Replies

It's a crazy idea.

Under existing copyright law, if I happen upon the only copy of a public-domain movie, I can release the film with a few arbitrary changes and claim a 95-year copyright. If the original ever "escapes", people would be able to freely copy the original without paying me a dime, but if the original never escapes people who want to see the film would have to pay me even if their only interest was seeing the parts of the movie which are--or should be--in the public domain.

Therefore, I would--if I didn't care about film history--have a financial incentive to ensure that nobody ever gets their hands on the original of the film. Even though the film's copyright expired decades ago, it would have a new copyright--registered to me--until at least the year 2098. This despite the fact that my only real contribution to the film was having the good fortune to acquire it.

To my mind, that is crazy. Copyright laws should provide incentives to publish materials which are in the public domain--not bury them. Unfortunately, today's copyright laws do just the opposite. Adding a short-term "restoration copyright" to the legal system and requiring that people who publish works primarily based on public-domain sources only be able to get a full copyright on their works if they make available their original sources under a restoration copyright would undo these perverse incentives.

BTW, allowing certain short-term protections for laboriously-derived works even when the works are not creatively-derived would be far less of a constitutional stretch than the retroactive copyright extensions the Supreme Court has already deemed acceptable.

The Constitution Article I Section 8. [Scope of Legislative Power] The Congress shall have power... "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

"Copyright protection subsists... in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression... from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." 17 USC §102(a)

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." 17 USC §102(b)

"The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material." 17 USC § 103 (b)

If your revisions rise to the minimal requirements for new copyright and people prefer your edition to the original, then fine. But for you to say that merely because you own the only copy of the original, that you should get a renewal copyright on it IS CRAZY and contrary to the Constitution and U.S. code.