Copyright Term Extension Act 27598 222922702 2008-07-01T19:26:27Z Jnestorius 89336 Removed category "Statutory law" (using [[WP:HOTCAT|HotCat]]) The '''Copyright Term Extension Act''' (CTEA) of 1998 &ndash; alternatively known as the '''[[Sonny Bono]] Copyright Term Extension Act''', '''Sonny Bono Act''', or [[pejorative]]ly as the '''[[Mickey Mouse]] Protection Act''' &ndash; extended [[United States copyright law|copyright]] terms in the [[United States]] by 20 years. Before the Act (under the [[Copyright Act of 1976]]), [[copyright]] would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of [[corporate authorship]]; the Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.<ref>[http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc Copyright Law official government web page]</ref> The Act also affected copyright terms for copyrighted works published prior to [[January 1]], [[1978]], also increasing their term of protection by 20 years, to a total of 95 years from publication. This law effectively 'froze' the advancement date of the [[public domain]] in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this Act, additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still copyrighted in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019 or afterwards (depending on the date of the product) unless the owner of the copyright releases them into the public domain prior to that or if the copyright gets extended again. Unlike copyright extension legislation in the [[European Union]], the Sonny Bono Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired. The Act did extend the terms of protection set for works that were already copyrighted, and is retroactive in that sense. However, works created before [[January 1]], [[1978]] but not published or registered for copyright until recently are addressed in a special section ({{USC|17|303}}) and may remain protected until 2047. The Act became {{USPL|105|298}} on [[October 27]], [[1998]]. == Background == Under the [[Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works]], the signatory states are required to provide copyright protection for a minimum term of the life of the author plus fifty years, but they are permitted to provide for a longer term of protection. Following the 1993 [[Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection]], member states of the [[European Union]] implemented protection for a term of the author's life plus seventy years. The [[United States]] did not become a Berne signatory until 1988, but had previously provided for the minimum copyright term the convention required in the [[Copyright Act of 1976]]. Prior to the 1976 copyright act, many copyrighted [[literature|literary works]], [[film|movies]] and fictional characters were soon to pass into the public domain due to their 56 year maximum copyright terms. Some of these copyrighted items remained quite profitable for their copyright owners, including several characters owned by the [[Walt Disney Company]]. With the passage of the 1976 copyright act, early [[animation|animated]] [[short film]]s featuring [[Mickey Mouse]] such as ''[[Steamboat Willie]]'' and ''[[Plane Crazy]]'' would not enter the public domain until 2000 at the earliest due to their new 75 year copyright terms. [[Mickey Mouse]] and other characters also have protection as [[trademark]]s. In several countries (e.g. in [[Russia]], where the Berne convention was not applied retroactively) [[Mickey Mouse]] and all other copyrighted works created before 1970 are now regarded as being in the public domain. After the United States' accession to the Berne convention, a number of copyright owners successfully [[lobbying|lobbied]] the [[Congress of the United States|U.S. Congress]] for another extension of the term of copyright, to provide for the same term of protection that exists in [[Europe]]. The act was named after the late Congressman [[Sonny Bono]], who died nine months before the act became law. Bono, who, as a songwriter and filmmaker had his own interests in advancing copyright terms, had favored increasing them even before his entry into politics as the mayor of Palm Springs, California. Both houses of the United States Congress passed the act as Public Law 105-298 with a [[voice vote]],<ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR02589:@@@X THOMAS: Status of H.R. 2589]</ref><ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN00505:@@@X THOMAS: Status of S. 505]</ref> making it impossible to determine who voted for or against. President [[Bill Clinton]] signed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 on [[October 27]], [[1998]].