International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice Paul Goldstein OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS International Copyright This page intentionally left blank International Copyright Principles, Law, and Practice Paul Goldstein Lillick Professor of Law Stanford University 1 2001 3 Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogotá Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris São Paulo Shanghai Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Copyright © 2001 by Paul Goldstein Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Goldstein, Paul, 1943– International copyright : principles, law, and practice / Paul Goldstein. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 0-19-512885-0 1. Copyright. 2. Copyright, International. I. Title. K1420.5 .G65 2000 341.7'582—dc21 00-024776 135798642 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper To Jan and Elizabeth This page intentionally left blank preface This book surveys the law of copyright between and among nations. Apart from applicable legal rules, the book describes the practices that animate international copyright and the principles that underlie it. The practicing lawyer engaged in licensing or litigating a copyrighted work abroad, or over- seeing the exploitation of a foreign work in his own country, will find guid- ance in these pages; so too will the researcher or student who wants to under- stand the forces that shape the copyright and neighboring rights laws of other countries and that control their interplay in the international system. National laws on copyright and neighboring rights are far more similar than they are different, a fact that makes it possible to treat the laws of many countries in a single volume. Widespread adherence to the Berne Conven- tion for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works explains much of this harmony—140 countries today belong to the Berne Union—and the con- vergence of national law promises to grow closer still, as the TRIPs Agree- ment, with 135 adherents, brings national laws into more immediate com- pliance with Berne norms as well as with norms introduced by the TRIPs Agreement itself. For those cases where national laws diverge, the book closely analyzes the rules of private international law to guide determina- tions of applicable law. Because of the connection it connotes between one legal culture and an- other, no attribute of a legal rule or principle is more satisfying than univer- sality. A handful of universal principles underpin national copyright laws. One is the axiom that copyright law will protect only original expression, leaving ideas—the building blocks of creativity—free for all to use. Legisla- tion or case law in every country holds that a literary work’s themes, plots, and stock characters are unprotectible, as are discrete colors and shapes in visual art, and rhythm, notes and harmony in music. Every national law recognizes that to give one author a monopoly over such fundamental cre- viii Preface ative elements would overreward that author while at the same time stunt- ing the efforts of later authors. A second universal principle, freedom of contract, informs copyright trans- actions around the world. It is widely thought that contractual freedom is the prevailing norm only in common law countries and that civil law countries, by contrast, regulate copyright contracts closely. In fact, and as a rule, courts everywhere enforce copyright contracts according to their terms. Legislatures and courts have, to be sure, carved out exceptions to freedom of contract, but these exceptions are no more evident in civil law countries than in common law countries. The German Copyright Act, for example, will invalidate at- tempted transfers of the right to exploit a work in unknown technologies, but this exception to the prevailing German norm of contractual freedom differs only in degree from the general presumption against such transfers in the United States and, indeed, is a less severe inroad on freedom of contract than provisions in the United States Copyright Act giving authors a nonwaivable right to terminate their copyright transfers after a prescribed period. Writers commonly identify the “author’s right” tradition of civil law coun- tries with principles of natural right and the “copyright” tradition of com- mon law countries with principles of utilitarianism. Whatever force this di- vision may once have had—and it is not clear that the division was ever more than symbolic—it surely has little practical or intellectual force today. An explicit natural rights strain did not emerge in the literature on authors’ rights until late in the nineteenth century, well after the first enactment of copyright laws on the European continent; almost a century earlier, a dis- tinctly utilitarian ideology was already at play in the French revolutionary copyright laws. Similarly, while an indisputably utilitarian thread runs through much of the intellectual history of English and American copyright, so too does a vibrant motif that the author has a natural right to profit from his ingenuity and labor. The history of the legislative process in civil law and common law countries reveals that if philosophic inclinations play any role at all in copyright lawmaking, the more accurate division is between the principles that motivate the creation of new rights and the principles that inform the limitations on these rights. Protectionist impulses of natural right, not rigorous utilitarian calibrations, have historically characterized the cre- ation of new rights, and the extension of old ones, in common law and civil law countries alike, just as a pragmatic weighing of benefits and costs, with a particular focus on transaction costs, characterizes the imposition of limi- tations on rights—even moral rights—in civil law no less than in common law countries. Differences in legislative style partially distinguish the civil law and com- mon law systems, and I have chosen the French and German statutes and the British and American statutes, respectively, as the main objects of com- parison. The French and German statutes are, to be sure, no more typical of the civil law