Copyright term, film labeling, and film preservation legislation : hearings before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 989, H.R. 1248, and H.R. 1734 ... June 1 and July 13, 1995 (1996)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

672 yfC^j^. to be known The extended term thus creates economic advantages for US authors and ultimately protects the U.S. positive trade balance in copyright-based products The Supreme Court, in construing the copyright clause, never ruled that profits were the most important form of "benefiting the public welfare" In revising the Copyright Art, the issue of US economic dominance in the world-wide intellectual property marketplace should not overshadow an analysis of what revisions would most effectively qualitatively enhance the creative output of US authors, and most effectively, qualitatively benefit the public welfare As demonstrated earlier, failure to adopt the Extension Act could reduce the scope of works available to the US public Failure to adopt the act could also result in delayed US access to new works, because authors have a strong incentive to first publish in the EU Moreover, with added terms of protection, US authors could justify added investment in works, therefore, in many instances, increasing the quality In sum, failure to adopt the Art would harm the U.S. public welfare Changes that are made or rejerted without consideration for what changes will provide incentives for US. authors to create works of the highest level of diversity and artistic quality, and will provide the US public with the broadest access to works of the highest level and breadth of artistic quality are changes that ignore Constitutional mandate to promote the progress of arts and benefit the US public Failure to adopt the Extension Act would result in a net detriment to the US public-would recttH;^Because the Extension Art would result in increased incentives to produce new and derivative works, promote continued distribution of pre-existing works, and encourage first publication in the US., the Copyright Term Extension Act furthers the Constitutional goals of promoting the progress of the ans and benefits the public, all while protecting the U.S. copyright product trade surplus IV. CONCLUSION. The present interaction among the changed laws pertaining to copyright duration greatly benefits EU authors and holders of works of EU origin: EU authors and works will receive longer terms of protection and have copyrights in certain public domain works revived as a result of the EC Term Directive The Phil Collins decision of the European Court of Justice ensures that EU nationals will not be harmed by application of the rule of the shorter term treatment, even if their works, by virtue of first publication in a non-EU, shorter term country, would have otherwise received rule of the shorter term treatment The U.R A.A will revive US copyrights in works of EU country origin and by EU 30