PASSED: WA Copyright Charter

[Glen-Rhodes]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

WA Copyright Charter
Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Artistic

Desiring to strengthen and protect the rights of authors in their literary and artistic works, as well as in the intellectual means of the production of such works,

Recognizing the legitimacy of national copyright laws, but understanding that international rules must be established to protect the rights of authors abroad,

The World Assembly therefore

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, “copyright law” as any law that grants the author of an original work of creative artistic or literary value exclusive right for a certain period of time in relation to that work, including its publication, distribution, and adaptation, after which time the work enters the public domain; “public domain” as the collection of works neither protected under copyright law nor under state ownership, available for free use by the public; “intellectual property” as intangible property that is the result of original artistic and commercial creativity, and that owners have been granted exclusive right over; “fair use” as the use of any copyrighted work or intellectual property for educational, personal, private, critical, or satirical purposes, provided that such use does not excessively infringe on the exclusive right or profits of the owner;

REAFFIRMS that national copyright laws apply to works created, distributed, and used in that nation, regardless of the origin of such works or the nationality or citizenship of the owner,

NOTES that such affirmation does not grant immunity to persons or institutions being held liable by foreign governments or copyright holders for the infringement of any copyrighted work or intellectual property, given that sufficient proof can establish a direct intent to infringe upon the rights of the owner of the copyrighted work or intellectual property;

DECLARES that national copyright laws must grant the following rights and protections to the owners of any copyrighted work or intellectual property: the owner’s exclusive right over the work or intellectual property, including its publication, distribution, and adaptation; the right of immediate copyright protection abroad of a work following placement in tangible form, with no legal or statutory formalities required for protection; the protection of the work or intellectual property from the publication, distribution, adaptation, display, demonstration, reproduction, and storage in electronic form by any person or government entity without the consent of the owner, for a period of time extending at least twenty-five years after the death of the creator, or the shorter of thirty years from publication or forty years from creation, if the work is of corporate authorship;

FURTHER DECLARES that national copyright laws must not discriminate in favor of domestic works, however affirming that nations may subject domestic works to additional requirements for copyright protection;

ALSO AFFIRMS that copyrighted works may be used freely and legally, if such use can be proven to be legitimate fair use;

PROTECTS the right of a copyright holder or intellectual property owner to sell, trade, or otherwise transfer their exclusive right to another party; to release the copyrighted work or intellectual property in to the public domain; and to license the use of copyrighted work or intellectual property to any person or institution, under any reasonable terms they so wish.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Buffett and Colbert]

I think it's great. It doesn't have any typos either!

[Rolovaria]

Very well written draft honorable ambassador. The bill as it stands has my approval and my support.

I do have a question, what are the consequences of someone that is found in violation of international copyright infringement?

[Bears Armed]

OOC: I challenge the category!

Seriously, it doesn't increase people's political rights IC but that's the OOC stat-change effect...
There was an NSUN resolution on this topic that got passed as 'Free Trade', but then the Mods clamped down on what could be squeezed into that catgeory.

Maybe you could stress that you're protecting the rights of authors, and try for 'Human Rights' (with a strength of 'Mild', because authors are only a tiny proportion of most nations' populations)? Or maybe stress that breaking copyrights is wrong & should therefore be stopped, and try for 'Moral Decency' [Mild] instead?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I think this draft would be to intellectually protect the arts, so perhaps it may be category Education and Creativity, effect Artistic.

[Bears Armed]

I think this draft would be to intellectually protect the arts, so perhaps it may be category Education and Creativity, effect Artistic.

Hr'rmm, I suppose that might work; we didn't have that category amongst the options back when the NSUN discussed this matter...

[Ruchina]

Excellent proposition, Ambassador. But in my eyes, it is up to the nations themselves to enforce international copyright law in the end. This may be hard for some nations, due to having criminals that have done far worse to deal with.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Excellent proposition, Ambassador. But in my eyes, it is up to the nations themselves to enforce international copyright law in the end. This may be hard for some nations, due to having criminals that have done far worse to deal with.

