Could the US abolish copyright? I know this isn't politically feasible, but is it legally possible for the United States to abolish copyright? Could the government withdraw from all treaties that require copyright, then repeal all copyright-related laws? I know the Constitution allows copyright, but does it require it to be recognized?
There is no constitutional requirement that Congress provide copyright protection in the US. Congress could, if it so chooses, repeal Title 17 of the US Code, and afford no copyright protection whatsoever. Given that the US has protected copyright from its earliest days, that copyright protection in English law dates to the 1600s, that almost every nation currently has a Law protecting copyright, and that such protection is a requirement of membership in the World Trade organization (WTO) I find it highly unlikely that such a change in the law will be made in the foreseeable future. But Congress does have the power to abolish copyright in the US.
First I should point out that the Google question is about a different situation, the "snippet" issue where a tiny part of a web page is redistributed, where the issue of resolved in the US by appeal to the "fair use" defense. The proposed scenario as written here is broader since it would go beyond a couple of lines, and goes up to the limit of copy an entire web page. That is copyright infringement, with or without an associated link. Copyright protection is not just about attribution, it is about control. If you can limit your copying appropriately, you may survive under a fair use analysis; but you need to hire a lawyer with experience in copyright litigation to vet your notions of what is "a small amount" etc.
united-states In the US it is not unlawful to produce and display a video arguing for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, whether the intent is to support that invasion or to document the claims of those who do support it, and argue that they are invalid. Such a video would be protected by copyright, and copying it and redistributing it with subtitles might well be an infringement of that copyright, if done without permission. On the other hand, doing so with the intent of educating others about Russian claims might constitute fair use. If so, it would not be copyright infringement under US law. Aside from the copyright issue (which would be up to the copyright holder to take action on) US law does not really care what the motivation for posting such a sub-titled video might be. Whether or not it is &quot;beneficial for the whole human civilization&quot; is not relevant to US law. It is protected by the First Amendment against government suppression. That would not affect YouTube, as a private actor,, determining not to host it on their site.
united-states You are protected by copyright as a matter of law, even if you don't post a copyright notice, although you have slightly more procedural rights if you do post a copyright notice and there would need to be a filing with the copyright registrar (a division of the Library of Congress) before you brought suit. You can't really get any other intellectual property protections for it except possibly a trademark if you have a distinctive mark or name or logo for the app.
US Laws are Free of Copyright Federal Works 17 USC 105 says: Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. The phrase "work of the United States Government" has been interpreted to mean any work created by an officer or employee of the government in the course of his or her official duties. See 17 USC 101 for the official definition. This includes the text of (any and all) legislation. The official texts of all US laws (and federal regulations) are in the public domain, and no one may claim copyright on them. Strictly speaking, this is not a matter of "fair use". Fair use is an exception for limited uses of copyrighted content. The texts of these laws are not protected by copyright at all, and never have been. State Works In addition, while works of the various US states are not automatically in the public domain, the text of state laws, and I believe of the various state and local regulations are also in the public domain. This Wikipedia article says: Federal statutes are in the public domain and no copyright attaches to them. The same is true of court decisions. In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-judge panel of the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote: The general rule that legislative codifications are uncopyrightable derives from an understanding of the nature of law and the basic idea that the People, as the reservoir of all sovereignty, are the source of our law. For purposes of the Copyright Act, this means that the People are the constructive authors of those official legal promulgations of government that represent an exercise of sovereign authority. And because they are the authors, the People are the owners of these works, meaning that the works are intrinsically public domain material and, therefore, uncopyrightable. The Wikipedia article linked above quotes State of Georgia v. Harrison Co, 548 F.Supp 110, 114 (N.D. Ga 1982) as saying: The citizens are the authors of the law, and therefore its owners, regardless of who actually drafts the provisions, because the law derives its authority from the consent of the public, expressed through the democratic process. It also quotes a US copyright office publication as saying: As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties. However, some states do attempt to claim copyright in electronic versions of their state codes. The 2015 LA Times