{{Fact|date=December 2007}} == Political climate == === Senate Report 104-315 === The Senate Report <ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp104:FLD010:@1(sr315) Senate Report 104-315]</ref> gave the official reasons for passing copyright extension laws and was originally written in the context of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995, {{USBill|104|S|483}}. {{cquote|The purpose of the bill is to ensure adequate copyright protection for American works in foreign nations and the continued economic benefits of a healthy surplus [[balance of trade]] in the exploitation of copyrighted works. The bill accomplishes these goals by extending the current U.S. copyright term for an additional 20 years. Such an extension will provide significant trade benefits by substantially harmonizing U.S. copyright law to that of the European Union while ensuring fair compensation for American creators who deserve to benefit fully from the exploitation of their works. Moreover, by stimulating the creation of new works and providing enhanced economic incentives to preserve existing works, such an extension will enhance the long-term volume, vitality and accessibility of the public domain.}} The authors of the report believed that extending copyright protection would help the United States by providing more protection for their works in foreign countries and by giving more incentive to digitize and preserve works since there was an exclusive right in them. The report also included minority opinions by [[Herbert Kohl (senator)|Herb Kohl]] and [[Hank Brown]], who believed that the term extensions were a financial windfall to current owners of copyrighted material at the expense of the public's use of the material. === Support === In addition to [[Walt Disney Company|Disney]] (whose extensive lobbying efforts inspired the nickname "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act"), California congresswoman [[Mary Bono]] ([[Sonny Bono]]'s widow and Congressional successor) and the estate of composer [[George Gershwin]] supported the act. Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the [[United States House of Representatives]], said: {{cquote|Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]. ... As you know, there is also <nowiki>[then-</nowiki>[[Motion Picture Association of America|MPAA]] president<nowiki>]</nowiki> [[Jack Valenti]]'s proposal for <!-- "the" is not in the quote here --> term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=1998_record&position=all&page=H9952|date=[[October 7]], [[1998]]|publisher=[[United States Government Printing Office|Government Printing Office]]|accessdate=2007-10-30|work=[[Congressional Record]]|title=H9952}}</ref>}} Proponents of the Bono Act argue that it is necessary given that the [[life expectancy]] of humans has risen dramatically since Congress passed the original [[Copyright Act of 1790]],<ref name=Orr>{{cite web | title= Senator Orrin Hatch’s Introduction of The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1997 | url=http://www.copyrightextension.com/page04.html | date= 1997-03-20}}</ref> that a difference in copyright terms between the United States and Europe would negatively affect the international operations of the [[entertainment industry]],<ref name=Fein>{{cite web | title=Senator Dianne Feinstein's Statement before Congress | url=http://www.copyrightextension.com/page06.html | date=1997-03-20}}</ref><ref name="Orr"/> and that some works would be created under a longer copyright that would never be created under the existing copyright. They also claim that copyrighted works are an important source of income to the US<ref name="Fein"/><ref name=Leh>{{cite web | title= Excerpts of Bruce A. Lehman’s statement before Congress | url= http://www.copyrightextension.com/page07.html | date= 1995-09-20}}</ref> and that media such as [[VHS]], [[DVD]], [[Cable television|Cable]] and [[Satellite]] have increased the value and commercial life of movies and television series.<ref name="Fein"/> Proponents contend that Congress has the power to pass whatever copyright term it wants because the language "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" in the United States Constitution is not a substantive limitation on the powers of Congress, leaving the sole restriction that copyrights must only last for "limited times." However, in what respect the granted time must be limited has never been determined, thus arguably even an absurdly long, yet finite, duration would still be a valid ''limited time'' according to the letter of the Constitution as long as Congress was ostensibly setting this limit to promote the progress of science and useful arts. This was one of the arguments that prevailed in the ''[[Eldred v. Ashcroft]]'' case, when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the CTEA. It is also pointed out by proponents that the extension did not prevent all works from going in the public domain. They note that the 1976 Copyright Act establishment that unpublished works created before 1978 will enter the public domain by 2003 remained unaffected by the 1998 extension.