You can say this about every proposal.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I do have a question, what are the consequences of someone that is found in violation of international copyright infringement?

The resolution expressly states that persons or institutions that violate the copyright laws of a foreign nation are not immune to be held liable, or in other words can be prosecuted for copyright violation. For instance, if a person were to take a foreign author's work and publish it, making a profit, in his own nation, then the author (or copyright holder) would be permitted to file suit against the violator. However, it is stated that a direct intent to 'infringe on the rights of the owner' must be proved, which will help prevent cases of say.. inventors suing each other over inventing the same thing, independent of each other.

Excellent proposition, Ambassador. But in my eyes, it is up to the nations themselves to enforce international copyright law in the end. This may be hard for some nations, due to having criminals that have done far worse to deal with.

My own opinion is that the World Assembly has legitimate jurisdiction over international matters, including the international validity of copyrights. Without this, how can a foreign entity sue a domestic entity, if there are no laws saying that they can?
[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

OOC: I challenge the category!

(OOC: Fair enough. I wasn't too sure about the category, either. I think Education and Creativity, Artistic would work well, since it sort of does promote the arts with establishing certain rights for authors, inventors, etc.)

[Travancore-Cochin]

intellectual property from the publication, distribution, adaptation, display, demonstration, reproduction, and storage in electronic form by any person or government entity without the consent of the owner, for a period of time extending seventy years after the death of the creator, or the shorter of ninety-five years from publication or one hundred twenty years from creation, if the work is of corporate authorship;

We disagree with the above, Honoured Ambassador. We believe that it is best left to the individual NationState to decide on this. Should the Honourable Bradford Castro work to address our concern as expressed, we shall happily endorse this proposal. That is all.

Thank you for your time.

[Glen-Rhodes]

We disagree with the above, Honoured Ambassador. We believe that it is best left to the individual NationState to decide on this. Should the Honourable Bradford Castro work to address our concern as expressed, we shall happily endorse this proposal. That is all.

The individual states may wish to introduce longer time periods, but I feel it's appropriate to ensure that a minimum is established.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Some official government works of some countries may be in public domain straight after publishing. Maybe it would be good to adjust it to take that into account. Something like:

EMPHASIZES that official works of the government may continue to be put into public domain at any time...

Then you may need to adjust some sections to exclude government and official state works.

[Krioval]

Is such a long minimum really necessary? The Great Chiefdom currently allows for copyright to run either until the original owner's death or for twenty-five years after publication, whichever is longer. We really do not see the reason for incredibly long periods of exclusive ownership as a WA standard - though we recognize those nations wishing to protect copyright in their nations for longer if they so choose.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

[Glen-Rhodes]

Some official government works of some countries may be in public domain straight after publishing. Maybe it would be good to adjust it to take that into account. Something like:

EMPHASIZES that official works of the government may continue to be put into public domain at any time...

Then you may need to adjust some sections to exclude government and official state works.

I believe the last clause would allow government entities to immediately release official government works in to the public domain. As for adjustments: what do you suppose needs adjusted?

Is such a long minimum really necessary? The Great Chiefdom currently allows for copyright to run either until the original owner's death or for twenty-five years after publication, whichever is longer. We really do not see the reason for incredibly long periods of exclusive ownership as a WA standard - though we recognize those nations wishing to protect copyright in their nations for longer if they so choose.

Does the Lord Ambassador have any suggestions for how long the period ought to be? The current time period of copyright retention is a reflection of Glen-Rhodes copyright law. However, I do wish to maintain protection for a certain amount of time after the death of the creator (or, as you put it, the 'original owner').

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Now that the issue of government works is addressed, as it stands it is a great draft with Education and Creativity, Artistic as the category, honoured ambassador, the first proposal of this kind. You have my support.