story "Georgia claims that publishing its state laws for free online is 'terrorism'" reports on a recent infringement suit by the State of Georgia against Carl Malamud, who makes copies of the Georgia Annotated Code available for free online. The state claimed that the annotations are protected by copyright. In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-judge panel of the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found this claim to be without merit. After a thorough review of the law, and an examination of the annotations, we conclude that no valid copyright interest can be asserted in any part of the OCGA. ... In most states the “official” code is comprised of statutory text alone, and all agree that a state’s codification cannot be copyrighted because the authorship is ultimately attributable to the People. ... When a legislature enacts a law, or a court writes an opinion rendering an official interpretation of the law in a case or controversy, they are undisputedly speaking on behalf of the People, who are properly regarded as the author of the work. ... Because we conclude that no copyright can be held in the annotations, we have no occasion to address the parties’ other arguments regarding originality and fair use. Non-US Laws UK laws are protected under Crown Copyright, although permissive licenses for reproducing copies are easily available. Many other countries have similar provisions. The US, however, does not generally recognize such copyrights. The position of the US Copyright Office is that: [T]he Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties. Laws Incorporating Copyrighted Works by Reference Laws sometimes include by reference privately developed and copyrighted documents. For example, building codes and other safety codes may be developed by private groups, often national non-profit organizations, and incorporated into state laws by reference. This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies. For example, this official Texas web page says: The Texas statutes, administrative rules, and local ordinances occasionally adopt, incorporate, or refer to technical codes published by independent organizations. These codes describe scientific and safety standards for structures and discuss specifications for fire safety, electrical systems, plumbing fixtures, construction practices, and many other topics. ... Codes are not reprinted within the statutes or the local ordinances themselves. They are "adopted by reference" or "incorporated by reference" and are usually available to review at the city clerk's office and at some public libraries. Please contact your local public library or your local government for assistance accessing codes not available online. Federal Copyrights However, this does not mean that anything "published by the US government" is in the public domain or is free of copyright. The Federal government often hires contractors to prepare various works. These works are protected by copyright. Frequently, the contracts will assign this copyright to the Federal government, which as 17 USC 105 says: ... is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. Such works are therefore copyrighted, and the copyright holder is or may be the US Federal Government. They are protected in the same way and to the same degree as works of private authorship. Many works funded by the US Federal Government fall into this category.
Legally, such services have no special status. They're not necessary for copyright to exist, and their status as evidence is not in any way special. This is one of those rare cases where a blockchain actually does make sense. Recently the idea of Non-Fungible Tokens has come up in the context of blockchains, and typically these are very accurately dated. NFT's can be sold, but that is not necessary for them to be created.
Not in US law, at least. Under the 1999 decision Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp (36 F. Supp. 2d 191) such images are not protected by copyright. As the Wikipedia article says, the court here ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even though accurate reproductions might require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element to determine whether a work is copyrightable under US law is originality. This decision has been generally followed in US copyright law thereafter. At the time it was claimed that UK law took a different view, but I understand that more recently the UK also follows the Bridgeman rule, although I cannot confirm that at the moment. See also this article about the Bridgeman case and its effects. The service probably puts that notice onto all its newspaper reproductions, not checking which ones are from originals still under copyright. EDIT: As some comments point out, the formatting used to present the digital version, if not a slavish copy of the original newspaper, might be original enough for copyright protection. Therefore one should copy only the digitized text, or elements obviously a direct copy of the original newspaper which is in the public domain. The digitizing service will not get any copyright on the original text or images, even if the formatting has enough originality for protection.
The Soviet Union generally had no copyright treaties with the western world before 1973. So, anything before then is public domain. The USSR had a policy of public domain and considered anything published to be the property of the "people", including anything published in the west. Even for works produced after 1973, they would have to be registered for copyright in the United States to claim a copyright here.