Unblock YouTube Videos - Free YouTube Web Proxy Site, Free YouTube Proxy | Tubeunblock
The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20121114024344/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA; Pub.L. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809, enacted December 8, 1994) is an Act of Congress in the United States that implemented in U.S. law the Marrakech Agreement of 1994 from the Uruguay Round of negotiations transforming the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) into the World Trade Organization (WTO).


[edit] Legislative history

U.S. President Bill Clinton sent the bill for the URAA to Congress on September 27, 1994, where it was introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 5110[1] and in the Senate as S. 2467.[2] The bill was submitted under special fast-track procedures under which neither chamber could modify it. The House passed the bill on November 29, 1994; the Senate did so on December 1, 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1994 as Pub.L. 103-465.[3] The URAA became effective on January 1, 1995.[4] A number of technical corrections were made to the copyright provisions introduced by the URAA through the Copyright Technical Amendments Act (H.R. 672, which became Pub. L. 105-80) in 1997.[5]

[edit] Amendments to the U.S. copyright law

Title V of the URAA made several modifications to the Copyright law of the United States. It amended Title 17 ("Copyrights") of the United States Code to include a completely reworded article 104A on copyright restorations on foreign works and to include a new chapter 11, containing a prohibition of bootleg sound and video recordings of live performances. In Title 18 of the U.S. Code, a new article 2319A was inserted, detailing the penal measures against infringements of this new bootlegging prohibition.[6]

[edit] Copyright restorations

The U.S. had joined the Berne Convention on March 1, 1989, when its Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 entered in force. Article 18 of the Berne Convention specified that the treaty covered all works that were still copyrighted in their source country and that had not entered the public domain in the country where copyright was claimed due to the expiration of a previously granted copyright there.[7] Consequently, the U.S. would have had to grant copyright on foreign works that were never copyrighted before in the U.S. But the United States denied this retroactivity of the Berne Convention and applied the rules of the treaty only to works first published after March 1, 1989.[8] Earlier foreign works that were not covered by other treaties and that had until then not been subject to copyright in the U.S. remained uncopyrighted in the United States.[9]

The U.S. faced harsh critique for its unilateral denouncement of the retroactivity of the Berne Convention defined in article 18,[8][10] and ultimately had to reverse its position. The copyright restoration implemented by the URAA in 17 USC 104A[11] remedied the situation and brought the U.S. legislation in-line with the requirements of the Berne Convention.[12]

17 USC 104A effectively restored the copyrights on foreign works that previously were not copyrighted in the U.S.[13] due to a failure to meet the U.S. formalities (such as not having a copyright notice, or not having been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, or not having had its copyright renewed) or due to a lack of international treaties between the U.S. and the country of origin of the work. Copyrights on foreign works were only restored if these works were still covered by copyright or neighbouring rights in their source countries on January 1, 1996. But if so, the copyright in the U.S. was restored automatically; the restored copyright is subject to the normal U.S. term as if the work had never fallen into the public domain in the U.S. (104A(a)(1)(B)). If a country on that date was neither a member of the Berne Convention, nor of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, nor of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, nor of the World Trade Organization (WTO), copyrights on works from that country were to be restored upon the earliest adherence date of the country to one of these four treaties.[14] Excepted from the copyright restorations are only foreign works where the copyright was ever owned or administered by the "Alien Property Custodian," if the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof. (17 USC 104A(a)(2))

[edit] Administrative procedures

The URAA also included in 17 USC 104A administrative procedures for dealing with cases where someone was already and in good faith using a work that had been in the public domain but on which the copyright was restored by the URAA. Such users are called "reliance parties" in 17 USC 104A.[15]

In particular, rightsholders had to file a so-called "Notice of Intent to Enforce" (NIE) their restored copyright, or had to inform earlier users of their works (i.e., existing reliance parties) of that fact. The NIEs were to be filed at the U.S. Copyright Office and were made publicly accessible.[16] To enforce a restored copyright against a user who used the work without authorization from the rightsholder after the copyright had been restored, no NIE was necessary.[17]

[edit] Challenges to the URAA restorations

The retroactive copyright restorations of the URAA have been challenged as violating the Constitution of the United States in two cases.