[New Illuve]

The Holy Empire of New Illuve has several serious issues with this Draft. Considering the complexity surrounding copyright, intellectual property and related issues She wonders if the constraints within the World Assembly even allow for an adequate handling of the subject; but that is a different issue.

The Holy Empire must question why Glen-Rhodes feels the need to over-ride national laws with regards to how long any copyright is granted with an international treaty? Surely each nation can determine best for itself how the laws regarding these issues can be best solved given the various cultures, ideologies, needs, desires, etc. The Holy Empire asks why the various lengths were chosen? She sees no need for the creator of a work to profit from said work AFTER the creator's death.

Is the term "author" deliberately chosen?

The Holy Empire would also like to point out that, as the creator of a work would be granted automatic rights - with no legal formalities needed with regards to receiving these rights - the phrase "the protection of the work or intellectual property from the publication, distribution, adaptation, display, demonstration, reproduction, and storage in electronic form by any person or government entity without the consent of the owner" will have a host of unintentional and unwanted effects. Consider the following:

1. The creator of (to be dramatic) child pornography would be granted legal protection in denying said film from being shown in any trial raised against him or her: "the protection of the work or intellectual property from the ... display, demonstration ... by any person or government entity without the consent of the owner."

2. As coercion is usually considered to invalidate consent by most civilized nations, a teacher would not be able to force a student to turn in homework should the creating student not wish to distribute same to the teacher: "the protection of the work or intellectual property from t... distribution ... demonstration ... by any person or government entity without the consent of the owner."

The Holy Empire also would like to point out that the phrase "PROTECTS the right of a copyright holder or intellectual property owner to sell, trade, or otherwise transfer their exclusive right to another party, to release the copyrighted work or intellectual property in to the public domain, and to license the use of copyrighted work or intellectual property to any person or institution, under any terms they so wish" is an open invitation to bypass various and sundry national laws, and may, indeed, run into issues in terms of previously passed World Assembly resolutions that would render this Draft illegal.

Assuming that medical equipment can be considered intellectual property, consider if you will a term that only licenses the use of said equipment to those of a certain ethnic group or religious belief. The problems inherent in "any terms" will, of course apply to other examples.

There is no discussion of the status of intellectual property (partly) created using public funding. Nor is there any discussion of who owns the intellectual property when an individual in the employ of a company creates it.

With the lack of any need to formally claim authorship, or the need to put forward a formal claim (as it is automatically and without formality granted) how are the starting dates for the length of time to be determined?

Given that some things can be independently created in complete ignorance of each other, how will it be determined who gains the exclusive rights?

How is it to be determined when a work is "original"?

The Holy Empire of New Illuve awaits answers to these questions before posing more.

[New Illuve]

The Holy Empire of New Illuve would like to point the attention of the various honored Ambassadors to the description of "Education and Creativity". As this category is described as "a resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts" the Holy Empire fails to see how this Draft fits that category. This Draft is geared towards protecting the rights of owners around how a work can be used as well as protecting revenue streams.

Looking at the other categories, it can certainly not be considered "Free Trade" as that description explicitly states "reducing trade barriers" and this Draft does nothing to do that.

"Advancement of Industry" could possibly be stretched almost to the breaking point to cover this, but the Holy Empire of New Illuve is doubtful unless this were to be restricted to copyright and intellectual property of industry.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The Holy Empire must question why Glen-Rhodes feels the need to over-ride national laws with regards to how long any copyright is granted with an international treaty? Surely each nation can determine best for itself how the laws regarding these issues can be best solved given the various cultures, ideologies, needs, desires, etc. The Holy Empire asks why the various lengths were chosen? She sees no need for the creator of a work to profit from said work AFTER the creator's death.

