Draft:Original research/Attribution and copyright/National treatment

International conventions
"Both the Universal Copyright Convention (U.C.C.) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne) mandate a policy of national treatment in which copyright holders are afforded the same protection in foreign nations that those nations provide their own authors. See U.C.C. Art. II; Berne, Art. V. The dissent accurately points out that the principle of national treatment implicates a rule of territoriality in which "`[t]he applicable law is the copyright law of the state in which the infringement occurred, not that of the state of which the author is a national or in which the work was first published.'" Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Comm., 24 F.3d 1088, 1097 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (quoting 3 David Nimmer and Melville B. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 17.05 at 17-39 (1994))." Creative Technology, Ltd. v. Aztech System PTE, Ltd., 61 F. 3d 696 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1995.

National treatment and territoriality
The "principle of national treatment requires that United States copyright law be applied in order to remedy infringing conduct that occurred in the United States." Post at 706. We do not agree with this sweeping conclusion. National treatment and territoriality are choice of law principles, See Subafilms, 24 F.3d at 1097; 3 Nimmer, supra § 17.05 at 17-39, and do not preclude the application of the forum non conveniens doctrine merely because a foreign author alleges copyright violations occurring within our borders. National treatment merely requires this Court to grant [...] the same copyright protection enjoyed by American authors." Creative Technology, Ltd. v. Aztech System PTE, Ltd., 61 F. 3d 696 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1995.

forum non conveniens analysis
"United States nationals alleging violations of United States copyright law are subject to forum non conveniens analysis. We believe that the concepts of national treatment and territoriality require that foreign copyright holders be subject to the same standards, no more, no less." Creative Technology, Ltd. v. Aztech System PTE, Ltd., 61 F. 3d 696 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1995.

Uniform national treatment
"Finally, our holding furthers another important policy underlying [Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974] ERISA: uniform national treatment of pension benefits. See Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U. S. 1, 9 (1987). Construing "applicable nonbankruptcy law" to include federal law ensures that the security of a debtor's pension benefits will be governed by ERISA, not left to the vagaries of state spendthrift trust law." Patterson v. Shumate, 504 US 753 - Supreme Court 1992