This is so wrong, in so many ways, that I’m going to need to ponder it for a while. What a can of worms…
If this were attempted to be enforced with a CC-licensed work with a share-alike component, it might be a test of the enforceability of share-alike licenses.
The link to the original EFF article: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/danger-post-fixation-rights-wipo-broadcasting-treaty
They’re only talking about redistributing their broadcast of PD material, not the PD material itself. So if they broadcast a PD movie, for example, that movie is still in the PD and you can still copy and share it as often and as wide as you like, just not from a recording of their broadcast. A bit different than “giving them new copyright”.
But if their recording is the only version of a PD work that you can get a copy of, then that is essentially giving them a new copyright on the work.
Using Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. as a guide, you should be able to reuse, copy, and redistribute anyone else’s duplication of a public domain work. To do otherwise makes the work not entirely in the public domain.
I was going to blame Disney as a knee-jerk reaction when I read the headline lol.
It’s only my opinion, and would certainly go counter to most law, but if the only copy available is the broadcast copy then they have contributed something of value and should be allowed to profit from it. But it would be nice to include the exception of “exact copy”, forcing the broadcaster to add literal value such as restoration.
If nothing else, providing a financial incentive might get more old works scanned and preserved, if not restored.
Is there no end to this fuckery?
I’m pretty sure someone can copyright elements of a restored version. Such as the score for a silent movie, the subtitles and packaging of the movie. I’m not a 100% sure how far these current versions of copyright go, trying to read law documents on copyright hurts my brain. So there may be some financial incentive already for restoring works. Really I see this as just making a complicated area of law more complicated for no reason.
Man, just imagine if the parts of the UN dedicated to peace and little children with bloated bellies and big eyes got the kind of attention that the actually important parts do…
So, if I set up a low-power broadcast station and start airing public domain works, I can sue the networks for copyright infringement when they air the same stuff?
Step 3: Profit!
Only if they record your broadcast and then re-broadcast it.
If it does, Step 2: Introduce a “Share-Alike-Culture-Protector” license which includes terms that if you or any agent empowered to do so on your behalf, assert the broadcast right, even once, you agree that all of your copyrights be donated to (some organization that immediately releases them into the public domain)"
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.