> But other countries may not recognize the right of the US government to create uncopyrighted works.
I think that's not the right way of wording it. [0] says:
> 3.1.7 Does the Government have copyright protection in U.S. Government works in other countries?
> Yes, the copyright exclusion for works of the U.S. Government is not intended to have any impact on protection of these works abroad (S. REP. NO. 473, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 56 (1976)). Therefore, the U.S. Government may obtain protection in other countries depending on the treatment of government works by the national copyright law of the particular country. Copyright is sometimes asserted by U.S. Government agencies outside the United States.
It might be more accurate to say that US law limits the rights of the US federal government to own copyright in its works, but that US law was only intended to apply domestically within the US, not overseas. However, whether it effectively does apply overseas, is not ultimately up to the US, it is up to overseas legal systems – if an overseas legal system wants to make that US law effectively applicable in their country too, that might not be what the US wants, but there is nothing the US can do to stop them, and the US is unlikely to even complain much about it, just because this is not a particularly important issue as far as international relations goes.
I'm not aware of any country (other than the US) whose copyright laws explicitly mention US federal government works. Instead, I think the situation is simply due to this:
a) The majority of countries, their copyright laws just say that any work becomes copyright automatically upon creation, even works created overseas, and they have either no exceptions to that rule, or else no exceptions relevant to this case
b) A minority of countries, have a rule saying that their domestic law will not grant foreign works greater copyright protection than they have in their country of origin. Under such a rule, a US federal government work in the public domain ab initio in the US will also be in the public domain in that country ab initio. (You could interpret this as "the rule of the shorter term" being applied to the case when the term is zero.)
Neither rule was adopted with US federal government works in mind – such works have rather limited economic significance, and as such have never been a major consideration for overseas legislators. It is just how copyright laws, which were adopted for other reasons, happen perchance to apply in this case. Most international copyright treaties permit both approaches, leaving the choice up to each nation's legislators and court system to decide upon.
I think that's not the right way of wording it. [0] says:
> 3.1.7 Does the Government have copyright protection in U.S. Government works in other countries?
> Yes, the copyright exclusion for works of the U.S. Government is not intended to have any impact on protection of these works abroad (S. REP. NO. 473, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 56 (1976)). Therefore, the U.S. Government may obtain protection in other countries depending on the treatment of government works by the national copyright law of the particular country. Copyright is sometimes asserted by U.S. Government agencies outside the United States.
It might be more accurate to say that US law limits the rights of the US federal government to own copyright in its works, but that US law was only intended to apply domestically within the US, not overseas. However, whether it effectively does apply overseas, is not ultimately up to the US, it is up to overseas legal systems – if an overseas legal system wants to make that US law effectively applicable in their country too, that might not be what the US wants, but there is nothing the US can do to stop them, and the US is unlikely to even complain much about it, just because this is not a particularly important issue as far as international relations goes.
I'm not aware of any country (other than the US) whose copyright laws explicitly mention US federal government works. Instead, I think the situation is simply due to this:
a) The majority of countries, their copyright laws just say that any work becomes copyright automatically upon creation, even works created overseas, and they have either no exceptions to that rule, or else no exceptions relevant to this case
b) A minority of countries, have a rule saying that their domestic law will not grant foreign works greater copyright protection than they have in their country of origin. Under such a rule, a US federal government work in the public domain ab initio in the US will also be in the public domain in that country ab initio. (You could interpret this as "the rule of the shorter term" being applied to the case when the term is zero.)
Neither rule was adopted with US federal government works in mind – such works have rather limited economic significance, and as such have never been a major consideration for overseas legislators. It is just how copyright laws, which were adopted for other reasons, happen perchance to apply in this case. Most international copyright treaties permit both approaches, leaving the choice up to each nation's legislators and court system to decide upon.
[0] https://www.cendi.gov/pdf/FAQ_Copyright_30jan18.pdf#page=17