<ref name="Scott"/> They also claim that Congress has actually increased the scope of the public domain since, for the first time, unpublished works will enter the public domain.<ref name="Scott"/> Proponents believe that copyright encourages progress in the arts. With an extension of copyright, future artists have to create something original, rather than reuse old work. Proponents contend that it is more important to encourage all creators to make new works instead of just copyright holders.<ref name=Scott>{{cite journal| author = Scott M. Martin | date = [[September 24]], [[2002]] | title = The Mythology of the Public Domain: Exploring the Myths Behind Attacks on the Duration of Copyright Protection | journal = Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review | volume = 36| issue = 1| pages = 280| publisher = Loyola Law Review| issn = 1533-5860 | url = http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue1/martin-original1.pdf| format = PDF| accessdate = 2007-11-17}}</ref> Proponents claim that copyright better preserves intellectual property like movies, music and television shows.<ref name="Leh"/><ref name="Scott"/> One example given is the case of the classic film ''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]''. Before [[Republic Pictures]] and [[Spelling Entertainment]] (who owned the motion picture rights to the short story and the music even after the film itself became public domain) began to assert their rights to the film, various local TV stations and cable networks broadcast the film endlessly. As [[New York Times]] reporter Bill Carter put it: "the film's currency was being devalued."<ref>Bill Carter, ''Where Have You Gone, Tyrone Power?'', N. Y. TIMES, December 19, 1994, at D10.</ref> Many different versions of the film were made and most if not all were in horrible condition.<ref>''See Two Days of Christmas Classics'', TORONTO STAR, December 24, 1999, At E1.</ref> After underlying rights to the film were enforced, it was given a high quality restoration that was hailed by critics. In addition, proponents note that once a work falls into the public domain there is no guarantee that the work will be more widely available or cheaper. Suggesting that quality copies of public domain works are not widely available, they argue that one reason for a lack of availability may be because publishers' reluctance to publish a work that is in the public domain for fear that they will not be able to recoup their investment or earn enough profit.<ref name="Leh"/> Proponents reject the idea that only works in the public domain can provide artistic inspiration. They note that many copyrighted works have also had big influences. Examples include the fact that [[King Kong (1933 film)|''King Kong'']] and the works of [[George Lucas]] did not need to be in the public domain to inspire [[Peter Jackson]]. The witty gags, and timing of [[Tex Avery]] cartoons still have influence on [[cartoonist]]s today, even though most, if not all, of them are copyrighted. The works of rap artists such as [[Dr. Dre]] and [[Tupac Shakur]] have had influence on the rap community. ''[[The Godfather]]'' had and still has a major influence on gangster films and television shows. Many copyrighted works, including the above mentioned, have become a major part of popular culture and have been the subject of commentary and [[parody]] even without being in the public domain. It should be noted that copyright only protects the artist's expression of his/her work and not the ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in it<ref>[http://www.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed03/98.html The Wrinkle in Your Research and Teaching: Copyright, DMCA, Guidelines, and Public Domain]</ref> and thus artists are free to get ideas from copyrighted works as long as they don't [[plagiarize]]. Works such as parody benefit from [[fair use]]. Proponents also question the idea that extended copyright is "corporate welfare." [[Mark Twain]] once noted that when a work enters the public domain, the publisher is still able to profit from its exploitations and the creators are the only ones who cease to benefit from the work.<ref>''Patent Arguments, surpra'' note 2, at 116-117 (statement of Samuel L. Clemens, author).</ref>{{Clarifyme|date=March 2008}} They state that many opponents also have a stake in the case, claiming that those arguing against copyright term extension are mostly businesses that depend on distributing films and videos that have lost their copyright.<ref name="Leh"/> === Opposition === {{Refimprove|section|date=December 2007}} Opponents of the ''Bono Act'' consider the legislation to be [[corporate welfare]] and have tried (but failed) to have it declared [[unconstitutional]], claiming that such an act is not "necessary and proper" to accomplishing the Constitution's stated purpose of "promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts".