Uruguay Round Agreements Act

US President Bill Clinton sent the bill for the URAA to Congress on September 27, 1994, where he was introduced to the House of Representatives under the number HR 5110 ^[1] and to the Senate as S. 2467 ^[2] . The bill was considered under a special accelerated procedure, in which none of the chambers can change it. The House of Representatives passed the bill on November 29; The Senate adopted it on December 1. President Clinton signed the law on December 8, 1994 as Pub.L. 103-465 ^[3] . The URAA entered into force on January 1, 1995. ^[4] Through the URAA, a number of technical amendments were made to the copyright provisions through the Copyright Technical Amendment Act (HR 672, signed as Pub. L. 105-80) in 1997. ^[five]

Section V of the URAA has made several changes to US copyright law . Section 17 (“Copyright”) of the United States Code was amended to include a completely revised Section 104A on the restoration of copyright to foreign works and a new Chapter 11 containing a ban on pirated audio and video recordings of concert performances. Section 18 of the United States Code has a new article (2319A) detailing the penalties for violating the new ban. ^[6]

Copyright Recovery

On March 1, 1989, the United States acceded to the Berne Convention through its signing and the adoption of the 1988 Berne Convention Implementation Act (BCIA). Article 18 of the Berne Convention states that the contract covers all works that at the time of signing were still protected by copyright in the country of their creation, as well as those that did not go into the public domain in the country where copyright was claimed ^[7] . Consequently, the United States had to grant copyright to foreign works that had never been protected by US copyright before. But the state rejected this requirement of the Berne Convention and applied the rules of the contract only for works first published after March 1, 1989 ^[8] . Foreign works that were not covered by other treaties, and which were not previously protected in the United States, remained without protection in this country. ^[9]

The United States was sharply criticized because of the unilateral termination of the retroactive effect of the Berne Convention, as defined in Article 18 ^{[8] [10]} , which ultimately prompted the United States to change its point of view. The copyright changes implemented by the URAA in 17 USC 104A ^[11] corrected the situation and brought US law into line with the requirements of the Berne Convention. ^[12]

Thanks to 17 USC 104A, the copyrights of many works of foreign authors, which had never before been protected by copyright in the United States ^[13] , were protected in this state, as if they had never passed into the public domain. ^[14]

Works affected by law are those that were in the public domain in the United States due to a lack of international agreements between the United States and the country of origin of the work, or due to non-compliance by the United States with copyright registration and a lack of notice . The law also affected works that were previously protected by copyright in the United States, but went into the public domain due to a refusal to extend their term of protection. The law defines these works as “restored works”, and the protection renewed or acquired by them is called “restored copyright”, despite the fact that many of these works have never been defended in the United States to restore them.

The restoration of copyright came into force on January 1, 1996 for works from countries that were at that time signed the Berne Convention, were members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), signed the WIPO Copyright Treaty or the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty . The restoration of copyright to works from other countries entered into force on the earliest of the dates of accession of the country to one of these four treaties ^[15] .

Administrative Procedures

The URAA also introduced administrative procedures in 17 USC 104A regarding cases in which someone conscientiously used a work that was previously in the public domain and for which copyright was restored by the entry into force of the URAA ^[16]

In particular, the copyright holders had to submit a special notice on the restoration of copyright to the work used. The notice was to be filed with the US Copyright Office and made publicly available ^[17] . The copyright holder had the right to take any action against a user who uses labor without permission only after filing the mentioned notification. ^[18]

Recovery Issues

URAA copyright restoration has raised the issue of violating the United States Constitution in American society.

In the Golan lawsuit against Holder , as in the case of CTEA and URAA, a lawsuit was filed in suspicion of violation of Section 8, Clause 8 of the first article of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power to “ encourage the development of sciences and useful arts, protecting for a limited period the ownership of authors and inventors on their works and discoveries. ” According to the plaintiffs, the URAA violated the “limited” term of copyright by returning it from the public domain and reanimating it again, which does not contribute to the progress of science or art. In addition, plaintiffs claimed URAA violates the first and fifth constitutional amendments . The lawsuit was dismissed by a United States court in the District of Colorado , ^[19] but the decision was appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals , overturning the district court's decision, deciding to re-examine the violation of the first constitutional amendment. ^{[20] [21]}

On April 3, 2009, in the Golan v. Holder case, Judge Lewis Babcock in the Colorado District Court considered a violation of the first constitutional amendment. ^[22] The court ruled that Section 514 of the URAA section is significantly wider than is required to achieve state interests. By restoring copyright to certain works, and claiming royalties one year after the restoration of copyright, the US Congress exceeded its constitutional authority ^{[23] [24]} . On March 7, 2011, the US Supreme Court received a claim from the Golan and others. ^[25] On January 18, 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the URAA after a vote of 6 to 2. The majority opinion was expressed by Judge Ruth Ginsburg , the minority opinion was upheld by Judge Stephen Brier . ^[26]

The second lawsuit was heard in the case of Luck's Music Library, Inc. against Gonzales, but was rejected. ^[27]

In the United States, copyright in a number of well-known films has been restored as a result of the adoption of the URAA. Among them are such famous paintings as “ Metropolis ” (1927) ^[28] , “ Blackmail ” (1929) ^[29] , “ 39 steps ” (1935) ^[29] and “ The Third Man ” (1949). ^[29]

• Bilateral U.S. Copyright Agreements

Notes

Bibliography

• Elst, M .: Copyright, Freedom of Speech, and Cultural Policy in the Russian Federation , Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden / Boston, 2005; ISBN 90-04-14087-5 .
• Hirtle, PB: “ Copyright Renewal, Copyright Restoration, and the Difficulty of Determining Copyright Status ”, in D-Lib Magazine 14 (7/8) , July / August 2008. ISSN 1082-9873 .
• Patry, WF : Copyright Law and Practice , 2000 Cumulative Supplement to Chapter 1. Bna Books, ISBN 0-87179-854-9 . The 2000 Supplement has ISBN 1-57018-208-6 . URL last accessed 2007-01-30.
• Pilch, JT: Understanding Copyright Law for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Materials , in Slavic and East European Information Resources (SEEIR) 4 (1) , pp. 75 to 101; Haworth Information Press 2003.
• Regnier, O .: Who Framed Article 18? The Protection of pre-1989 Works in the US under the Berne Convention , p. 400–405 in European Intellectual Property Review , 1993.
• US Congress: Uruguay Round Agreements Act dead link ] , HR 5110, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., Became Pub. L. No. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809
• WIPO : Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works ... as revised in Paris 1971 and amended in 1979. URL last accessed 2007-01-30.

• US Copyright Office - Notices of Restored Copyrights