<div dir="auto"><div>Pam,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I'm not sure that it would work this way. Per Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><span style="background-color:rgb(250,250,250);color:rgb(59,59,59);font-family:arial,"helvetica neue",helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px">(2) The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise </span><b style="color:rgb(59,59,59);font-family:arial,"helvetica neue",helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px">shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work.</b><span style="background-color:rgb(250,250,250);color:rgb(59,59,59);font-family:arial,"helvetica neue",helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px"> Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed.</span><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=283698#P109_16834">https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=283698#P109_16834</a></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Brendan</div><div dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, May 29, 2019, 16:45 Pamela Chestek <<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Wouldn't the government's copyright interest outside of the US be
limited by the Rule of the Shorter Term under the Berne Convention?
And so where the term in the US is "zero," wouldn't it be zero in
those countries that observe the Rule of the Shorter Term?<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="m_8799505073407616026m_2098390250474098759moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
919-800-8033<br>
<a class="m_8799505073407616026m_2098390250474098759moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="m_8799505073407616026m_2098390250474098759moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="m_8799505073407616026m_2098390250474098759moz-cite-prefix">On 5/28/2019 9:34 PM, John Cowan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 5:33
PM Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss <<a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>
<div>Yes! Even to say it’s in the public domain is
misleading. It’s not a USC term.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It's true that "public domain" is not *defined* in 17
U.S.C., but it is *used* there seven times. So turning to a
dictionary, we find this in the American Heritage
Dictionary, 5th edition: "The condition of not being
protected by a patent or copyright and therefore being
available to the public for use without charge", and this in
Merriam Webster Online: "[T]he realm embracing property
rights that belong to the community at large, are
unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to
appropriation by anyone[.]" So the term is well-defined.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>Saying something from the Gov’t is “public domain”
typically just means it went through a public release
process and there's no intention to assert rights.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>No, it means that there is no copyright owner. 17
U.S.C.
§105 says: "Copyright protection under this title is not
available for any work of the
United States Government, but the United States Government
is not precluded
from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by
assignment, bequest,
or otherwise." The term “work of the United States
Government” is defined as "[a] work prepared by an officer
or
employee of the United States Government as part of that
person’s official duties"</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>While works of Gov’t employees typically don't have
copyright protection under Title 17 and could easily be
released "into the public domain”, </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>They *are* in the public domain (unless they were not
part of the author's official duties).</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>that doesn’t mean they have to release it, can
release it,</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If by "release" you mean "publish", you are of course
right. But if by "release" you mean "place in the public
domain", you are wrong, as shown above.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div> or that there aren’t other mechanisms for releasing
it NOT “into the public domain.”</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are no such mechanisms. A copyrighted work can
have its copyright transferred, but a work that is not in
copyright (whether because the copyright has been expired or
forfeited, or was expressly waived by the owner, or never
existed in the first place) cannot be removed from the
public domain except by Act of Congress. This has happened
several times in the past, notably 1893 (restoring copyright
forfeited for lack of certain formalities if reregistered),
1919, 1941 (for the benefit of foreign authors whose
copyrights expired during the war, when they could not renew
them), 1976 (extension to life+50), and 1989 (extension to
life+70), plus a number of private bills in the 19C for the
benefit of specific authors.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>Gov’t regularly distributes software that otherwise
has *no* Title 17 protections to foreign and domestic
recipients, under contractual terms.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So they may, but if the recipients transfer the software
to third parties, the recipients are in breach but the third
parties are not, for lack of privity and because there is no
in rem right in the nature of copyright. Much the same is
true of classified materials (as opposed to the U.K. where
receiving and further disseminating such materials is
separately criminalized.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_8799505073407616026m_2098390250474098759mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="m_8799505073407616026m_2098390250474098759moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
<a class="m_8799505073407616026m_2098390250474098759moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="m_8799505073407616026m_2098390250474098759moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>