[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvashcroft/supct/amici/ip-lawprofs.pdf] They argue that most works bring most of the profits during the first few years and are pushed off the market by the publishers thereafter. Thus there is little economic incentive in extending the terms of copyrights except for the few owners of franchises that are wildly successful, such as Disney. They also point out that the [[United States Constitution/Amendment Ten|Tenth Amendment]] can be construed as placing limits on the powers that Congress can gain from a treaty. More directly, they see two successive terms of approximately 20 years each (the [[Copyright Act of 1976]] and the Bono Act) as the beginning of a "slippery slope" toward a perpetual copyright term that nullifies the intended effect and violates the spirit of the "for limited times" language of the [[United States Constitution/Article One|United States Constitution, Article I]], section 8, clause 8. They question the proponents' life expectancy argument, pointing out that the copyright terms under the 1790 act lasted only 28 years total, that life expectancies have not risen threefold since 1790 (ignoring [[infant mortality]], they have increased barely ten years), and that even though terms of [[patent]]s have not been extended in parallel, patents adequately reward investment in the field with their mere 20-year term. Another argument against the Bono Act is an "offshore production" argument: that, for example, derivative works could be created outside the United States in areas where copyright would have expired, such works advancing science or the useful arts, and that US law would prohibit these works to US residents. A movie of Mickey Mouse playing with a computer (à la ''[[Fantasia (film)| Sorcerer's Apprentice]]'') could be legally created in Russia and children worldwide could possibly benefit from watching it, but the movie would be refused admission for importation by US Customs because of copyright, resulting in a deprivation to American children. Opponents point out to another aspect of extension of copyright terms: loss of productive value of private collections of copyrighted works. A person who had collected copyrighted works which would soon be "going out of copyright", with the intention of re-releasing these works upon expiration of copyright, lost the use of his capital expenditures for an additional 20 years when the Bono Act was passed. This is part of the underlying argument in [[Eldred v. Ashcroft]].<ref>[http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/02/21/web_copyright/index.html Salon.com Technology | Mickey Mouse vs. The People<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> The Bono Act is thus perceived to add an instability to commerce and investment, areas which have a much better legal theoretical basis than intellectual property, whose theory is of quite recent development and is often criticized as being a corporate chimera. Conceivably, if one had made such an investment and then produced a derivative work (or perhaps even re-released the work ''in ipse''), he could counter a suit made by the copyright holder by declaring that Congress had unconstitutionally made, [[ex post facto]], a restriction on the previously unrestricted. Opponents also question the proponents' "new works would not be created" argument by pointing out proponents' hidden presumption that the goal is to make the creation of new works possible, whereas the authors of the United States Constitution evidently thought that unnecessary and explicitly restricted the goal to merely "promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts". In fact, some works created under time-limited copyright would not be created under perpetual copyright because the creator of a distantly derivative work does not have the money and resources to find the owner of copyright in the original work and purchase a license, or the individual or privately held owner of copyright in the original work might refuse to license a use at any price (though a refusal to license may trigger a fair use safety valve). Thus they argue that a rich, continually replenished, public domain is necessary for continued artistic creation. For example, the works of English playwright and poet [[William Shakespeare]] and the Greek myths have been the basis for much of [[Neil Gaiman]]'s writing, which might well not have been created if the original works were still under copyright. Recent works that have entered the popular culture, and for which copyright is arguably not appropriate, include the [[novel]]s that created [[Frankenstein]] and [[Dracula]], both originating in the 19th century. Most of the holy writings of major [[religion]]s are also in the public domain, which allows them to be adapted, translated, paraphrased and otherwise made suitable to modern audiences. If the [[Roman Catholic Church]] had a perpetual copyright on the letters of the Apostle [[Paul of Tarsus|Paul]], the four Gospels, the Book of Revelation and the letters of James, Peter, John, Jude and the anonymous author of the Book of Hebrews, it could have refused to license them for translation, or for use by other churches. Even Walt Disney and Disney pictures, have used works from the public domain notably the brothers Grimm stories of which they have made several notable films. == Challenges == Publishers and librarians, among others, brought ''[[Eldred v. Ashcroft]]'' to obtain an injunction on enforcement of the act. Oral arguments were heard by the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] on [[October 9]], [[2002]], and on [[January 15]], [[2003]] the court held the CTEA constitutional by a 7-2 decision.