mary Bono declared on the parquet floor of the Chambre of the Representatives of the United States that " Sony wanted that the term of the protection of the royalties is pushed back until the éternité" but that since it had had for summer " informed that such a change would have violated the Constitution of the United States " , the Congrès should consider the proposal of Jack Valenti, since president of the Motion Picture Association off America (MPAA), of a term of " eternity minus a jour."

Report/ratio of the American senate 104-315

The report/ratio of the American senate 104-315 gives the official reasons to promulgate the law of extension of the term of the royalties and had written writes at the origin in the context of the law of 1995, S. 483.

the goal of this ordinance is to guarantee an adequate protection of the royalties for American works in the foreign countries and the continuity of the economic incomes of a very profit trade balance due to the exploitation of works under royalties. This ordinance achieves its goals by prolonging the current American terms of the royalties by adding 20 years. Such a prolongation will provide significant trading profits by substantially harmonizing the American law on the royalties to that of the European Union while guaranteeing the reasonable compensations for the American creators who fail to profit fully from the exploitation of their works. Moreover, by stimulating the creation of new works and by providing economic stimulations improved to preserve their existing works, such a prolongation will improve long-term volume, the validity and accessibility with the public domain.

The authors of the report/ratio believed that the extension of the protection of the royalties would help the United States, by providing a greater protection of their works in the foreign countries and by giving more incentives to digitize and preserve works on which they have a right of exclusiveness. The report/ratio also includes the minority opinions of Herb Kohl and Hank Brown which believed that the prolongation of the term would be a financial aubaine for the current owners of material protected with the increase from the use by the public of this material.

Support

The favorable ones to the law Sony Bono support that it is necessary, because of the increase in longevity in the men since the congress signed the original law on the royalties in 1790, because of the difference of the expiries between the European and American laws who should negatively affect the international actions of the industry of the leisures, and for the reason that certain works could be created only with term with perpetuity and never with royalties limited in time.

They also declare that the congress has the capacity to legislate any term which it wishes, because the mention to promote the usual art and advance in knowledge in the constitution of the United States is not a limitation substantivizes with the capacity of the congress, leaving the only restriction which the royalties must be only limited in time.

However, which must be the respect of granted time forever be defined. Thus, even a duration absurdly long, but finished, should always be a limiting of valid time according to this part of the constitution as a long time as the congress openly based this limit on the promotion of the progès of sciences and arts. It is one of the arguments which prevailed in the business Eldred v. Ashcroft whose Supreme court was used for itself to validate the constitutionality of this law.

Opposition

The opponents with this law regard the legislation as a little more than of the assistance to the companies and tried (without success) to blame its constitutionality, informant that such a law is not " necessary and utile" to conclude the official goal of the constitution which is of " to promote the arts" and advance in knowledge;. They add that the majority of works will bring more profits during the few first years and will be then put at the variation of the market by the editors.

Infant mortality, they cuts increased barely ten years), and that even though terms obvious cuts not been extended in parallel, obvious adequately reward investment in the field with to their mother twenty-year term. It has been said that extending copyright terms to " harmonize" with those elsewhere edge involve has " leapfrogging" effect: two sides repeatedly extend to their copyright terms to try and keep up with each other.

Another argument is year " offshore oil rig production" argument: that, for example, derivative works could Be created outside the United States in areas where copyright would cuts expired, such works advancing science gold the useful arts, and that US law would prohibit thesis works to US residents. With movie off Mickey Mouse playing with has computer (with the Sorcerer' S Apprentice) could Be legally created in Russia and children worldwide could profit immeasurably from watching it, goal the movie would Be refused admission for importation by US Customs because off copyright, resulting in has deprivation to American children.

Opponents also question the proponents' " new works would not Be created" argument by pointing out proponents' hidden possible presumption that the goal is to make the creation off new works, whereas the authors off the United States Constitution evidently thought that unnecessary and explicitly restricted the goal to merely " promot the progress off science and useful arts". In fact, nap works created under time-limited copyright would not Be created under perpetual copyright because the creator off has distantly derivative work does not cuts the money and resources to find the owner off original copyright in the work and purchase has license, but the individual gold privately held owner off original copyright in the work might refuses to license has uses At any price (though has refusal to license may trigger has Fair uses safety valve). One edge thus wire-drawer that has rich, continually replenished, public domain is necessary for continued artistic creation.

For example, the works off English playwright and poet William Shakespeare and the Greek myths cuts been the basis for much off Neil Gaiman 'S writing, which might well not cuts been created yew they were still under copyright. Recent works that cuts entered the popular culture, and for which copyright is arguably not appropriate, include the Novel S that created Frankenstein and Dracula, both originating in the 19th century. Most off the holy writings off major Religion S are also in the public domain, which Al them to Be adapted, translated, paraphrased and otherwise made suitable to modern audiences. Yew the Roman Catholic Church had has off perpetual copyright one the letters the Apostle Paul, the Gospels furnace, the Book off Revelation and the letters off James, Peter, John, Jude and the anonymous author off the Book off Hebrew, it could cuts refused to license them for translation, gold for uses by other churches. Many off Disney' S most famous feature movies cuts themselves been off derivative public domain works; for example, its film The Jungle Book was created only seven years after the copyright one the book expired.

There November 2, 2005, the United States Register off Copyrights, Marybeth Peters, stated in is symposium one intellectual property At the University off North Carolina law school that, " We' ve certainly lengthened the term copyright perhaps -- I won' T even say perhaps -- too long has term. I think it is too long. I think that was probably has big mistake, goal one that Congress edge make." -->

Challenge

The editors and booksellers, among others, carried the business Eldred v. Ashcroft to obtain an injunction against the reinforcement of the law. The oral arguments were heard by the Supreme court of the United States on October 9th, 2002 and on January 15th, 2003. The court voted in favor of the constitutionality of this law by a decision of 7 against 2.

The plaintiffs in the Eldred business, as in 2003, started to carry their efforts against the congress by supporting an ordinance called Loi of improvement of the public domain ( Public domain Enhancement Act ) which would have returned the advantages of the law valid Sony Bono only for works deposited to the Bibliothèque of the Congress.

Other groups of activists practice civil disobedience by violating the law in public. However, these actions obtain only little success.

External bonds

Summary of the rules of protection of the royalty

Cornell Univ. Copyright Protection Chart

Documentation of the government of the United States

S.505: Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
Senate Carryforward No 104-315
Public Law 105-298
Transcript off oral arguments in Eldred vs. Ashrcroft - (pdf)

Views off Opponents

The Eric Eldred Act
Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act opposition by Damian Yerrick.
Let the Stories Go by Lawrence Lessig, April 30, 2001 (NY Times restricted access)
Litman Decries Overbroad Copyright Protection and Foam Trapped by Mike Godwin
Discussion one Elivis Copyrights expiring in the U.K.
Article in Findlaw' S Writ by Chris Sprigman
coverage off opposition by attorney Lawrence Lessig
'' DIGITAL COPYRIGHT '' by Jessica Litman
Opposing Copyright Extension
Thomas Maucalay one Law Copyright. Possible Maucalay understood the dangers when has battle to extend copyright one literature was being fought in 1841. Macaulay saw public No benefit from has monopoly.
" Melancholy Elephants" , from the Baen Books Free Library - has cautionary story by Spider Robinson. He later backed away from that position (while noting the irony) in has column collected in his 2004 The Crazy Years
Quotation from [[Mary-Beth Peters]]

-->

Random links: