tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1682675315100484549..comments2024-03-29T06:00:27.896+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Rather a double life: 26 extra years of copyright for Beatrix PotterVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1323797174374368092016-01-30T17:22:40.399+00:002016-01-30T17:22:40.399+00:00Had the transitional provisions not existed, the d...Had the transitional provisions not existed, the discoverer would have been entitled to the publication right for 25 years (essentially copyright) under regulation 16 of the 1996 Regulations. And in other EU countries where no strange transitional provisions it will still apply as it is based on article 4 of the Term Directive. It just becomes more complicated...BDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-896023753716343682016-01-29T17:34:58.152+00:002016-01-29T17:34:58.152+00:00I am glad to say that neither this story nor the d...I am glad to say that neither this story nor the date 2039 are unfamiliar to archivists, who all know very well that all the unpublished literary, dramatic and musical works in their record offices are protected by copyright until the end of 2039 at the earliest. I say at the earliest because if life plus 70 gives a later terminal date, that term applies: see SI 1995/3297 paras 15(1) and 16(c). You might recall too that the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 gave the Government the power to do away with most of the 2039 terms, notably this one, but that it has decided not to act. Archivists are therefore left having to advise their users that copyright applies even to works hundreds of years old. Luckily, they have an exception that helps in many cases. CDPA sch 1 para 16 preserves parts of s7 of the 1956 Act which permit the copying with a view to publication of an unpublished work that is at least 100 years old, whose author has been dead for at least 50 years and that is available to the public in a library or similar institution, and the work may be published so long as the copyright owner is unknown to the publisher. It would not apply in this case of course, since the copyright owner is known. Welcome to our world.Tim, Copyright for Archivistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05255486832652479634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-79367098709147694512016-01-29T12:35:38.540+00:002016-01-29T12:35:38.540+00:00The use of the word "publish" in patent ...The use of the word "publish" in patent law is not the same as in copyright. See the definition in Art. 3(3) of the 1971 Paris Act of the Berne Convention (and before that Art. 4(4) of the 1948 Brussels Act) which both require that copies of the work have been issued in a certain quantity. None of them includes a single copy in a library archive.Jørgen Blomqvistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-79288995707103488152016-01-29T10:49:19.246+00:002016-01-29T10:49:19.246+00:00Of course, a document being available in library a...Of course, a document being available in library archives would, in patent matters, be considered to have been published. Does copyright have a different approach?<br />Kantnoreply@blogger.com