Talk:Berne Convention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Berne Union is a very rarely used expression[edit]

I've just switched the "nicknames" around, as it's universally known as the Berne Convention (754,000 Google hits when coupled with the word copyright) and is only very rarely (seems to be by some U.S. authorities only) referred to as the Berne Union (646 Google hits, once you have removed references to the Swiss credit institution called Berne Union and the US school district with the same name). Thomas Blomberg 10:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Works on the internet[edit]

The article states:

As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights...

Is it worth clarifying how this applies to articles not recorded on a conventional medium, but hosted on a server and published to the internet? I presume the Berne Convention applies to such cases. --Chriswaterguy talk 22:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I found World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty which addresses this, and I added a section explaining this. --Chriswaterguy talk 06:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The United States Courts have held that the artist's rights do not protect online. I was there and cant add this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurtisNeeley (talkcontribs) 20:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The U.S.'s stance on Berne[edit]

U.S. copyright law says the following in regard to Berne. [quote] Effect of Berne Convention. No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. [/quote]

That statement says, that I can tell, that anything in Berne not specifically said in the actual U.S. code was unagreed to by the United States Congress. The implication, in my view, is that Berne only applies to U.S. citizens in as much as it is codified in U.S. law. (it doesn't matter if the president accepted it or not: it must be passed by both the president and Congress to become law).

This means for example, that translations of works such as for example, fan translations which do not actually distribute the work but instead offer a medium altering patch (like the IPS format used for ROMs and ISOs), may not constitute copyright infringement in the U.S.. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Proud non-compliance by United States
The following ruling indisputably makes United States [sic]"copyright" a ritual that protects no authors' rights whatsoever online. ZERO.
Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al, (5:09-cv-5151) is the only ruling in history that addresses the Visual_Artists_Rights_Act for photography and held the 1991 Visual_Artists_Rights_Act does not apply when photographs are used online. This ruling keeps the United States from being compliant with the Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works despite signing this treaty.
Google Inc spent hundreds of thousands in legal fees during this litigation and no other use of the Visual_Artists_Rights_Act exists as should be noted.
I can not add this superb encyclopedia content for reasons that should be obvious. This important and very notable information could be researched and added by anyone with a PACER account or using the free mirror of the docket with PACER links included for verification. PACER Docket or the Free Docket mirror
This judicial ruling utterly invalidated this Congressional Act withing the United States. CurtisNeeley (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


Accoarding to the map, Guyana hasn't signed up. But accoarding to the linked page of "List of parties to international copyright treaties" it signed up in 1994, which is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The list is right. Tanzania was also missing on the map. I've updated the map, in a few hours, the caches should have the new version and it should show up on the page. Lupo 13:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Implied restrictions of copyright, according to the Berne Convention[edit]

Assuming the Berne Convention as a default starting point, what are thus the implied permissions and prohibitions of copyright? i.e. how does Copyright#Exclusive rights apply and what are the permitted actions that are not restricted to the exclusive use of the copyright holder? In particular I'm asking in relation to the Creative Commons model of licences for copyrighted works and their default assumptions underlying their Rights Expression Language? This vocabulary does assume a set of assumed defaults, supposedly based on the Berne Convention, but it's hard to find a clear statement of just what they are.

Working backwards from the ccREL schema itself, I infer that Berne can be represented as (using the terms vocabulary from ccREL):

  • Forbidden unless specifically permitted:
    • DerivativeWorks
    • Distribution
    • Sharing
    • Reproduction
  • Permitted unless specifically prohibited:
    • CommercialUse
  • Not a requirement unless mandated:
    • SourceCode
    • ShareAlike
    • Copyleft
    • LesserCopyleft
    • Attribution
    • Notice

