[DEFEATED] Public Domain Act

[Goobergunchia]

[The current text of the resolution (Education and Creativity / Artistic) can be found here. --Goob the Game Mod]

I'd like to note that Untecna made some small edits on this and they deserve some recognition for that.

"The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that creators of visual media, audio media, and writings are made copyright in order to allow the original creator to gain recognition and compensation for their work,

Noting that public domain allows a work hard to obtain due to copyright holders refusing to publish the work to a larger level, or multiple copyright holders not being able to agree on a fair release of a work to gain a wider release, as well as inspiring other media creators in their own work,

Hereby:

1. Defines "public domain", for the purpose of this resolution, as a work that has been released for a period of time that decidedly would be long enough for the creator of said work to profit off of it, then being unable to be claimed as copyright and allowed to be publically sold and shared without the threat of a lawsuit.

2. Mandates member states to recognize the period of time under copyright as not more than 65 years after the work's original publishing year, but not less than 20 years after the work's original publishing year.

3. Allows any and all peoples within member states to sell, share, repurpose, and/or reuse the work freely after the copyright's expiration without threat of prosecution.

4. Requests member states to waive the copyright period if the previous copyright holder had relinquished copyright, such as a copyright held by a company that went out of business and did not sell or otherwise give the copyright to a successor, allowing the general populace the chance to experience a potentially obscure work without the possibility of being prosecuted by an unknown copyright holder.

5. Gives creators the right to void a copyright they previously made, therein releasing the work into public domain, ideally by notifying the member state's equivalent of a Copyright Protection Office.

6. Encourages member states to celebrate its nation's public domain works in a part of its culture."

[Hulldom]

Have no opinion yet.

Two notes: Change your "persecution"s to "prosecution". Also, (6) isn't necessary.

[Oateria]

Have no opinion yet.

Two notes: Change your "persecution"s to "prosecution". Also, (6) isn't necessary.

Done.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Might be relevant. viewtopic.php?p=12643083#p12643083.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

My only issue is that the term “copyright” is not actually defined in this resolution, even though the word is said in multiple operative clauses.

(OOC: I know what copyright means irl, but yeah)

[Makko Oko]

OOC: I think an addition of clauses regarding foreigners and copyright in WA member nations (that are not their own) would be interesting and useful

[Fachumonn]

Surround it with

Code: Select all

[box] [/box]

for reading purposes.

[Oateria]

Alright, new revision:

"The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that creators of visual media, audio media, and writings are made copyright in order to allow the original creator to gain recognition and compensation for their work,

Noting that public domain allows a work hard to obtain due to copyright holders refusing to publish the work to a larger level, or multiple copyright holders not being able to agree on a fair release of a work to gain a wider release, as well as inspiring other media creators in their own work,

Hereby:

1. Defines "public domain", for the purpose of this resolution, as a work that has been released for a period of time that decidedly would be long enough for the creator of said work to profit off of it, then being unable to be claimed as copyright and allowed to be publically sold and shared without the threat of a lawsuit.

2. Defines "copyright", for the purpose of this resolution, as a period legal protection of different works in order to give creators a fair length of time that they may profit off the work that they have created without worry of persons plagiarizing the work and then profiting off work that they do not have a claim to.

3. Mandates member states to recognize the period of time under copyright as not more than 65 years after the work's original publishing year, but not less than 20 years after the work's original publishing year in accordance with [resolution=GA#232]Foreign Copyright Recognition[/resolution].

4. Allows any and all peoples within member states to sell, share, repurpose, and/or reuse the work freely after the copyright's expiration without threat of prosecution.

5. Requests member states to waive the copyright period if the previous copyright holder had relinquished copyright, such as a copyright held by a company that went out of business and did not sell or otherwise give the copyright to a successor, allowing the general populace the chance to experience a potentially obscure work without the possibility of being prosecuted by an unknown copyright holder.

6. Gives creators the right to void a copyright they previously made, therein releasing the work into public domain, ideally by notifying the member state's equivalent of a Copyright Protection Office.

