At the risk of getting this thread back on topic , doesn't the country of origin have relevance as to what copyright laws are used?

The reason I ask is that, if this is the case, at the end of the credits on most productions, there is a small section of text that states something along the lines of 'This motion picture is protected by the laws of <Insert Country Here> and other countries'.

Is it possible to use this as a guideline for C of O?

Quoting Blade:

Quote:
At the risk of getting this thread back on topic , doesn't the country of origin have relevance as to what copyright laws are used?

The reason I ask is that, if this is the case, at the end of the credits on most productions, there is a small section of text that states something along the lines of 'This motion picture is protected by the laws of <Insert Country Here> and other countries'.

Is it possible to use this as a guideline for C of O?

I don't see any reason why not.  This is legal terminology and as such has to pass scrutiny in the courts, or they leave themselves open to all kinds of problems.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Oh, come on.  That's like saying Star Wars is a British film because Sir Alec Guinness is in it.  When you hire somebody it's for whatever talent they possess that you feel will accomplish your end result, be it actor, writer, director, or best boy.

John, you're leap frogging posts! You already said something similar and I replied a couple of pages back:

Quote:

You've got the wrong end of the stick. It isn't where a film is set or the nationality of the characters, but the nationality of the artists that matter and should dictate the ownership. They bring their own viewpoint and methods to a story and shape it accordingly. Far more than the financers.

For instance, I previously mentioned United 93. A British film by copyright apparently, a British director/writer, but a very American story.

On the other hand, Robin Hood ought to be a British film, but it can't be because Kevin Costner thinks you can walk from Dover to Nottingham in time for tea! I love the film, but it is an American viewpoint. And accent. 

Alec Guinness does not make a very American film British by his mere presence. It's theme and values do.

Further details on Country of Origin with regards to copyright:
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P109_16834

I am not sure it's that useful to us though as it is basically determined by first publication only - and with simultanious publication, the CoO would apparently be the country with the shortest protection, no matter if any person or company from that country has been involved with the production at all.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:

But I hope you're feeling REALLY responsible for starting this topic in the first place... 

Oh, I'm very proud! 

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
OK, to quote from a similar topic, here's a crap analogy that I think may explain how a production company works:

You commission an artist to produce a portrait of your family. You advise him of composition, you decide what clothes the family are wearing, you even pick the size of the canvas. Because you paid for the work, you own copyright, but it's still the artist that produces the painting.

So if we apply this to CoO, then it's the location of the artist (production company) that defines it, not the location of the family (copyright owner).

Does that make sense or have I just confused things more?

I appreciate that, it's very good. Very crap, but certainly in the tradition! 

Country of Origin
The International Federation of Film Archives defines the country of origin as the country of the principal offices of the production company or individual by whom the moving image work was made.
Country of production:
The country of production is the country or countries where the principal offices of the production company (or companies) of a moving image work are located. The country of production is considered the country of origin

If we apply this global cataloguing standard, then the only argument should be 'which was the principle production company.

End of...

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
...Because you paid for the work, you own copyright, ...

You might want to read Article 27 of the United Nations Universal Delaration of Human Rights.

An example of a country implementing article 27 in local law:
UK.

So no, you would not own the copyright simply because you paid someone to paint you. You can of course optain the copyright along with the painting as part of the deal, but it would be a separate "lineitem" on the "invoice" from the artist. Unless you live in a country that does not care about human rights obviously, but then your local dictator probably owns the copyright no matter who paid whom and who created the painting (which is fair enough, as he is probably the only one who can affort a painting anyway).
And even if your local dictator claims he owns the copyright, I doubt his claim would be recognized by any civilized country - they would still consider the author the copyright holder (unless the dictator is ordering a bunch of expensive planes or something obviously).