On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM, GerardM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hoi, > This is of sufficient merit that I do it this way. > Thanks, > GerardM > > Aan u verzonden door GerardM via Google Reader: Court: Congress can't > put public domain back into copyright via Ars Technica door > [email protected] (Nate Anderson) op 6-4-09 > In 1994, Congress jammed a batch of foreign books and movies back into > the copyright closet. They had previously fallen into the public domain > for a variety of technical reasons (the author hadn't renewed the > rights with the US Copyright Office, the authors of older works hadn't > included a copyright notice, etc.) and companies and individuals had > already started reusing the newly public works. Did Congress have the > right to put a stop to this activity by shoving the works back into > copyright? On Friday, a federal court said no. > "Traditional contours of copyright" > 1994's Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) brought US intellectual > property law in line with that of other countries. Section 514 of URAA > better aligned US copyright law with the international Berne > Convention, one of the earliest international intellectual property > treaties. Though Berne had first been signed back in 1886, the US > hadn't joined up until a century later, in 1988. > Click here to read the rest of this article > > > Dingen die u vanaf hier kunt doen: > - Abonneren op Ars Technica met Google Reader > - Aan de slag met Google Reader om eenvoudig al uw favoriete sites bij > te houden > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >
The URL, for those wanting the rest of the story: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/court-congress-cant-put-public-domain-back-into-copyright.ars -Chad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