Aside from my belief in international federalism, and the inherent authority of the World Assembly to assert any law it so wishes, so long as such law conforms to the World Assembly's own rules, there are two reasons as to why I will not remove those minimum protections that I can think of off the top of my head. The first being tradition, the second being of a legal reason. Consider, if you will, a publisher seeking to gain the exclusive right over a written work after the death of the author: would you presume to deny the publisher any chance to argue their case in court, if it challenged? Or to even retain the exclusive right of the work at all, if the author did not make the proper arrangements before an untimely death? There must be ample time provided for petitioners to argue their case for attaining the exclusive right after the death of the author. Indeed, I think it's preposterous that a government would force the work to enter the public domain after the author's death. It would be denying the publisher their due profit.

So, as I asked the Lord Ambassador: do you have any suggestions for how long the period ought to be? The final proposal will inevitably have a copyright retention period. So it's best to argue how long it will be, rather than whether or not it should be included.

Is the term "author" deliberately chosen?

Author and creator have the same meaning. Owner, however, refers specifically to whoever has the exclusive right, or copyright, over the work.

1. The creator of (to be dramatic) child pornography would be granted legal protection in denying said film from being shown in any trial raised against him or her: "the protection of the work or intellectual property from the ... display, demonstration ... by any person or government entity without the consent of the owner."

This is an unreasonable scenario.

2. As coercion is usually considered to invalidate consent by most civilized nations, a teacher would not be able to force a student to turn in homework should the creating student not wish to distribute same to the teacher: "the protection of the work or intellectual property from t... distribution ... demonstration ... by any person or government entity without the consent of the owner."

This is also an unreasonable scenario.

The Holy Empire also would like to point out that the phrase "PROTECTS the right of a copyright holder or intellectual property owner to sell, trade, or otherwise transfer their exclusive right to another party, to release the copyrighted work or intellectual property in to the public domain, and to license the use of copyrighted work or intellectual property to any person or institution, under any terms they so wish" is an open invitation to bypass various and sundry national laws, and may, indeed, run into issues in terms of previously passed World Assembly resolutions that would render this Draft illegal.

Assuming that medical equipment can be considered intellectual property, consider if you will a term that only licenses the use of said equipment to those of a certain ethnic group or religious belief. The problems inherent in "any terms" will, of course apply to other examples.

This is also slightly unreasonable, but I do understand your point. I question, though, whether it can be remedied in the way you seek it to be. For now, I have altered the text to read: "under any reasonable terms they so wish". Surely a racially discriminatory license would be unreasonable.

I should mention, however, that a simple national law stating that illegal works cannot be granted a copyright could solve all of the problems you have mentioned.

There is no discussion of the status of intellectual property (partly) created using public funding. Nor is there any discussion of who owns the intellectual property when an individual in the employ of a company creates it.

Why should there be? I see no reason to delve that deeply, and apparently, by the statements you made about copyright retention periods, neither do you. It is up to the individual states to decide these specific matters.

With the lack of any need to formally claim authorship, or the need to put forward a formal claim (as it is automatically and without formality granted) how are the starting dates for the length of time to be determined?

I would assume it's when the author claims to have created the work.

Given that some things can be independently created in complete ignorance of each other, how will it be determined who gains the exclusive rights?

Assuming that both states involved grant exclusive right upon creation, both authors would gain exclusive right over the work in their own nation. Foreign entities would have to respect that, or persecute one of the two if there is evidence of intended infringement. Though, I sincerely doubt that any two works can be spontaneously created by two different, independent persons and be completely identical to each other.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[New Illuve]

Author and creator have the same meaning. Owner, however, refers specifically to whoever has the exclusive right, or copyright, over the work.

The Holy Empire humbly submits that "author" and "creator" do most definitely NOT have the same meaning. They are two quite distinct words. Consider the phrases "the author of the statue" versus "the creator of the statue" to see the difference.

New Illuve wrote:1. The creator of (to be dramatic) child pornography would be granted legal protection in denying said film from being shown in any trial raised against him or her: "the protection of the work or intellectual property from the ... display, demonstration ... by any person or government entity without the consent of the owner."