{{Fact|date=December 2007}} The plaintiffs in the ''Eldred'' case have as of 2003 begun to shift their effort toward the U.S. Congress in support of a bill called the [[Public Domain Enhancement Act]] that would make the provisions of the Bono Act apply only to copyrights that had been registered with the [[Library of Congress]].{{Fact|date=December 2007}} == See also == * [[Anti-copyright]] * [[Copyright]] * [[Copyleft]] * [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] * [[Ex post facto law]] * [[Intellectual property]] * [[List of countries' copyright length]] * [[MPAA]] * [[Public domain]] * [[RIAA]] * [[Software copyright]] * [[United States copyright law]] ==References== {{reflist}} ==External links== {{wikisource-inline|Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act}} ===Summary of copyright protection rules=== *[http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm Cornell Univ. Copyright Protection Chart] ===Documentation from the United States government=== *[http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/s505.pdf S.505: Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act] *[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp104:FLD010:@1(sr315) Senate Report No. 104-315] *[http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=5&q=http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl105-298.pdf%3Fd105:SN00505:%257CTOM:/bss/d105query.html%257C&e=10342 Public Law 105-298] *[http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/01-618.pdf Transcript of oral arguments in Eldred vs. Ashrcroft] -(pdf) ===Views of proponents=== *[http://www.copyrightextension.com Copyright Extension.com] *[http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue1/martin-original1.pdf Mythology of the public domain: Exploring the myths behind attacks on the duration of copyright] by Scott Martin *[http://www.nmpa.org/nmpa/termfinal.html The National Music Publishers' Association, Inc] *[http://www.ascap.com/legislative/legis_fourmajor.html The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers] *[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=488085 Social Science Research Network] ===Views of opponents=== *[http://eldred.cc/ The Eric Eldred Act] *[http://everything2.com/?node=sonny+bono+copyright+extension+act Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act opposition] by Damian Yerrick. *[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/30/opinion/30LESS.html?ex=1185681600&en=d45672a5847dbe9e&ei=5070 New York Times editorial, 4/30/2001, ''Let the Stories Go''] *[http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZNPOYE27C&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0 Litman Decries Overbroad Copyright Protection] and [http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZXH1L3P8C&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0 Mouse Trapped] by [[Mike Godwin]] *[http://www.okfn.org/fcd/wiki/PublicDomainElvis Discussion on Elvis Copyrights expiring in the UK] *[http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html Article in Findlaw's Writ by Chris Sprigman] *[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.10/lessig.html?pg=5 coverage of opposition by attorney] [[Lawrence Lessig]] *[http://www.msen.com/~litman/digital-copyright/ ''DIGITAL COPYRIGHT''] by [[Jessica Litman]] *[http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/ Opposing Copyright Extension] *[http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm Thomas Maucalay on Copyright Law] *[http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm "Melancholy Elephants"], from the [[Baen Books]] Free Library – a cautionary story by [[Spider Robinson]]. He later backed away from that position (while noting the irony) in a column collected in his 2004 ''[[The Crazy Years]]'' *[http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/21/copyright_office_hea.html Quotation from [[Marybeth Peters]]] [[Category:Copyright legislation]] [[Category:United States federal intellectual property legislation]] [[Category:1998 in law]] [[Category:Copyright length]] [[de:Copyright Term Extension Act]] [[fr:Loi américaine d'extension du terme des droits d'auteur]] [[ja:著作権延長法]]