fast.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2018-01-10/uramichi-oniisan-manga-explains-problems-of-illegal-distribution-sites/.126173 Rant: If you have uploaded the original theatrical version of a now public domain (at least in it's native country and the country you uploaded it in) onto YouTube, there is less of an issue. That is, if all copyrighted layers of that film version have lapsed their copyrights (especially the book it was adapted from and the soundtrack) and all possible trademarks related to that film have lapsed, you shouldn't be in any legal trouble. That is, outside of a thing called copyright restoration. I want to tweet back at this manga-ka the Japanese equivalent of the following statement: "when a manga work's copyrights and trademarks become public domain in the country of the uploader, it is legal." What is the Japanese writing equivalent of this quote about the public domain?
First question, do you even know if Japanese law has public domain? (Edit: well they do, and its a mess, even by law standards)
Berne Convention (that international copyright treaty most of the nations are members) mandates that most works (excluding film and photos) expire at least 50 years after the creator(s) have died. Japan and the USA both have it at life+70. So, Japan does have public domain.
I'm still both laughing and shocking when I remember about that chapter. The irony when you were reading about it on an aggregator site, and about how the scanlation team felt when they translated this chapter.
fast.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2018-01-10/uramichi-oniisan-manga-explains-problems-of-illegal-distribution-sites/.126173. So, could someone please put the Japanese text equivalent of my opening quote? Thanks.
Have you read Disney and their influence on copyright law to extend Mickey Mouse copyright duration ?
Correction: it's Steamboat Willie that they keep extending. Mickey is trademarked to the point that there is a perpetual copyright on him (from a practical standpoint). However, that type of copyright is forbidden by the American Constitution.
Japan is life+50 Their copyright law, chapter 2, section 4, article 51(2) @Kadmos1 you can read the entire section 4 term of protection if you wanna find what you wanna find. http://www.cric.or.jp/english/clj/cl2.html#cl2_2+S4
OK, thanks for the correction. Now, could someone please translate my quote into the Japanese equivalent?
?? So what is your problem with what he said? Did you know that Japan has very little illicit online distribution of copyrighted material? Cuz copyright laws are scary.... It's probably strange for him how everything keeps getting uploaded online in the West... Also imagine how he feels - his work being distributed illegally without him even seeing a penny of that profit... Welp here you go, a rough translation: ちゃんと作者とか漫画家の作品の著作権を国際的に保護しないと外国では公共圏になるので外国では違法ではありません。 I am rusty but that should get your message across: it's not illegal because it's not internationally protected.
My concern falls mainly with the idea that people tend to think that an unauthorized distribution means it's illegal. When a person uploads a manga (or any work) online and when all copyrights/TMs to it (including any underlying source material) are now public domain, it is legal. Also, unauthorized doesn't always mean illegal. For example, a now public domain movie was uploaded onto YT. While you were not authorized by the previous rights holders to upload, legally you don't need to ask permission.
It's his work; he eats and lives from the money his Manga makes. He has a right to feel betrayed when his work is distributed without his permission. He also has the right to speak out when he sees something he thinks is 'wrong'. I get why you want to say to him, I really do, but you should also consider the Mangaka's feelings, too. It may be public domain in your country, but it's not public domain in his country and every time his work is released online, it's lost revenue for him. His work input |= revenue output; most people would quit this losing venture. Nobody complained when JK Rowling pursued several cases for violating her copyrights, if I remember correctly. Yes, her work was legally protected, but the sentiment is the same; she's a producer who wanted to protect the validity of her product. Is a Mangaka's work somehow worth less because it was drawn and not written? His copyright information is wrong, yes, but the topic you're trying to defend can hardly be morally correct in this case. Or did I misunderstand you again? NOTE: I noticed there was a problem in my English part so I fixed it. What I wrote in Japanese => unless authors or mangakas protect their copyrights internationally, it becomes public domain in foreign countries. P.S. I have very little understanding of copyrights, so please don't take anything I say too personally. If you think I misunderstood something please clarify it for me.
TammyMay said: "His copyright information is wrong, yes, but the topic you're trying to defend can hardly be morally correct in this case. Or did I misunderstand you again?" As for as the moral part, I don't think that's what I trying to convey in these posts in this thread. Heck, all of my rants about the public domain and the problems with copyright are essentially shot done of the immorality of my frequenting scanlation sites (one of the posts of one of my FB accounts I have admitted that). What also I found immoral is how even after all his copyrights have expired in the USA (upwards of a century from now), there might be trademarks to still protect it. Works can easily be removed from the public domain and re-copyrighted. It's happened millions of times in the USA with the 1/2012 gase Golan V. Holder. That case removed millions of foreign works in the Amer. public domain back into copyright protection. Oh, and these works won't be PD in their native countries until for many decades from now.