tradition than the U.K. and U.S. statutes are typical of the com- Preface ix mon law tradition. One reason for choosing these countries as the principal objects of consideration is that, taken together, they embody the dominant approaches to the protection of literary and artistic works around the world. (Diverging approaches taken in other countries are considered where appro- priate.) Another reason is that these laws are the most widely discussed in legal commentary. Each of the four laws also embodies an influential trait of the tradition to which it belongs. The French statute represents the dual- ist approach to author’s right, pragmatically separating the author’s eco- nomic rights (limited in time, transferable) from his moral rights (perpetual, nominally inalienable), while the German statute represents the monist approach, fusing economic and moral interests into a single right that is lim- ited in time and is at least conceptually inalienable. Britain’s legislation ap- proaches the continental model of its European Union partners in several respects—highly specific exceptions from rights, for example, though with a less robust moral right—while the U.S. legislation takes an even more stint- ing approach to moral right and a far looser approach to exceptions, as re- flected in its fair use defense. Human rights undeniably intertwine copyright, but the predominant forces that have shaped the law are economic. Global communities of eco- nomic interest among copyright owners have been far more potent than ideology—or, for that matter, than the preoccupations of individual nation- states—in forming copyright doctrine. In the world of copyright policymaking, a Canadian book publisher has far more in common with a Japanese book publisher than it does with a Canadian librarian who wants to make free photocopies for library patrons. When, through the latter part of the nine- teenth century, British authors and publishers pressed an isolationist United States to extend copyright to English works, it was American authors and publishers, not British readers, who rallied to their cause. Not all copyright principles are universal, nor are all divisions false. To take just one example, a distinctive commitment in the United States to individual autonomy in political and economic life has left a visible mark on the nation’s copyright law. American fair use doctrine, permitting the free use of copy- righted works under circumstances that other countries would find hard to excuse, clearly mirrors the special place of free speech in the American con- stitutional scheme. In excusing certain new technological uses of copyrighted works, fair use and other statutory exemptions also reflect the American resistance to collective administration—a common institution in Europe and elsewhere—as a solution to the transaction costs that arise at the intersec-
Recommended publications
  • Intellectual Property Protection Under the TRIPS Component of the WTO Agreement
    J.H. REICHMAN* Universal Minimum Standards of Intellectual Property Protection under the TRIPS Component of the WTO Agreement I. Preliminary Considerations The absorption of classical intellectual property law into international economic law will gradually establish universal minimum standards' governing the relations between innovators and second comers in an integrated world market.2 This author's previous articles focused on the broader legal and economic implications of this trend.3 The object here is to convey a more detailed and comprehensive *B.A., Chicago, 1958; J.D., Yale, 1979. Professor of law, Vanderbilt Law School, Nashville, Tennessee. The author wishes to thank Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Paul Edward Geller, Paul Goldstein, Robert E. Hudec, and David Nimmer for helpful comments and critical suggestions, John Henderson and Jon Mellis for their research assistance, and Dean John J. Costonis for the grants that supported this project. 1. For a perceptive analysis of the conditions favoring the growth of universal legal standards generally, see Jonathan I. Charney, Universal International Law, 87 AM. J. INT'L L. 529, 543-50 (1993) (stressing "central role" of multilateral forums "in the creation and shaping of contemporary international law" and the ability of these forums to "move the solutions substantially towards acquiring the status of international law"). 2. See, e.g., J.H. Reichman, The TRIPS Componentof the GATT 's Uruguay Round: Competitive Prospectsfor Intellectual Property Owners in an Integrated World Market, 4 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP., MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 171, 173-78, 254-66 (1993) [hereinafter Reichman, TRIPS Component]. For background to these negotiations, see also J.H.
    [Show full text]
  • Conundra of the Berne Convention Concept of the Country of Origin
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2021 Conundra of the Berne Convention Concept of the Country of Origin Jane C. Ginsburg Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation Jane C. Ginsburg, Conundra of the Berne Convention Concept of the Country of Origin, COLUMBIA PUBLIC LAW RESEARCH PAPER NO. 14-684 (2021). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2733 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Conundra of the Berne Convention Concept of the Country of Origin Jane C. Ginsburg, Columbia University School of Law* Abstract This essay explores one of the most important, but occasionally intractable, issues under the Berne Convention, the concept of Country of Origin. Article 5(4) of that treaty defines a work’s country of origin, but leaves out several situations, leaving those who interpret and apply the treaty without guidance in ascertaining the country of origin. I will call those situations the “Conundra of the country of origin,” and will explore two of them here. First, what is the country of origin of an unpublished work whose authors are nationals of different countries? Second, what is the country of origin of a work exclusively made available over digital networks? In both situations, in the absence of treaty specification, the work may have multiple countries of origin.
