We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
655
will be seen, the cumulative efTect of these laws, treaties and conventions results in a continued disharmony in copyright duration that prejudices the rights of U.S. authors vis a vis European authors, and that also creates disincentives for authors to publish — or first publish— their works in the United States.
The proposed US Copyright Term Extension Act would, if adopted, greatly increase the U.S. term of protection for both EC and US -origin works, and would thus eliminate or narrow many of the duration discrepancies between the US and the EU However, even if the US adopts the Copyright Term Extension Act, terms of protection will not be Rilly harmonized
A. The EC Term Directive
By July 1, 1995, all member states of the European Union are required to have implemented the EC Term Directive '' The EC Term Directive will harmonize the copyright term of protection in EU Member States to 70 years p m a for works by individual or joint authors, and to 70 years post-publication for works ov/ned by corporate rightholders It will also revive certain copyrights if they have fallen in the public domain in one Member State but are still subject to protection in another Member State.
1. 70 years p ma. and related terms of protection.
The duration of protection in most EU Member States will substantially increase as a result of the EC Term Directive Under the EC Term Directive, those rights will be harmonized at 70 years p. ma., resulting in an additional 20 years of copyright protection in most Member States
Article 1(1) of the Directive states:
' 'It is not unusual for member states to fail lo implement a directive uniil long after the implementation deadline For example, the EC Software Directive had an implcmenlalion deadhne of Januar)' 1, 1993. However, 3 member stales have not yei adopted the directive, and 3 member slates adopted the directive nearly a year late CELEX No 791L025() Failure b\ a member slate lo timely implement directives can, under certain circumstances, subject the defaulting member state to damages caused to private parties by the stale's failure Francovich and Bomfaci v Italian Republic. Cases C-6. C-9/yO (1992) I R L.R. 84 The extent of member states' liability for such damages (including lost profits, expenses and exemplary damages) is presently under review by the European Court of Justice Brasserie du Pccheur SA v. Federal Republic of Germanv. Case Nos C-46/93 and C-48/93 A private party may not, however, rely in a national court on the provision of a directive as against another private party until that directive has t>een implemented into the natioiul lav\ in which enforcement is sought. Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority Case 152/84 |19861 E C R 723
13