Post originally by Zoran Bekric at 2003-07-28 21:47:34
Converted from Phorums BB System



Dan wrote:
-------------------------------
<i>"What error was that, pray tell?"

You claimed that the U.S. laws followed British laws when it came to copyright because of the Berne Convention, which the U.S. actually wasn't part of at the times in question. </i>
-------------------------------

The U.S. entered the Berne Convention in 1976. Since <i>The Invisible Man</i> was still under copyright at that point, the U.S. would have had to recognise that in order to abide by the terms of the Berne Convention. That's not an error.

-------------------------------
<i>It's not invalidating the copyright. The British copyright terms are whatever they are supposed to be. I am just saying that people in the U.S. follow the U.S. laws, not your laws.</i>
-------------------------------

So you're claiming that <i>The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen</i> will not be distributed in Britain? Because, if it is, then British copyright laws apply.

-------------------------------
<i>The country of origin doesn't matter. Only the laws of the country you are in matter.</i>
-------------------------------

Then the pertinent laws for <i>The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen</i> would be those of the Czech Republic, because that's where it was filmed.

-------------------------------
<i>Again, country of origin does not matter. If it gets published in the U.S. it has to follow U.S. laws. If they didn't want to follow U.S. laws they could have refused to publish here. Once they published here and accepted sales in the U.S. they can;t go back and then ignore the laws here. Insisting that we use British laws in the U.S. is pointless and stupid.</i>
-------------------------------

By the same token, once 20th Century Fox distributed a film to Britain and accepted ticket sales there, it is bound by British law.

-------------------------------
<i>I didn't say that. You are the one claiming that the whole world has to follow your laws.</i>
-------------------------------

My laws? I live in Australia; I haven't even mentioned Australian copyright law. You, on the other hand, keep insisting that a film that was made outside the U.S., using many characters of non-U.S. origin, employs non-U.S. cast and crew, is being distributed outside the U.S. and exists in a world where the U.S. is bound by various international trade agreements, should be subject only to U.S. copyright law.

-------------------------------
<i>No other legal system other than the U.S. one matters for people in the U.S. Facts are facts. If Australia passes a law outlawing red ties OF COURSE we in the U.S. are going to ignore it. Same thing with copyrights.</i>
-------------------------------

So if you visit Australia, it's okay for you to break local laws because you're from the U.S.? If the film never leaves the U.S., then it need only abide by U.S. law. But the film is being distributed worldwide.

-------------------------------
<i>Not for U.S. projects, no. Where it was filmed, the nationality of the actors, etc. does not matter. Now if they release in other countries, they follow the laws there... but, oddly enough, the Invisible Man is still public domain in all these countries because the copyright expired even under the most generous of laws.</I>
-------------------------------

I'm sorry, how is it a U.S. project given all the other nationalities represented in the making of the film? To be only a U.S. project, and thus subject to only U.S. copyright law, wouldn't it have to be made exclusively in the U.S., employing only U.S. personnel? As far as I can tell, it's a multi-national project.

And, for what it's worth, the most generous copyright laws in the world today are American. Under the Digital Copyright Act of 1998 extended the period of protection to life time of the author plus 75 years. Since <i>The Invisible Man</i> lapsed into the public domain two years earlier, in 1996, it should still be in the public domain. However, Fu Manchu was still in copyright when the act was passed by the U.S. Congress, so the extension would have applied to it.

Regards,

Zoran