    [Show full text]
  • J.D. Salinger and Copyright's Rule of the Shorter Term
    Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law Volume 19 Issue 4 Issue 4 - Summer 2017 Article 1 2017 J.D. Salinger and Copyright's Rule of the Shorter Term E. Townsend Gard Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation E. Townsend Gard, J.D. Salinger and Copyright's Rule of the Shorter Term, 19 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 777 (2020) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw/vol19/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. J.D. Salinger and Copyright's Rule of the Shorter Term E. Townsend Gard* ABSTRACT Recently, the small publishing house Devault-Graves took on the Salinger Estate in an, almost, epic battle to determine whether the copyright term had ended on three of Salinger's early short stories in each country around the world. Devault-Graves wanted a declaratory judgment stating that if the copyright term had expired in the United States, it would have expired in all other countries with a "rule of the shorter term" (RST). But copyright is never that simple, as Devault- Graves soon found out. This short-lived case provides a useful lens through which to view the property rights as defined by the "limited" term in copyright and the pesky concept of RST embodied in the Berne Convention.
    [Show full text]
  • ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT by Michaeljones
    COPYRIGHT ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT By MichaelJones On January 15, 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act ("CTEA"), which extended the term of copyright protection by twenty years.2 The decision has been ap- plauded by copyright protectionists who regard the extension as an effec- tive incentive to creators. In their view, it is a perfectly rational piece of legislation that reflects Congress's judgment as to the proper copyright term, balances the interests of copyright holders and users, and brings the3 United States into line with the European Union's copyright regime. However, the CTEA has been deplored by champions of a robust public domain, who see the extension as a giveaway to powerful conglomerates, which runs contrary to the public interest.4 Such activists see the CTEA as, in the words of Justice Stevens, a "gratuitous transfer of wealth" that will impoverish the public domain. 5 Consequently, Eldred, for those in agree- ment with Justice Stevens, is nothing less than the "Dred Scott case for 6 culture." The Court in Eldred rejected the petitioners' claims that (1) the CTEA did not pass constitutional muster under the Copyright Clause's "limited © 2004 Berkeley Technology Law Journal & Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. 1. Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 108, 203, 301-304 (2002). The Act's four provisions consider term extensions, transfer rights, a new in- fringement exception, and the division of fees, respectively; this Note deals only with the first provision, that of term extensions.
    [Show full text]
  • Technological Alterations to Motion Pictures and Other Audiovisual Works
    Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review Volume 10 Number 1 Article 1 1-1-1990 Technological Alterations to Motion Pictures and Other Audiovisual Works: Implications for Creators, Copyright Owners, and Consumers—Report of the Register of Copyrights Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/elr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation , Technological Alterations to Motion Pictures and Other Audiovisual Works: Implications for Creators, Copyright Owners, and Consumers—Report of the Register of Copyrights, 10 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 1 (1989). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/elr/vol10/iss1/1 This Other is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REPORT TECHNOLOGICAL ALTERATIONS TO MOTION PICTURES AND OTHER AUDIOVISUAL WORKS: IMPLICATIONS FOR CREATORS, COPYRIGHT OWNERS, AND CONSUMERS Report Of The Register Of Copyrights March 1989 United States Copyright Office Washington, D.C.t TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Sum m ary ............................................ 4 Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................ 11 Scope of the Copyright Office Study .......................... 11 Previous Copyright Office Actions ............................ 14 Issues Examined in this Report ............................... 16 Chapter 2: Copyright In The Motion Picture And Television Industries ...................................................... 18 Copyright Protection for Motion Pictures and Television Program s .................................................... 19 International Conventions .................................... 20 Universal Copyright Convention ............................ 20 The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works .........
