On Aug 23, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM,  <birgitte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Snip
>>>> And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize 
>>>> copyright on diagnostic
>>>> images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation.
>>> Do you have a citation for this?  Also, is it where the image is
>>> created, or where it is first published, or something else?
>> Copyright, internationally, is bilateral agreements. If it is not protected 
>> in the US, it cannot
>> demand bilateral protection elsewhere.  It would be based on the 
>> jurisdiction of creation.
>> Publication has had nothing to do with the creation of copyright since the 
>> 1970's as far as I
>> am aware.  Before 1976, in the US, place of publication was significant for 
>> determining
>> copyright protection because of the notice requirement. Now copyright is 
>> automatic at fixation.
> Are you sure, or are you guessing?
> What about all that "country of origin" stuff in the Berne Convention?
> That certainly suggests to me that the location of first publication
> matters.

Publication shortens the copyright term that was enjoyed by the unpublished 
work. That is the only significance I am aware that the first publication has 
since the 1970's.

However, the Berne Convention is insane.  It is not set up as a bilateral 
treaty like I had thought. (Some of the other relevant agreement are.) It 

> [the enjoyment and exercise of copyright] ... shall be independent of the 
> existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, 
> apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as 
> well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, 
> shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is 
> claimed. — Berne Convention, article 5(2).

Here is an example of how insane that is.  In the US edicts of government are 
uncopyrightable. A few years ago Oregon "forgot" about this; they notices on 
their website and actually attempted to enforce copyright on the statues of 
Oregon. I am not sure how far this went in litigation before they were educated 
about copyright law. Now in the UK, edicts of government are copyrightable. The 
UK recently switched its license on the local statute from Crown Copyright to 
some new "Free Government" license. One way that Berne can be read is that if 
you had printed a copy of the Statues of Oregon from their website in Oregon; 
you were not infringing on copyright.  However if you had printed a copy of the 
Statues of Oregon from their website *in the UK*; you were infringing on the 
copyrights owned by the State of Oregon.  And if Oregon had sought to enforce 
these rights in the UK, they would have been able to.  

Now this is the really insane part. The US policy relies on common law, so 
there isn't a quotable  statue.  The summary is "such material as laws and 
governmental rules and decisions must be freely available to the public and 
made known as widely as possible; hence there must be no restriction on 
reproduction and dissemination of such documents." Now imagine the US federal 
government passed a law stating that "in order allow for the widest 
distribution possible, all edicts of government are to be protected by 
copyright for a term of 1 minute." If that were to happen then Oregon would no 
longer be able to enforce copyright on the Statutes of Oregon in the UK or any 
other Berne signatory that does not explicitly revoke the rule of the shorter 
term (one the "provisions of the Convention" that can invalidate the the quoted 
idea above).

Obviously, I just pulled all this together. And I am "just guessing", as you 
might say, about how it would actually play out. And while it is a crazy corner 
of international copyright, it is not an issue I am concerned with about the 
diagnostic images. I do not believe such images are copyrighted anywhere. Until 
someone cites some copyright law that is profoundly differently from generic US 
basis for what copyright is about, I am will remain confident that mere 
diagnostic images are universally without copyright protection.

Birgitte SB
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Reply via email to