[Jedinsto]

This has supposedly been submitted and appears to be approaching quorum.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"Section 3 fundamentally misunderstands how IP laws work -- generally, enforcement is sought by the originator of said work in a civil court, rather than a 'prosecution'."

"The definition of 'public domain' is also incredibly complicated, and my mission fails to comprehend what it's referring to. Finally, the set years micromanage member nations and unduly restrict the right to economic freedom."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

Ooc: This is a good start for a first-time author -- however, I would strongly encourage you to withdraw this so that you can continue drafting on the forums and receive further feedback prior to resubmitting. Five posts other than your own prior to submitting is insufficient.

[Heavens Reach]

We think the submission of this was premature, especially since it is still marked "DRAFT"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Someone raised the possibility of contradiction with GA 232 "Foreign Copyright Recognition" (linked above) on the WA server. I don't believe it is possible for contradiction with that resolution to at all be possible due to its inclusion of the clause "Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be interpreted as limiting the World Assembly from further legislating on copyright". Any time a future resolution contradicts such a proposal (which would per se be further legislating on copyright), FCR gives way.

[Untecna]

Is it odd that I am mentioned and don't remember if I actually did anything or not?

Edit: Nevermind. I looked back and there is another thread.

[Heidgaudr]

"The Associated Communities remain opposed to all proposals that seek to force this absurd capitalist concept of 'copyright' upon us."

---

OOC: This proposal is an absolute mess.

1. Defines "public domain", for the purpose of this resolution, as a work that has been released for a period of time that decidedly would be long enough for the creator of said work to profit off of it, then being unable to be claimed as copyright and allowed to be publically sold and shared without the threat of a lawsuit.

So first of all this (as well as your copyright definition which we'll get to in a moment) doesn't even make sense grammatically. Secondly, public domain isn't something a work needs to be designated as; it's the default. Things are only outside of the public domain if the government makes them so by granting what we call copyright.

2. Defines "copyright", for the purpose of this resolution, as a period legal protection of different works in order to give creators a fair length of time that they may profit off the work that they have created without worry of persons plagiarizing the work and then profiting off work that they do not have a claim to.

Copyright isn't a period of time. It's the exclusive rights to the creative work. The purpose of copyright isn't just to profit off of it (though that is the single largest factor) - it's to also give the creator greater creative control over the spread and evolution of the creative work.

3. Mandates member states to recognize the period of time under copyright as not more than 65 years after the work's original publishing year, but not less than 20 years after the work's original publishing year.

This is very arbitrary. Why choose these lengths of time?

4. Allows any and all peoples within member states to sell, share, repurpose, and/or reuse the work freely after the copyright's expiration without threat of prosecution.

Yes, that's what happens when the creator doesn't have exclusive rights to an intellectual property.

5. Requests member states to waive the copyright period if the previous copyright holder had relinquished copyright, such as a copyright held by a company that went out of business and did not sell or otherwise give the copyright to a successor, allowing the general populace the chance to experience a potentially obscure work without the possibility of being prosecuted by an unknown copyright holder.

This is generally unnecessary IMO. The state isn't the one prosecuting copyright violations; it is the rights-holder's duty to bring civil suits. If there is no remaining rights-holder, it's effectively abandoned and public domain.

[Excidium Planetis]

"According to the definition provided, works that are never copyrighted wouldn't be in the public domain." Adelia states. "Since, uh, they, haven't been released for a period of time to allow the creator to profit off them.

"This proposal, therefore, limits the right to distribute uncopyrighted materials."

[Oateria]

"The Associated Communities remain opposed to all proposals that seek to force this absurd capitalist concept of 'copyright' upon us."

---

OOC: This proposal is an absolute mess.

1. Defines "public domain", for the purpose of this resolution, as a work that has been released for a period of time that decidedly would be long enough for the creator of said work to profit off of it, then being unable to be claimed as copyright and allowed to be publically sold and shared without the threat of a lawsuit.

So first of all this (as well as your copyright definition which we'll get to in a moment) doesn't even make sense grammatically. Secondly, public domain isn't something a work needs to be designated as; it's the default. Things are only outside of the public domain if the government makes them so by granting what we call copyright.