Any comments? A citable reference on what usage under the terms of Berne does permit? Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think "commercial use" was "permitted unless specifically prohibited"? Lupo 09:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Be careful with the scope of what's being discussed here. These constraints (from ccREL) are part of a License (as a defined entity, also from ccREL). So when mapping these onto "the Berne context" they aren't refining the "general position for unlicensed users" but rather, "implications of a boilerplate licence, and thus assuming that one exists".
In the non-CC / pre-CC situation I'm not generally allowed to make (any) use of copyright material unless I have such a licence. If I gain this licence (I purchase it, or purchase a product with an implied licence, from the copyright owner) then such a licence doesn't (usually) distinguish between "personal use" and "commercial use". Commercial use within such a licence is "permitted unless specifically prohibited". Sometimes it indeed is - e.g. DVDs are usually only licensed for home use, not broadcast, public performance or rental.
The difficulty in understanding ccREL stems from the way that these constraints are split into two groups: permissions & prohibitions. The "initial state" (of ccREL) isn't either "everything is forbidden unless permitted" / "permitted unless forbidden" or even "CC-<no qualifiers>". These constraints don't even follow the English text names of the CC licences: NC for No Commercial requires a prohibition statement in the licence and appears in the short-form name, but ND for No Derivatives is implicit, even though it's worded the same in the licence title.CC-by-nc-nd
To work with ccREL it's obviously important to know what an "empty" License would mean before extending its description and it should be useful to know why that set of constraints was chosen. As I understand it, they derive from the basic conditions of licensed use under the Berne Convention, which is why I'm asking here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the difficulty here is that you are trying to use a system designed to describe permissions granted by a license to describe the situation where there is no license. An "empty" license would be equivalent to no license at all, which means that you have no permission to do anything with the copyrighted work other than what is specifically permitted by law (fair use, etc.)
In the language of ccREL, if there are no Permissions (i.e. an "empty" license) then there can be no Requirements or Prohibitions, because a Requirement specifies an action that you must take when exercising a Permission (e.g. that you supply source code for your derivative of a computer program,) and a Prohibition specifies a limit on how the Permission is exercised (e.g. that you can only reproduce a work for non-commercial purposes.) -- AJR | Talk 16:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Your first point: I would disagree as to the meaning of an "empty" licence within ccREL. This is (IMHO) an instance of a License with no explicit constraints added. It is different to a "null" licence, which would be the absence of a License. Your "no licence at all" is thus more like the 2nd (null), not the empty case. "Fair use" is still permissible (where this is recognised, it's granted in the absence of licensing between holder and user). An empty ccREL License would instead be the case were some licence had been granted (my belief is that this would be based on the Berne Convention, whatever that specifies precisely) - I'd thus be permitted to watch my DVD privately (presumably this would be "#Use" within the ccREL model, although they don't explicitly define such a right), but not to redistribute copies and would be permitted to show the DVD "commercially". That much seems clear to me from the published schema for ccREL and my technical knowledge of RDF / RDFS, but I admit I've no solid legal knowledge to know if that then matches Berne's intention for a "licence" that stated "you have a licence for this work" and no more than this - that's rather my reason for the original question here.
Your second point's a good one. I hadn't considered that, but yes these #Prohibitions or #Requirements only act when a #Permission is being exercised. Maybe that's one reason why #Use isn't stated explicitly in ccREL? It does mean though that ccREL can't express a licence that required #Attribution when just a #Use was being made of it. ccREL is sometimes so very obviously (and annoyingly) a rights expression language for CC, not for general use! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, the Article on the Berne Convention is Plagiarized?[edit]

I am really suprised that an article with such detail that doesn't have a single footnoted source didn't raise immediate alarm bells with anyone else. So low and behold the vast majority of the article (e.g. the entire "history" section which was written by Waheedan Jariwalla, a U.S. Attorney who specializes in Intellectual Property) was copied and pasted from various internet sources. I was going to do the whole copyvio bit but I'm just far too amused by the fact that an article on the Berne Convention is in fact an uncredited rip off of someone else's work. The irony of that is just too good to actually destroy it. Anyone who has read this article either doesn't care about such things or is too dumb to see the obvious telltale signs that the entire thing is a mere copy and paste job, so me pointing it out won't do anything. I just wanted to point out the amusing irony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic WorksBerne Convention – Now we've agreed this is the primary topic for "Berne Convention", it seems appropriate to use that concise and common name as the article title. Kotniski (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is the job for a redirect. The long name is a formal and official title with good provenance to support its use. Berne Convention redirects to it, so that we can use the short form for all our links and inline references to it, whilst still landing up on the full article name. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah but Wikipedia doesn't, as a rule, use long, formal and official titles as its article titles. The article text should certainly begin with the full name in bold; but the title of the article should be the common name.--Kotniski (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
"As a rule", we don't have such titles to use. When we do, we use them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Gentle Oppose, for a couple of reasons. First, the present title is not ambiguous, and is preferred for that reason. Second, I don't think "Berne Convention" is so much its "common name" as it is a short form of the correct name. Any significant source discussing the Convention usually introduces it using its full name, and then afterward call it the "Berne Convention" for short. For someone searching on or linking to "Berne Convention," the redirect takes care of things. The title of the article should be the title of the instrument. To give a similar example, outside of the treaty context, the article on the 3rd film of the Star Trek franchise is Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, even though it's probably more popular to call it Star Trek III or The Search for Spock.
On the other hand, for an arguable counter-example, see WP:COMMONNAME, which provides as an example "United States Code (not Code of Laws of the United States of America)" So I don't feel too strongly about this, and will not spend many nights crying into my pillow if the move is made. TJRC (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Maritime Labour Convention[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

The infobox is currently headed with "Maritime Labour Convention". This can't be right. Eclecticology (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Fixed. Thanks for catching it. TJRC (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarify lede[edit]

I think the lede should say something about what relevance this old convention has today. Is the Berne Convention the basis for copyright policy today, or is it superceded? I am not sure what to say. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


I believe the statement referring to the ucc as nearly obsolete is inaccurate. after all the Berne convention des not apply to works conceived prior to the passing of the convention in a said country, does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)