This is an unreasonable scenario.

Is Glen-Rhodes now on the record as saying prosecuting child pornography is an unreasonable scenario? The Ambassador surely is joking in this! The Draft, as written, clearly would allow said accused to disallow said film from being used in evidence against him. The Holy Empire most emphatically does not consider this as unreasonable. Nor extreme by any stretch of imagination. Especially should the film be the only evidence that someone has committed a sex act against an unknown child in an unknown location at an unknown period of time - as might very well be the case with regards to child sex tourism.

Although the Ambassador of Glen-Rhodes does have a history of dismissing issues with the text as 'unreasonable' when examples pointing them out are too inconvenient.

New Illuve wrote:2. As coercion is usually considered to invalidate consent by most civilized nations, a teacher would not be able to force a student to turn in homework should the creating student not wish to distribute same to the teacher: "the protection of the work or intellectual property from t... distribution ... demonstration ... by any person or government entity without the consent of the owner."


This is also an unreasonable scenario.

Then create your own example. Again - it is the words of the text Draft which explicitly allow for the example, thus pointing out an unintended and unwanted problem. The owner must consent to distribution of the work created. That is clear by the Draft. The use of coercion is generally considered legal grounds for ruling that consent was not given. And for very good reasons; excesses have been made in the past and people must be protected against that. "Sign over ownership or I will destroy your career" if you cannot imagine a reasonable scenario.

I should mention, however, that a simple national law stating that illegal works cannot be granted a copyright could solve all of the problems you have mentioned.

The Ambassador from Glen-Rhodes should read the Draft text. Nowhere does the Draft text allow for the not granting of copyright to any created work. In fact, the text explicitly states "the right of immediate copyright protection of a work following placement in tangible form."

New Illuve wrote:Given that some things can be independently created in complete ignorance of each other, how will it be determined who gains the exclusive rights?


Assuming that both states involved grant exclusive right upon creation, both authors would gain exclusive right over the work in their own nation. Though, I sincerely doubt that any two works can be spontaneously created by two different, independent persons and be completely identical to each other.

How can two different people hold "exclusive" rights over something, pray tell?

[Glen-Rhodes]

The Holy Empire humbly submits that "author" and "creator" do most definitely NOT have the same meaning. They are two quite distinct words. Consider the phrases "the author of the statue" versus "the creator of the statue" to see the difference.

Words often have multiple meanings.

au⋅thor
–noun
1. a person who writes a novel, poem, essay, etc.; the composer of a literary work, as distinguished from a compiler, translator, editor, or copyist.
2. the literary production or productions of a writer: to find a passage in an author.
3. the maker of anything; creator; originator: the author of a new tax plan.

Is Glen-Rhodes now on the record as saying prosecuting child pornography is an unreasonable scenario? The Ambassador surely is joking in this! The Draft, as written, clearly would allow said accused to disallow said film from being used in evidence against him. The Holy Empire most emphatically does not consider this as unreasonable. Nor extreme by any stretch of imagination. Especially should the film be the only evidence that someone has committed a sex act against an unknown child in an unknown location at an unknown period of time - as might very well be the case with regards to child sex tourism.

I would gladly put myself on record as saying that the scenario is complete rubbish and absolutely absurd. If you want to debate with me, then you better think of some reasonable and respectable scenarios to debate about. I won't entertain your fantastical points with legal reasoning better given to legitimate circumstances.

Then create your own example. Again - it is the words of the text Draft which explicitly allow for the example, thus pointing out an unintended and unwanted problem. The owner must consent to distribution of the work created. That is clear by the Draft. The use of coercion is generally considered legal grounds for ruling that consent was not given. And for very good reasons; excesses have been made in the past and people must be protected against that. "Sign over ownership or I will destroy your career" if you cannot imagine a reasonable scenario.