    [Show full text]
  • Nafta's Regime for Intellectual Property: in the Mainstream of Public International
    NAFTA’S REGIME FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: IN THE MAINSTREAM OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW* James A.R. Nafziger† TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 807 II. TRANSFORMATION OF UNILATERAL MEASURES INTO PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW......................................................... 808 III. THE NAFTA REGIME ...................................................................... 816 IV. DISPUTE RESOLUTION UNDER THE NAFTA ................................... 821 V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 822 I. INTRODUCTION In this Decade of International Law,1 economic integration is un- doubtedly the greatest achievement of global and regional communities. New institutions—particularly the World Trade Organization (WTO);2 the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA);3 the Treaty Establishing * This article is based on remarks made during a panel presentation entitled Protection of Intellectual Property in International and National Law at a conference on The Role of International Law in the Americas: Rethinking National Sovereignty in an Age of Regional Integration, which was held in Mexico City, June 6–7, 1996, and was co-sponsored by the American Society of International Law and El Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Joint copyright is held by the Houston Journal of International Law, the author, and El Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la Universidad
    [Show full text]
  • Cardinal Court Club
    2007 Stanford Tennis Taube Tennis Center Led by the exceptional generosity of Tad and Dianne Taube, approximately 1,300 people have graciously donated almost $20 million in the past 17 years to create and complete the beautiful Taube Tennis Center. Stanford Directory Cardinal Quick Facts INsiDE FroNT COVER: Pictorial review of this Stanford Men’s Tennis Location: ........................................ Stanford, CA 94305 phenomenal community resource. John Whitlinger, Head Coach .............. (650) 725-5648 Founded: ................................................................. 1891 INsiDE REar coVER: The History. David Hodge, Assistant Coach ............. (650) 725-7195 Enrollment: ................. 13,075 (6,556 undergraduates) The Facility Today. J.J. Whitlinger, Volunteer Asst. Coach President: ............................................... John Hennessy Stanford Women’s Tennis Athletic Director: ...................................... Bob Bowlsby Lele Forood, Head Coach .................... (650) 723-9540 Colors: ........................................... Cardinal and White On the front cover: 2006 All-American Matt Bruch Frankie Brennan, Asst. Coach ............. (650) 725-7978 Nickname: ........................................................ Cardinal Conference: .................................................... Pacific-10 Credits: The 2007 Stanford Tennis Press Guide was written Dick Gould, Dir. of Tennis .................. (650) 723-1160 Men’s Tennis and edited by Gary Migdol and Brian Risso. Editorial assistance Tennis
    [Show full text]
  • The Integration of Copyright and Employment Law
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 20 Volume XX Number 1 Volume XX Book 1 Article 2 2009 Who Owns Bratz? The Integration of Copyright and Employment Law Michael D. Birnhack Tel-Aviv University Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael D. Birnhack, Who Owns Bratz? The Integration of Copyright and Employment Law, 20 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 95 (2009). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol20/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Who Owns Bratz? The Integration of Copyright and Employment Law Cover Page Footnote Thanks to Maurizio Borghi, Hanoch Dagan, Guy Davidov, Niva Elkin-Koren, Edo Eshet, Orit Fischman Afori, Oren Gazal-Ayal, Assaf Jacob, Ariel Katz, Wen Li, Orly Lobel, Guy Mundlak, Karl-Nikolaus Peifer, Guy Pessach, Alessandra Rossi, and participants at the Third Workshop on the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property at Queen Mary University of London (July 2007), the annual congress of the Society for Economic Research on Copyright Issues (SERCI) in Berlin (July 2007), the 4-Sided Workshop on Law & Economics (Rome, 2009) and the 9th Intellectual Property Scholars Conference at Cardozo Law School (August 2009), especially Pamela Samuelson and Rebecca Tushnet, for helpful comments and to Dorit Garfunkel, Nir Servatka and Barak Tevet for able research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Work for Hire: Revision on the Horizon
    *21 Copyright 1989 by the PTC Research Foundation of the Franklin Pierce Law Center IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology 1989 WORK FOR HIRE: REVISION ON THE HORIZON Michael Carter Smith [n.a] INTRODUCTION The Copyright Act of 1976 ('76 Act) [n.1] became effective a decade ago. [n.2] The '76 Act contained new and controversial "work for hire" provisions. [n.3] As thousands of employment agreements involve work for hire, [n.4] the ramifications of this perplexing doctrine are worthy of consideration. The work for hire provisions of the '76 Act [n.5] represent a deliberate attempt by Congress to apportion copyright entitlements in such a way as to appease both ''employers/buyers" and "employees/sellers" of copyrightable works. [n.6] The compromise embodied in the doctrine has proven to be highly problematic: "employers/buyers," "employees/sellers" and the courts have been vexed by the doctrine's vague language. [n.7] The confusion generated by the work for hire provisions of the '76 Act has gone largely unheeded by Congress. However, Senator Cochran (R-Miss.), the Ralph Nader of the work for hire doctrine, has proposed numerous work for hire amendments. [n.8] Despite the support of the 100,000 member *22 Copyright Justice Coalition, Mr. Cochran's proposed amendments have failed to garner allies in the Senate. Whatever the reason for his lack of success, the contradictory judicial interpretations of the doctrine necessitate a congressional remedy. In this paper I will attempt to provoke congressional reconsideration of the work for hire doctrine. First, I will present the doctrine and its underlying policy considerations.