2. Defines "copyright", for the purpose of this resolution, as a period legal protection of different works in order to give creators a fair length of time that they may profit off the work that they have created without worry of persons plagiarizing the work and then profiting off work that they do not have a claim to.

Copyright isn't a period of time. It's the exclusive rights to the creative work. The purpose of copyright isn't just to profit off of it (though that is the single largest factor) - it's to also give the creator greater creative control over the spread and evolution of the creative work.

3. Mandates member states to recognize the period of time under copyright as not more than 65 years after the work's original publishing year, but not less than 20 years after the work's original publishing year.

This is very arbitrary. Why choose these lengths of time?

4. Allows any and all peoples within member states to sell, share, repurpose, and/or reuse the work freely after the copyright's expiration without threat of prosecution.

Yes, that's what happens when the creator doesn't have exclusive rights to an intellectual property.

5. Requests member states to waive the copyright period if the previous copyright holder had relinquished copyright, such as a copyright held by a company that went out of business and did not sell or otherwise give the copyright to a successor, allowing the general populace the chance to experience a potentially obscure work without the possibility of being prosecuted by an unknown copyright holder.

This is generally unnecessary IMO. The state isn't the one prosecuting copyright violations; it is the rights-holder's duty to bring civil suits. If there is no remaining rights-holder, it's effectively abandoned and public domain.

1. Understandable- But if one copyrights something, the copyright period starts at its release.
2. No arguments here, just my personal definition of it- SPECIFICALLY for the resolution.
3. A previous resolution mandated 20 being the minimum, and 65 feels like a good round number, and just a bit more than the US's old copyright period being 56 years. (I know it's OOC but that's part of my reasoning).
4. Just trying to make it clear and set out.
5. Again, I understand and this has been a consistent question but I think people miss the main thing- "Prosecuted BY AN UNKNOWN COPYRIGHT HOLDER." This is also planned to end so-called orphaned works, where the intellectual rights are so unclear that nobody is comfortable publishing it, usually making it lost to time.

[Jedinsto]

Why don't you withdraw this proposal and get some more time to work on it, then eventually resubmit?

[Oateria]

Why don't you withdraw this proposal and get some more time to work on it, then eventually resubmit?

I figure that because it's already in queue I'll keep it in; If general consensus in the vote is that work is still needed or it does get passed and then repealed for the same reasons stated above I'll rework it, but as it stands I don't see large enough issues to justify immidiately withdrawing it. I've done that before for this same legislature, and there's resolutions that currently stand that are more questionable than the one put forth (IE the pillow comfortability resolution) that I feel withdrawl is a slightly extreme reaction.

Criticisms are understood though, and as always welcome.

[Jedinsto]

Why don't you withdraw this proposal and get some more time to work on it, then eventually resubmit?

I figure that because it's already in queue I'll keep it in; If general consensus in the vote is that work is still needed or it does get passed and then repealed for the same reasons stated above I'll rework it, but as it stands I don't see large enough issues to justify immidiately withdrawing it. I've done that before for this same legislature, and there's resolutions that currently stand that are more questionable than the one put forth (IE the pillow comfortability resolution) that I feel withdrawl is a slightly extreme reaction.

Criticisms are understood though, and as always welcome.

It is my inclination that this proposal will be defeated, judging by the vote on the TNP forums at the moment.

[The Orwell Society]

Opposed. This proposal is not at all ready for submission.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

It is my inclination that this proposal will be defeated, judging by the vote on the TNP forums at the moment.

Ooc: Agreed. In any case, there's nothing wrong with withdrawing to further work on your proposal and then resubmitting later down the line

[The North Polish Union]

Proud to be the first "Against" (and second overall) vote on this resolution

[Tinhampton]

Hell no. The WA should not require member states to introduce copyright protections for domestically-produced works.

[Lounarei]

"20 years minimum? 20? OK, no. Against. Unless dat becomes 6 years maximum."
--Mésruu Kiimas, WA Ambassador to the Concordat of Lónaré

[Abhorsenia and Clayran]

Is too complicated. Must vote no..