Assistant Prof. of Law Evan C. Zoldan at the University of Toledo College of Law wrote a nearly 60-page research paper called “The Civil Ex Post Facto Clause”* on 7/23/14 but revised it nearly 16 months later. On its Social Science Research Network page, the Abstract says the following (papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2469141)
The way I would want to go down is something like this: a number of legal experts find evidence that the Framers intended for ex post facto to include civil decisions. After testifying before Congress, 2/3 Congress agrees that civil should apply. When this goes to SCOTUS, all of those old folk agree that SCOTUS was wrong in Calder. Thus, ex post facto applies to criminal and civil. Eventually a SCOTUS judge is impeached, as are any current Congress member who agreed with CTEA to go in effect on 10/27/98. The major news outlets (CNN, Fox News, etc.) report this. The House of Mouse loses the copyright to all their works that would have expired after a collective 56 years (under the 1909 Copyright Act) had the 1976 Copyright Act and CTEA not given them a respective 19 and 20-year extension.
The major news outlets (CNN, Fox News, etc.) report this. The House of Mouse loses the copyright to all their works that would have expired after a collective 56 years (under the 1909 Copyright Act) had the 1976 Copyright Act and CTEA not given them a respective 19 and 20-year extension.
Note: The 1st 5 Mickey shorts are (with their original release dates) are: Plane Crazy (5/15/28), Steamboat Willie (11/18/28), The Gallopin’ Gaucho (12/30/28), The Barn Dance (3/14/29), and The Opry House (3/28/29). For Plane Crazy, a theater audience saw the test screening of the silent version on this date but the short didn’t find a film distributor. Then, it was re-released as a sound version on 3/17/29.
The new rule is that when a foreign/domestic goes PD here (be it failure to renew its copyright or the copyright sign notice was not properly put in the film), it stays there and cannot be restored under any circumstance. However, if there is a digitally-remastered version of a PD domestic/foreign film/sound recording, it’s required to clearly indicate that. For example, naming it something like “Digitally Remastered Edition” on the DVD cover. In addition, it is required to indicate what got changed and when in the film/song it was changed (how many minutes and seconds into the film/song). For example, a digitally remastered version of a French film that is PD here has an in-DVD booklet or Special Feature that said a music recording 30 minutes in the film got a remastered recording.
If there are any foreign/domestic works in the USA PD that are derived from earlier still-copyrighted works, that earlier works cannot be used as a copyright restoration tool (this includes all acts in the US Constitution that “copyright restoration” in the name and any legal decisions or court rulings that can act as a de facto restoration). The 3/28/08 Patry Copyright Blog" entry called “Infringement by Copying Public Domain Works” and the 12/2/16 Hollywood Reporter article called “CBS Sues YouTuber for Posting Episodes of ‘The Andy Griffith Show’” both deal with such situations.