In Golan v. Gonzales, both the CTEA and the copyright restorations of the URAA were attacked as violating the Copyright and Patent clause (article I, §8, clause 8) of the U.S. constitution, which gives Congress the power "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." (emphasis added). The plaintiffs claimed that the URAA violated the "limitedness" of the copyright term by removing works from the public domain and placing them under copyright again, and that doing so also did not promote the progress of science or the arts. Furthermore, plaintiffs claimed the URAA violated the First and the Fifth Amendment. These challenges were dismissed by the United States Court for the District of Colorado[18], but the decision was appealed to the United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which remanded the decision back to the district court, ordering a fresh evaluation of First Amendment constitutionality.[19][20] On April 3, 2009, in Golan v. Holder, Judge Lewis Babcock in the United States Court for the District of Colorado considered the URAA in violation of the First Amendment.[21] The court held that URAA Section 514 was substantially broader than necessary to achieve the government interest. By restoring copyright to certain public domain works, and requiring royalty payments and restricting derivative works after one year following restoration, Congress overstepped its constitutional authority and failed to fully protect First Amendment interests of reliance parties in the works.[22][23]

On March 7, 2011, the Supreme Court granted a certiorari by Golan to hear the case.[24] On January 18, 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the URAA in a 6-2 decision. The majority opinion was written by Justice Ginsburg and the dissent was written by Justice Breyer.[25]

A second case, Luck's Music Library, Inc. v. Gonzales, which only addressed the Copyright and Patent Clause issue, was dismissed.[26]

[edit] Films previously in the public domain

The following films were but no longer are in the public domain in the United States:

Film title Release year Director Studio / Distributor Entered PD in (year) Reason for entering PD Reason for not currently in PD
The 39 Steps 1935 Alfred Hitchcock Gaumont British Picture Corporation Ltd. 1963 Copyrights not renewed The Uruguay Round Agreements Act[27]
Blackmail 1929 Alfred Hitchcock British International Pictures 1957 Copyrights not renewed The Uruguay Round Agreements Act[27]
Metropolis 1927 Fritz Lang Universum Film AG
1954 Copyright not renewed The Uruguay Round Agreements Act[28]
The Third Man 1949 Carol Reed Lions Gate (2010) 1977 Copyrights not renewed The Uruguay Round Agreements Act[27]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ U.S. Library of Congress: H.R. 5110 at THOMAS. URL last accessed 2007-05-08.
  2. ^ U.S. Library of Congress: S. 2467 at THOMAS. URL last accessed 2007-05-08.
  3. ^ Patry, footnote 2.
  4. ^ Clinton, Proclamation 6821.
  5. ^ United States: H.R. 672: Copyright Technical Amendments Act, 1997. See also the House Report 105-25 for a discussion. URLs last accessed 2007-05-07.
  6. ^ U.S. Congress: URAA, Title V. URL last accessed 2007-01-30.
  7. ^ Berne Convention, article 18.
  8. ^ a b Elst p. 491.
  9. ^ Pilch p. 83.
  10. ^ Regnier pp. 400ff.
  11. ^ United States Code: 17 USC 104A.
  12. ^ Pilch p. 84.
  13. ^ Hirtle
  14. ^ U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 38b.
  15. ^ U.S. Copyright Office: Reliance parties. URL last accessed 2007-05-07.
  16. ^ U.S. Copyright Office: Notices of Restored Copyrights. URL last accessed 2007-05-07.
  17. ^ U.S. Copyright Office: Restoration of Certain Berne and WTO Works, comment of William F. Patry on p. 35525. URL last accessed 2007-05-07.
  18. ^ U.S.: Golan v. Ashcroft 310 F.Supp.2d 1215 (D. Colo. 2004). URL last accessed 2007-05-08.
  19. ^ "Golan v. Gonzales". The Center for Internet and Society. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/golan-v-gonzales.
  20. ^ U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit: Golan v. Gonzales, September 4, 2007; Docket no. 05-1259. URL last accessed 2007-09-10.
  21. ^ "URAA Held Unconstitutional". The Center for Internet and Society. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6149.
  22. ^ District Court for the District of Colorado, Judge Babcock: Golan v. Holder, Memorandum Opinion and Order, April 3, 2009; Civil Case No. 01-cv-01854-LTB. URL last accessed 2009-11-04.
  23. ^ Ochoa, T.: Ochoa on Golan v. Holder and Copyright Restoration, April 6, 2009. URL last accessed 2009-11-04.
  24. ^ Falzone, Anthony (March 7, 2011). "Supreme Court grants cert. in Golan v. Holder". The Center for Internet and Technology. Stanford University. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6631. Retrieved March 7, 2011.
  25. ^ Gagnier, Christina (18 January 2012). "SCOTUS Adds More Fuel to the Copyright Debate With Golan V. Holder". Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-gagnier/scotus-adds-more-fuel-to-_b_1213141.html. Retrieved 19 January 2012.
  26. ^ 407 F.3d 1262 (D.C. Cir. 2005). U.S.: Luck's Music Library, Inc. v. Gonzales 407 F.3d 1262 (D.C. Cir. 2005). URL last accessed 2007-05-08.
  27. ^ a b c Library of Congress, Copyright Office. "Copyright Restoration of Works in Accordance With the Uruguay Round Agreements Act", U.S. Copyright Office 22 August 1997. Retrieved 15 February 2011.
  28. ^ Copyright restoration and foreign works, Copyright Sherpa
Personal tools