If New Illuve grants copyright protection to some thirteen-year-old's classroom essay, then that's New Illuve's problem. There is an entire clause dedicated to granting states the right to impose higher qualifications for copyright protection for domestic works. The clause you are so eagerly citing is intended to prevent governments from ignoring the validity of foreign copyrights, simply because the owners did not go through that nation's acquisition process. If I need to make that clearer, then so be it, it will be updated shortly.

The Ambassador from Glen-Rhodes should read the Draft text. Nowhere does the Draft text allow for the not granting of copyright to any created work. In fact, the text explicitly states "the right of immediate copyright protection of a work following placement in tangible form."

FURTHER DECLARES that national copyright laws must not discriminate in favor of domestic works, however affirming that nations may subject domestic works to additional requirements for copyright protection;

How can two different people hold "exclusive" rights over something, pray tell?

Because there exist two things, created by two different people.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Greenlandic People]

Shall this resolution make any statements on fees for establishment or renewal of copyrights? Also, what about the inability to copyright already common inventions such as fire or the wheel?

~Sigismund Ibsen,
WA Delegate to Lavinium

[Rutianas]

I'd just like to ask one question. What about nations where everything is owned by the state? Including things that have been created by it's people? Wouldn't this cause a major problem there? Or nations where everything is, by law, to be public domain?

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Krioval]

Does the Lord Ambassador have any suggestions for how long the period ought to be? The current time period of copyright retention is a reflection of Glen-Rhodes copyright law. However, I do wish to maintain protection for a certain amount of time after the death of the creator (or, as you put it, the 'original owner').

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

I apologize if I was unclear earlier. I should replace the phrase "original owner" with either "author" or "creator" in terms of individual copyright claims. If an individual creates a work within the Great Chiefdom and retains rights over that work, he or she (or his/her estate) holds those rights until that individual's death, or for twenty-five years, whichever period is of longer length.

If the creator is a corporation or other non-individual entity, including the Great Chiefdom itself, the copyright lasts for twenty-five years. There are very rare cases in which copyrights can be extended through legislation, but legal precedent requires that each extension be passed separate from any other legislation, and that a given extension can only last for five years before requiring another extension.

Now, to answer Your Excellency's question. It is the opinion of the Great Chiefdom that the minimum length for an international copyright conform to Krioval's current standard. That said, we are open to suggestions as to why a work should be protected for a century or more.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

[Krioval]

I'd just like to ask one question. What about nations where everything is owned by the state? Including things that have been created by it's people? Wouldn't this cause a major problem there? Or nations where everything is, by law, to be public domain?

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

It is not my proposal, so I hope that I am not stepping on any toes with my suggestion, but I would advocate for treating state ownership of a copyright the same as a corporate ownership of copyright in terms of duration. For nations running a centrally organized economy, I suppose that citizens could be strongly encouraged to transfer ownership to the state. I am unsure whether that would grant sufficient cover to state-run economies, though.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

[Goobergunchia]

We wish to register our concerns regarding a description of this proposal as "promoting the arts". Excessive copyright lengths, we find, merely serve to limit the creation of new art. First, they remove incentives for the creation of new creative works, as copyright owners may simply exploit resales and recapitulations of their works to gain revenue long after their initial creative acts. (Note that certain activities, such as live concerts, are inherently impossible to copy and therefore would be protected regardless of copyright.) Further, new works created by the clever combination and juxtaposition of earlier works would find nearly impossible barriers to their creation, should artists have to wait nearly a century to use other sources as inspiration.

While we think a unified copyright system among World Assembly member states is a laudable goal, we are inclined to echo the concerns of the ambassador from Krioval. While copyright lengths in the Liberal Unitary Republic are a somewhat shorter decade after publication and registration with our Copyright Office, with certain exceptions, we would be willing to extend them somewhat in the interests of international harmony.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Resident, the Rejected Realms