Two points of clarification, one which I think most people know is that the US did not allow GATT to extend copyright beyond US copyright so no film copyrighted prior to 1924 is under copyright in the US regardless of it's status in its country of origin. Also the copyright is not exactly "automatic" under GATT. In order for the copyright to take effect the rights holder has to file their paperwork with the copyright office at the Library of Congress. A lot of rights holders have in fact not done this, either because they are unaware of it or because no one is really sure who owns it. In any event a lot of smaller foreign films have been put out under dubious circumstances which are not illegal unless the rights holder has in fact filed their claim with the copyright office. However the rights holder can file at any time which would stop any further distribution of the work by anyone besides them or their agent. Current agreements do make copyright reciprocal without having to file but this was not the case for many decades.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Brewer, Michael < [email protected]> wrote: > >From a colleague who is more well versed on international copyright that I > am. > > Michael Brewer > Team Leader for Instructional Services > University of Arizona Libraries > [email protected] > > --------------------------- > > It's the TRIPS Agreement, implementing the Berne Convention, that put > eligible foreign works into (or back into) copyright in the U.S., starting > on January 1, 1996. A key condition is that the work was protected on the > restoration date in the country of origin. The restoration date for the > Russian Federation was 1/1/96. On that date, eligible works originating in > the territory of the Russian Federation, and still in copyright there, > obtained a U.S. copyright term. > > Many eligible works that were still in copyright under Russian Federation > law on 1/1/96, but their copyright terms have since expired in Russia. At > the same time, the U.S copyrights have a life of their own and may still be > in effect. > > For example, a work that was published in Moscow in 1930 by an author who > died in 1952, barring any exceptional situations, would have expired in the > Russian Federation in 2002. But because it was still copyrighted in the RF > on 1/1/96, it would have been restored in the U.S. The U.S. term for that > work would be 95 years from publication- thus it is protected in the U.S. > through 2025. > > These situations are very common- copyright terms can widely diverge from > one country to another on the same work. > > Janice Pilch > Chair, Commitee on Library and Information Resources, Subcomittee on > Copryright Issues Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian > Studies > > > Janice T. Pilch > Associate Professor of Library Administration, Humanities Librarian > University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign University Library > 1408 West Gregory Drive > Urbana, IL 61801 > Tel. (217) 244-9399 > Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 12:56 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Videolib] Apple making available Russian films without > approval > > This really makes no sense. The only way you can get covered by GATT in the > US is if the film is copyrighted in it's country of origin and the country > is signatory of GATT. Well at least that is what I have been told from > copyright people. > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Brigid Duffy <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > For example, this note from Wikipedia on "The Snow Maiden": > > The film is listed as being in the public domain on the website of the > Russian Federal Agency of Culture and Cinematography< > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Federal_Agency_of_Culture_and_Cinematography&action=edit&redlink=1>. > [1]<http://www.rosculture.ru/movies_list/listing/show/?id=35442> The film > also lapsed into the public domain in the United States when its US > copyright expired, but the copyright was restored under the GATT treaty. > [2]<http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1996/61fr68453.html> > > I would call that messy. > > Brigid Duffy > Academic Technology > San Francisco State University > San Francisco, CA 94132-4200 > E-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Jessica Rosner wrote: > > > At one point the issue with the Russian films was that they had not signed > the GATT treaty, but I assume they have since. Mosfilm had a huge problem in > the US because there was an insane bootlegger here that usually went by the > name of St. Petersburg films that actually tried to file copyright claims at > the Library of Congress on most Russian classics. The guy was a real piece > of work and Mosfilms rep here took him to court many times and did win. I > actually had to file some paperwork for Kino which had some of the films > under contract and even had to speak to the guys parole officer. > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Brewer, Michael < > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > While it may be messy (who actually owns what, because of changes in the > studio system), these things are all clearly under copyright. In the 1990s > things we messy, but since then, with the signing of various international > treaties, a great deal of what was published in the Soviet period is > protected (even though it once was not in the US). > mb > > Michael Brewer > Team Leader for Instructional Services > University of Arizona Libraries > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > From: [email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]> [mailto: > [email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 9:22 AM > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Videolib] Apple making available Russian films without > approval > > I don't know if this has anything to do with this but the copyright status > on a lot of Russian films of that period is messy. > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Brewer, Michael < > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > Interesting. Can't imagine this will continue, but it is interesting that > it made it into an app in the first place: > http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/general/1282492/apple-approves-itunes-films-that-break-copyright > > Michael Brewer > Team Leader for Instructional Services > University of Arizona Libraries > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > > VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues > relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, > preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and > related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective > working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication > between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and > distributors. > > > > -- > Jessica Rosner > Media Consultant > 224-545-3897 (cell) > 212-627-1785 (land line) > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues > relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, > preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and > related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective > working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication > between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and > distributors. > > > > -- > Jessica Rosner > Media Consultant > 224-545-3897 (cell) > 212-627-1785 (land line) > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues > relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, > preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and > related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective > working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication > between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and > distributors. > > > VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues > relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, > preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and > related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective > working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication > between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and > distributors. > > > > -- > Jessica Rosner > Media Consultant > 224-545-3897 (cell) > 212-627-1785 (land line) > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues > relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, > preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and > related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective > working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication > between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and > distributors. > -- Jessica Rosner Media Consultant 224-545-3897 (cell) 212-627-1785 (land line) [email protected]
VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors.