One of the things about international treaties is understanding how different laws apply to different countries. If a foreign work is public domain in the USA but not in its native country, I wonder if the creator should feel betrayed about public domain exploitation. Berne countries fall under the min. of life+50 but Mexico has it as high as life+100. The Disney Empire would be happy with that.
That was very interesting; I didn't know the things could be re-copyrighted. So you are basically saying that the current copyright laws should be amended? Either way, I hope my translation was helpful to you, even in a little way.
Copyright laws are mutually accepted based on where the work was published as long as they're all signatories of the Berne Convention. If his work was published in Japan, even in America, America will do the most minimum of their legal obligations, which is to accept and enforce Japanese law on that copyright. The only way it can be different is if America's law enforces a longer copyright period and makes that law applicable to foreign production as well. So if in Japan that guy's copyright has not yet expired, it's not expired everywhere else either. Even if it's expired in Japan, some countries may apply their own laws on foreign works, extending it further. However, if you were to go to countries such as Somalia, you can find that you can do whatever you want because they don't sign the Berne Convention.
@TammyMay: Yes, it should be amended. Heck, I wish the Berne Convention was abolished since life+50 for many practical purposes is perpetual copyright. Such a copyright is forbidden by the Constitution. On the copyright restoration, here's a major one: John T. Aquino is an author and attorney representing Maryland and D.C. He has 3/30/2012 blog entry called "Legal Problem Solving: It's a Wonderful Life" (johntaquino.com/Blog--Substantially-Similar.html…) and it describes about how It’s a Wonderful Life got a copyright restoration. The Abend case is also mentioned. Federal courts have ruled that pre-1972 sound recordings fully become public domain from federal and state/common law copyright protections) on 2/15/2067. So, even though an American film may be public domain because of lack of renewal, the soundtrack is still copyrighted. So, even if the classic 1946 Christmas film failed to renew its copyright or lapses its current 95-year protection, it still has a layer of copyright protection via soundtrack until that date. Thus, it can have over 120 years of federal and common-law copyright protections with the music. What's also hectic is figuring when the 2nd copyright expires (for the movie itself, not necessarily the music). American media companies or literary estates often lobbies Congress or bribes (for lack of a better word) a Congress member to side with a copyright bill works in that company or estate's favor. While Congress or SCOTUS might claim such decisions are done to adhere to international copyright/trade agreements, I think it's really so estates or companies can have a work's copyright last longer than it should. It doesn't help that Viacom has a label/division called Melange Pictures that has some USPTO-registered trademark on the classic film title. So, even if the copyright was not restored, one couldn't do really do a much with it (play or movie re-make wise). To be able legally play the classic movie onto YT without fear of lawsuits, one thing you would have to do is remove the soundtrack. In other words, censorship. The problem with changing American laws is when they become "ex post facto" laws. Latin for "out of the aftermath", these are laws that apply retroactively. U.S. Constitution Section 9, Article I, Clause 3 and Sectio10, Article I, Clause 1 respectively forbids Congress and a State from passing "ex post facto" laws. Assistant Prof. of Law Evan C. Zoldan at the University of Toledo College of Law wrote a nearly 60-page research paper called "The Civil Ex Post Facto Clause"* on 7/23/14 but revised it nearly 16 months later. On its Social Science Research Network page, the Abstract says the following (papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2469141): "Since its first interpretation of the Ex Post Facto Clause in Calder v. Bull, the Supreme Court consistently has held that the clause applies only to retroactive criminal, but not civil, laws. The consequences of this distinction are far-ranging, permitting, for example, states to keep offenders behind bars after they have served their sentences. The Court’s distinction between civil and criminal retroactivity is based wholly on Calder’s historical conclusion that the original meaning of the Ex Post Facto Clause included criminal laws only. This article demonstrates that Calder’s historical analysis is wrong." -Another irony is that the earliest Hollywood film studios got their start in part on patent infringement: history.com/news/the-renegade-roots-of-hollywood-studios. Paramount's first produced/distributed movie was partially based off of the public domain: under the name Famous Players Film Company, Paramount Pictures was formed on 5/8/1912. The first movie Paramount produced or distributed was a film variously titled Les Amours de la reine Élisabeth (The Loves of Queen Elizabeth), Les Amours d'Elisabeth, Reine d'Angleterre (The Loves of Elizabeth, Queen of England) or La reine Élisabeth (Queen Elizabeth). Its USA premiere was 7/12/1912 whereas the French premiere was sometime the following month. Yes, it was based off of a French play. However, the French play was based off of the love between the romance of Queen Elizabeth I and Earl of Essex, both of whom died in the early 1600s. Thus, I am somewhat correct in saying Paramount's 1st movie was public domain-based. When does a work go into the Amer. public domain? copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain is a good guide for that. Going with the History.com link, the person that essentially lead the campaign against the Ediso Trust monopoly on patents was William Fox, the namesake of Fox News.