The Berne Convention prohibits a signatory state from granting weaker protection to foreign authors than to its own nationals. However, it does not prohibit discrimination going the other way; it may for instance grant 70 years of protection to foreign works while domestic works only get 50 years. So, at least in theory I think the French government can confiscate the copyrights of its own nationals only without violating the Berne Convention. Since the copyright has only changed hands, but not expired, the French authors will still be able to exercise their old rights in any other country of the Berne Union.
I believe the French law, as you have described it above, is incompatible with Berne. The Convention doesn't go into detail on transfer of copyright, so I assume that in principle, any transfer must be voluntary on the part of the current copyright holder. For instance, it appears to follow from Article 2(6):
The works mentioned in this Article shall enjoy protection in all countries of the Union. This protection shall operate for the benefit of the author and his successors in title.
The requirement that the current copyright holder speaks up in due time in order to prevent a pending confiscation runs counter to the first sentence of Article 5(2):
The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed.
We have already mentioned the moral rights, which are prescribed in Article 6bis(1), though I'm not convinced that the wording of the Convention is strong enough to be useful against an accurate reproduction of the original work merely made without the author's consent.
The Convention doesn't discuss orphan works in general, but it does mention anonymous and pseudonymous works, which in some sense may be considered orphans, as you can't easily identify the copyright holder in order to ask for a license. I find Article 15(3) relevant in this regard:
In the case of anonymous and pseudonymous works, other than those referred to in paragraph (1) above, the publisher whose name appears on the work shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be deemed to represent the author, and in this capacity he shall be entitled to protect and enforce the author's rights. The provisions of this paragraph shall cease to apply when the author reveals his identity and establishes his claim to authorship of the work.
That is, even when the author is unknown to the public, the current publisher is merely allowed to protect and enforce his rights in his absence, but not to appropriate said rights from the author. It seems unreasonable that Berne would offer less protection to identified authors or copyright holders who have merely failed to exercise their rights for several years.
So, if the MCMS indeed were to lay its hands on some old French translation of Povel Ramel's song lyrics (what's Grynkorv in French; Saucisse repas?) I think Ramel's heirs would have a good case for finding France in violation of Berne. Do you have to be a French citizen in order to appeal to the Constitutional Council?
The Berne Convention prohibits a signatory state from granting weaker protection to foreign authors than to its own nationals. However, it does not prohibit discrimination going the other way; it may for instance grant 70 years of protection to foreign works while domestic works only get 50 years. So, at least in theory I think the French government can confiscate the copyrights of its own nationals only without violating the Berne Convention. Since the copyright has only changed hands, but not expired, the French authors will still be able to exercise their old rights in any other country of the Berne Union.
I believe the French law, as you have described it above, is incompatible with Berne. The Convention doesn't go into detail on transfer of copyright, so I assume that in principle, any transfer must be voluntary on the part of the current copyright holder. For instance, it appears to follow from Article 2(6):
The requirement that the current copyright holder speaks up in due time in order to prevent a pending confiscation runs counter to the first sentence of Article 5(2):
We have already mentioned the moral rights, which are prescribed in Article 6bis(1), though I'm not convinced that the wording of the Convention is strong enough to be useful against an accurate reproduction of the original work merely made without the author's consent.
The Convention doesn't discuss orphan works in general, but it does mention anonymous and pseudonymous works, which in some sense may be considered orphans, as you can't easily identify the copyright holder in order to ask for a license. I find Article 15(3) relevant in this regard:
That is, even when the author is unknown to the public, the current publisher is merely allowed to protect and enforce his rights in his absence, but not to appropriate said rights from the author. It seems unreasonable that Berne would offer less protection to identified authors or copyright holders who have merely failed to exercise their rights for several years.
So, if the MCMS indeed were to lay its hands on some old French translation of Povel Ramel's song lyrics (what's Grynkorv in French; Saucisse repas?) I think Ramel's heirs would have a good case for finding France in violation of Berne. Do you have to be a French citizen in order to appeal to the Constitutional Council?