    [Show full text]
  • Circular 1: Copyright Basics
    w 1 Copyright Basics What Is Copyright? Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: • reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords • prepare derivative works based upon the work • distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending • perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audio­ visual works • display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work • perform the work publicly (in the case of sound recordings*) by means of a digital audio transmission In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribu­ tion and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, see Circular 40, Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts. It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in Circular Circular scope.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case for a Longer Term of Copyright in Canada - Implications of Eldred V
    COMMENTAIRE A CASE FOR A LONGER TERM OF COPYRIGHT IN CANADA - IMPLICATIONS OF ELDRED V. ASHCROFT par Kamil Gérard AHMED* En 1993, une directive de l'Union européenne a obligé les États membres à prolonger dans leur droit interne la durée minimale du droit d'auteur de vingt ans, la portant ainsi à soixante-dix ans après le décès de l'auteur, et exclut cette prolongation ne s=appliquant pas aux États non membres qui n=offrent pas la même durée de protection. Cette directive a été le fer de lance de changements législatifs à l'échelle internationale. En 1998, le Congrès américain a adopté le Copyright Term Extension Act, qui prolonge de vingt ans la durée de la protection des droits d'auteur existants et futurs. En 2003, l'arrêt de la Cour suprême des États-Unis Eldred c. Ashcroft, a confirmé la légalité du Copyright Term Extension Act. La protection couvrant la vie de l'auteur et les soixante-dix années suivant son décès dans l'Union européenne et aux États-Unis a eu des répercussions au Canada, où le régime de protection dans la Loi sur le droit d'auteur couvre à ce jour la durée de vie de l=auteur plus cinquante ans. Le présent exposé soutient la position que le Parlement canadien ne doit pas ignorer les développements à l'égard du droit d'auteur dans l'Union européenne et aux États-Unis et qu'il devrait modifier la Loi sur le droit d'auteur du Canada afin de prolonger la durée du droit d'auteur à soixante-dix ans après le décès de celui-ci.
    [Show full text]
  • Artistic Integrity, Public Policy and Copyright: Colorization Reduced To
    Artistic Integrity, Public Policy and Copyright: Colorization Reduced to Black and White [A]rt is a human activity having for its purpose the transmission to others of the highest and best feelings to which men have risen.' I. INTRODucTION Art reflects society. Each person in modern society-a society that prides itself on freedom of expression-interprets differently the beauty in art. Thus, when a musician composes a popular tune, a poet drafts a new verse, or a painter touches her 2 brush to canvas, their creations are subject to criticism, debate, and often ridicule. Some artists choose faster tempos, shorter sentences, brighter pastels; others choose 3 melodic tunes, complex clauses, or no color at all. These are all artistic choices. They characterize both the work and the artist himself.4 Despite opposing viewpoints, the art world respects the artistic intent of the work, condemning any modification 5 based upon society's standards or an individual's preference. Quite often technology discovers ways we can "improve" 6 the products of art. Synthesizers electronically alter instrumental sounds, springfloors lift the dancer higher and farther, and word processors cut an editor's work in half. These advances facilitate the artist's ability to create or perform; 7 they aid the artist. However, with the recent evolution of colorization, 8 technology has infringed upon the artist's creative intent and control.9 Now, computers can paint color into black and white motion pictures. This advance differs significantly from the former examples. Where these other advances may bolster or facilitate an artist's intent, the colorization process alters black and white films that were intended to remain colorless.
    [Show full text]