4 Rules That Copyright Laws Cover

According to the first sentence of the definition of “fixed” in article 101, a work would be considered “fixed in a material medium of expression” if an authorized embodiment is present in a copy or sound recording and if that embodiment is “sufficiently durable or stable” to allow the work to be “perceived, reproduced or otherwise reproduced for a more than temporary period”. The second sentence states that in the case of a “work composed of sounds, images or both transmitted”, the work is considered “fixed” if a fixation is made at the same time as the transfer. The main requirements for obtaining copyright protection are that it be an original work and that it be fixed in tangible form. When registering in the United States The Copyright Office is not a requirement to obtain copyright protection, there are benefits to registering a copyright. For example, the registration of a copyright provides a public record of the copyright claim on the work. Registration is also required before you can take legal action for copyright infringement. In May 2016, in a legal dispute between ABS Entertainment and CBS Radio, Judge Percy Anderson ruled that “remastered” versions of pre-1972 recordings could be granted federal copyright as a stand-alone work because of the creative effort expressed in the lawsuit. [52] The Ninth District Court of Appeal overturned the decision in favour of ABS Entertainment. [53] The first two licences, allocation licences and exclusive licences, require a written assignment. Non-exclusive licenses do not require written form and may be implied by the circumstances. The transfer of copyright is always one or more of the exclusive rights of copyright. For example, a license may provide for a right to perform a work, but not to reproduce or create a derivative work (right of adaptation). [34] U.S.

copyright law includes many defenses, exceptions, and limitations. Some of the most important are: By using the term “original works of authorship” instead of “all the writings of an author,” which is now included in section 4 of the act [section 4 of former Title 17], the committee`s purpose is to evade congressional authority to legislate in this area and remove uncertainties. resulting from the latter sentence. Since the current wording of the statutes essentially coincides with the authoritative language of the Constitution (Kons. art. I, § 8, p. 8], the question arises again and again as to whether the legal and constitutional provisions are extended. If that`s the case, the courts would be faced with the alternative of keeping something copyrighted that Congress clearly didn`t want to protect, or keeping constitutionally incapable of copyright, something that Congress wants to protect one day. In order to avoid these equally undesirable outcomes, the courts have pointed out that “all the writings of an author” under this law have a narrower scope than the “writings” of “authors” mentioned in the Constitution. The bill avoids this dilemma by using a different term – “original works of authorship” – to characterize the overall purpose of legal copyright protection. Original works created after March 1989 do not need to contain a copyright notice to be protected by copyright. However, there are benefits to having a copyright notice on your work.

The copyright notice informs the public that the work is protected by copyright and indicates the year in which the work was first published and the copyright owner. Plus, inserting a copyright notice doesn`t require any formal steps – you just need to include the notice in your work. `The design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic or sculptural work only if and only to the extent that such design has pictorial, graphic or sculptural characteristics which can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of the article and can exist independently of it.` [14] Copyright protects the “expression” of an idea, but copyright does not protect the “idea” itself. This distinction is called a dichotomy between idea and expression. [10] The distinction between “idea” and “expression” is fundamental to copyright. Excerpt from the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 102): In adopting this amending wording, the Committee seeks to draw the clearest possible line between copyrighted works of applied art and non-copyrighted industrial design works. A two-dimensional painting, drawing or graphic work can always be identified as such when printed or applied to everyday objects such as textile fabrics, wallpaper, containers, etc.

The same is true when a statue or sculpture is used to embellish an industrial product or, as in Mazer`s case, is integrated into a product without losing its ability to exist independently as a work of art. On the other hand, while the shape of an industrial product may be aesthetically pleasing and valuable, the committee does not intend to grant it copyright protection under the bill. Unless the shape of an automobile, airplane, women`s dress, food processor, television or other industrial product contains an element that can be physically or conceptually identified as separable from the utilitarian aspects of that section, the design would not be protected by copyright under the bill. The criterion of separability and independence from the “utilitarian aspects of the article” does not depend on the type of design – that is, even if the appearance of an article is determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations, only those elements, if any, that can be identified as such separately from the useful article are protected by copyright. And even if the three-dimensional design contains such an element (for example, a sculpture on the back of a chair or a floral relief on silver cutlery), copyright protection would only extend to that element and would not cover the overall configuration of the utilitarian article as such. The history of copyright has been a history of gradual expansion of the types of works that have been protected, and the subject matter of this expansion has been divided into two general categories. In the first, scientific discoveries and technological developments have enabled new forms of creative expression that have never existed before. In some of these cases, new forms of expression – for example, electronic music, film tapes, and computer programs – could be seen as an extension of the copyrighted subject matter that Congress already wanted to protect, and were therefore considered copyright protected from the outset, without the need for legislation. In other cases, such as photographs, sound recordings and films, the legal decree was deemed necessary to fully recognize them as copyrighted works. Infringement of any of the copyright owner`s exclusive rights is a copyright infringement, unless there is fair use (or a similar affirmative defense).

[28] Injunctions: The Copyright Act § 502 allows courts to issue interim and permanent injunctions against copyright infringement. There are also provisions for the seizure and destruction of allegedly counterfeit copies and other documents used for counterfeiting purposes. The subtractive method, also known as the “abstraction/subtraction approach,” attempts to analyze which parts of a copyrighted work are protectable and which are not. [69] The unprotected material is subtracted, and the investigator then determines whether there are significant similarities in the remaining protectable expression. For example, if the copyright owner of West Side Story alleges infringement, elements of that musical borrowed from Romeo and Juliet would be deducted before being compared to the allegedly infringing work because Romeo and Juliet exist in the public domain. Another important fair dealing factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of revenue or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work. Depriving a copyright holder of revenue is very likely to trigger a lawsuit. This is true even if you do not compete directly with the original work.

A copyright owner can sue for copyright infringement in federal court. Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the merits in cases of copyright infringement. [63] This means that infringement proceedings cannot be heard before national courts. (With the exception of works that are not protected by federal law but are protected by state law, such as state laws prohibiting copying of sound recordings made before September 15. February 1972.) Note that the Copyright Office handles copyright registrations, but does not resolve disputes regarding copyright infringement. However, many industrial designers create works that are both artistic and functional.